Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

God Bless all affected by Florence

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Jean Claude, Waspair, Kolibri - trying to convince those who deny the validity of the science of climate change is futile. Because they will always point to the fact that it happens to be a cold day in Florida. Of course they ignore or deny data that shows overall world temperatures breaking records multiple years running, massive reduction in summer ice in the arctic, rising ocean levels and increasing ocean acidity, trends towards stronger storms, and extremes of drought (with more fires) and rainfall (with floods) depending on the locale, and on and on. Generally people who have travelled beyond their local counties over the last few decades, can witness for themselves all the drastic changes occurring in the environment all over the world. For those with a closed mind on these things, a cold winter somewhere is proof enough this is not happening and discounts all the overwhelming data to the contrary. We are essentially trashing our world in many ways, whether its acidifying the oceans, filling them with trash, collapse of fish stocks, massive radioactive contamination as in Fukushima, massive extinction of numerous species etc, etc., melting of the arctic ice etc, etc Unfortunately, unlike you folks I am not confident that just building electric cars etc will solve our problems, building batteries has huge adverse effects on the environment as well. Also C02 is only one of the main contributors to the greenhouse effect (I think it's about 30%), other major contributors include methane from animal farming and nitrous oxide. There are also numerous other lesser know gases used and released all the time in many manufacturing processes that are less prevalent but also many times more potent in terms of trapping heat. The reality is that short of massive reductions in human numbers coupled with reversion to much more primitive lifestyles, and restriction of many freedoms and conveniences we take for granted we will not be able to stem the overall tide of planetary destruction and species extinction, ultimately leading to drastic changes in how the environment effects us and possibly destruction or at least diminution of our own species. A couple of really data filled, but depressing books on this are Carbon Ideologies (2 volumes) by William Volkmann, and the Sixth Extinction. We are simply too successful as a species, at the expense of all others. Pure evolution in progress. We will not be able to sustain growing populations, both in numbers and demands on all aspects of the environment, whether it's land use, adverse changes to the composition of our atmosphere, radioactivity, trash including plastic, diminishing species etc, etc as well as maintain our level of comforts, convenience, freedoms, and survival that we know today into the next century and beyond. And we have not even begun to bring a vast majority of the world's population anywhere close to our standard of living, which if we were to accomplish raising all the world's standard of living, would increase the demands on the planet by multiples...... the world will be a very different place for our grandchildren. The belief that somehow science will solve all the problems is misplaced. Science is reality, but science does not care. Our use of science as a tool unfortunately only serves to enhance the quantity and quality of human survival, to the detriment of other species and the planet in general.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Jean Claude View Post
      Well, Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology until his retirement in 2013, author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology and member of the US National Academy of Sciences and of the Academic Advisory Council of GWPF, gives he layman' arguments ?
      You cut off the first part of my sentence when you quoted it. I started it with this:

      There are always dissenters in science (just look at the research about the health effects of smoking) but...

      The climate dissenter you cite (who, by the way, also questions any link between second hand tobacco smoke and health effects) provides the sort of ammunition that laymen cling to for support when they choose to ignore an overwhelming consensus. Why would laymen choose to believe a dissenter instead of the huge proportion of qualified experts who hold the contrary position? That choice is made politically, according to which answer one wants to be true, and not through scientific reasoning.

      Comment


      • #63
        Well, gee loftus, the 'overwhelming consensus' among Hindus is that their religion is the right one, but the fanatic followers of Allah think that they are following the true path, but wait, all the other religious types overwhelmingly believe that they are following the right teachings to get to heaven/Valhalla/virgins..... Just 'cause you got "overwhelming consensus" doesn't necessarily add up to "right".

        Oh, P.S. I made up all that "data" just now, prove I didn't.....
        -Smack-

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Smack View Post
          Well, gee loftus, the 'overwhelming consensus' among Hindus is that their religion is the right one, but the fanatic followers of Allah think that they are following the true path, but wait, all the other religious types overwhelmingly believe that they are following the right teachings to get to heaven/Valhalla/virgins..... Just 'cause you got "overwhelming consensus" doesn't necessarily add up to "right".

          Oh, P.S. I made up all that "data" just now, prove I didn't.....
          -Smack-
          Yes, and despite the 'overwhelming consensus' that the earth is round, there are still those of the opinion that it's flat.
          My post was not to convince you or the other 'dissenters', clearly that is never going to happen, no matter how much data or proof or evidence is presented to the contrary; it was really addressed to Kolibri, Waspair, Jean-Claude and others who go with the overwhelming rational, scientific, observed data, driven consensus. Nothing's perfect, but as someone trained as a scientist, I usually follow where the bulk of the evidence leads.

          Comment


          • #65
            "Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, a spokesman for the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), said climate change zealots had created a “new religion.”

            “The religion of manmade global warming is not supposed to be questioned,” Ludecke said at the press briefing. “Instead of this, they propagate worldwide action for establishing extremely expensive programs to reduce C02 emissions.”

            “There is no scientific proof” of manmade climate change, Ludecke said, “It is only a hypothesis.”

            “Therefore there is no need for any policy for reducing, regulating, or taxing CO2,” Ludecke said."


            http://m.solarcycle25.com/?id=362

            Comment


            • #66
              Here’s Dr. Lüdecke’s paper on global warming:

              http://climaterealists.com/attachmen..._ArXiv_EuE.pdf

              Comment


              • #67
                So now we have citations to two climate dissenters. They remain a tiny minority.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Smack View Post
                  Well, gee loftus, the 'overwhelming consensus' among Hindus is that their religion is the right one, but the fanatic followers of Allah think that they are following the true path, but wait, all the other religious types overwhelmingly believe that they are following the right teachings to get to heaven/Valhalla/virgins..... Just 'cause you got "overwhelming consensus" doesn't necessarily add up to "right"
                  The obvious difference is that "truth" in religion is a highly personal matter judged by laymen on the basis faith and belief. Science is not a matter of faith or belief, nor does it depend upon the opinions of laypeople. It works by observational evidence and expert evaluation of objective data. Consensus across religions is never to be expected, while consensus among scientists is how theory is accepted and progress is made.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Of course there’s a 98% agreement about CO2 among Al Gore’s acolytes, those individuals and institutions dependent upon government handouts. Any dissenting opinions are shouted down; that’s not science, it’s mob rule.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Give him credit Waspair, at least now he admits that we do have global warming. Just not our fault. So even if we were to give these limited number of 'dissenters' as much credit as the remaining 98%, we ought to come down somewhere in the middle. The planet is warming, both the sun and manmade contribute to the problem - whatever the sun is doing, we are likely , making it worse. It's OK to dissent, just don't be surprised that your arguments can be refuted and overwhelmed by other opinions. Bottom line is the effects on large parts of the planet, like loss of sea ice, rising seas, species extinction, ocean acidification, changes in weather patterns etc are evident and measurable. Combine with this the general trashing of the environment due to human activity and it's pretty clear we have a problem developing that we are creating for our kids. There's a pretty strong argument for modifying what we do in numerous ways and not just continuing as we are. Nevertheless I'm not confident that we have a hope in hell of being successful.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by WaspAir View Post

                        The obvious difference is that "truth" in religion is a highly personal matter judged by laymen on the basis faith and belief. Science is not a matter of faith or belief, nor does it depend upon the opinions of laypeople. It works by observational evidence and expert evaluation of objective data. Consensus across religions is never to be expected, while consensus among scientists is how theory is accepted and progress is made.

                        Ah, you are missing the point entirely.
                        The majority of those scientists are not doing the primary data gathering, they are analyzing someone else's data and many of them are merely reviewing someone else's theory.
                        Science is very much a matter of "faith" when you have to have "faith" that the other person/organization is not intentionally misleading you or faking the data.
                        I need only point to the faked data promoted by the University of East Anglia (2009-ish time period) to show that with a sufficient "consensus", the layman can be duped.
                        Again, pick your prophet and have "faith" that they are giving you the straight skinny.
                        Follow the money, these 'scientists' get paid a boatload of money for making pretty charts and there is a HUGE amount of money to be scammed by way of government mandates to control (pick your gas/material) the masses.
                        To support that, I need only point the spotlight at politician Al Gore; how many millions upon millions of dollars has that hypocritical idiot made by jumping onto the 'climate change' bandwagon?
                        Does he do his own data gathering? Nope. Does he have enough clout to direct/receive huge amounts of money? Yep. Does he have incentive to keep it up? Oh yeah...

                        My personal observation is that the seas have not risen at all on the pretty little island in Belize that I have frequented over the past 20 years, it still gets hot/cold/dry/wet in my pasture, and that my local weatherman is not very accurate more than 24-48 hours out on his 'weather guessing'.

                        Brian

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Smack View Post



                          My personal observation is that the seas have not risen at all on the pretty little island in Belize that I have frequented over the past 20 years, it still gets hot/cold/dry/wet in my pasture, and that my local weatherman is not very accurate more than 24-48 hours out on his 'weather guessing'.

                          Brian
                          Believe what you will. And locales will vary, but other islands are already seeing the effects of climate change and rising oceans, like the Maldives which because of their topography are even more sensitive to small changes than islands like Belize. Other issues with islands and climate change are of course coral bleaching. If you have been a scuba diver around Belize over the last 20 years, you would know this. As a scuba diver myself since 1981, I am well aware of some of these changes, having witnessed them myself.
                          https://www.diplomaticourier.com/201...s-and-economy/
                          http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-...-maldives.html

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Before Louis Pasteur came along and showed that alcohol was created by micro organisms during fermentation, the “consensus” was that it was created by “spirits.”

                            That’s consensus “science.”

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by C. Beaty View Post
                              Before Louis Pasteur came along and showed that alcohol was created by micro organisms during fermentation, the “consensus” was that it was created by “spirits.”

                              That’s consensus “science.”
                              Yes, and he came to this conclusion by creating an hypothesis, observation, recording of data with appropriate instrumentation, and concluding that his hypothesis was correct. Subsequently his hypothesis was confirmed by others, and became the basis for further expansion of the science of microbiology and disease. This is the exact basis of climate science, some hypotheses being proved correct, others not so and falling by the wayside. Most experiments and observations and proven hypothesis now support the science that climate change is real, and human activity has a lot to do with it. We used to think bad weather, droughts, etc, were due to the spirits as well, no longer.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                In France, the director of the weather service of a public TV channel (*) recently wrote a book about his specialty. Incidentally he evokes his doubts about an recentt increase in the frequency and the force of hurricanes, the increase of the hot episodes.
                                Guess what? He was immediately fired.
                                (*) Public TV channels are managed by the state with mostly tax revenues. They co-exist with private channels financed by advertisements

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X