Reply With Quote
im just surprised this thread is still going strong 4 years later
There are some. I'm not one of them. I just disagree with extent claimed for CO2, and the alarmism involved.are there really still s out there who don't believe in man-accelerated climate change?
im just surprised this thread is still going strong 4 years later
Dang dude. Fuzzy has gotten under your skin.
The omission was my best guess as to what you meant by "it".
Feel free to insert whatever you actually meant and supply the definition of "solid evidence", and level of proof you require.
If you can't define "solid evidence" in a coherent manner, then let me know, and we can move on.
Conspiracy theorists are hard to dissuade. Think: Cosmored's moon landing hoax thread.
You didn't even change the words he used. He said solid evidence and you asked him to define it. He's just using the same tactic he now tries against me to dissemble.
He knows he is full of . Notice how he never argues on merit anymore and just goes for these blanket dismissals? I know you remember him talking about soot, solar burps, and the like. He's been shown to be hilariously wrong so many times he won't even try anymore. Darrin too. They are just pigheaded and believe that they want to believe anyway.
People who have pseudoscientific beliefs do occasionally "wake up", as the number of de-converted twoofers can attest.
the best one can do, is to point out good principles of critical thinking, and hope for the best.
I guess calling people conspiracy nutters is easier than talking to them. There are plenty of non-alarmist researchers in the climate science community. These people would be labeled "deniers" or skeptics, even though they fully accept that warming has occurred and that humans contributed to that warming. These "deniers" include professors of earth and atmospheric sciences at major universities, or work for NASA, NOAA, etc., or were contributors to BEST and IPCC reports.
I am more than willing to talk. By all means.
But when you assert a large global conspiracy of scientists... that makes you a conspiracy theorist.
Yes or no?
"the peer review process is controlled by alarmist scientists to limit skeptical articles".
Also known as a conspiracy.
By all means, clarify. Do you now think there is no concerted effort to keep out "skeptical" arguments from peer-reviewed papers, i.e. there is no conspiracy?
Did I get that wrong?
Do tell.
There's been unscrupulous behavior by some climate scientists, but I wouldn't call it a global conspiracy.
By the way, what is #ExxonKnew?
It is you, who is using the strawman or a conspiracy angle. Trying to ignore the debate by dismissing it as a CT.
Asa long as you continue along those lines, you have no intent of listening to others.
Wild Dumbass ignores the multiple examples of his conspiracy nonsense and goes back to finger pointing.
Exxon's scientists told Exxon mgmt 30 years or more ago that CO2, GHG would cause global warming. Which was good news for Exxon because it would mean melting of the Arctic ice cap opening more ocean for oil extraction.
Talking of unscrupulous behavior.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-40-years-ago/Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.
Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.
In their eight-month-long investigation, reporters at InsideClimate News interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists and federal officials and analyzed hundreds of pages of internal do ents. They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us...Hock-Soon.htmlHe has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The do ents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/Je...-global-monthsAugust 2016 was Earth's warmest August since record keeping began in 1880, said NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) on Tuesday. In the NOAA database, August 2016 came in 0.92°C (1.66°F) warmer than the 20th-century average for August, beating the previous record for August, set in 2015, by 0.05°C. NASA also reported the warmest August in its database, as well as a tie with July 2016 for the warmest absolute temperature recorded in any month. Because most of the world’s land area is in the Northern Hemisphere, absolute global temperatures are warmest in northern summer--about 3-4°C (5-7°F) higher than in northern winter. This is why monthly global anomalies (departures from the monthly average) are commonly used to assess the relative warmth or coolness of a given month.
August 2016 marked the 16th consecutive month that NOAA’s global monthly temperature record was broken, which is the longest such streak since global temperature records began in 1880. Ocean-only temperatures were 0.02°C (0.04°F) cooler than the record warmth of August 2015, while land-only temperatures were a substantial 0.19°C (0.34°F) above the previous land-only record from August 2015. For the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere, global satellite-measured temperatures in August 2016 were the second warmest for any August in the 38-year record, behind only 1998, according to the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).
Figure 3. Departure from the 20th-century average for the global January-through-August temperature for the years 1880 - 2016. This year has seen by far the warmest temperatures on record for the year-to-date period. Image credit: NOAA/National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).
I have asked you repeatedly to clarify.
You can't say I am distorting your views, then refuse to provide them when asked, if your intention is an honest, balanced discussion, based on evidence and reason.
If you intend on being deceptive and irrational, then by all means, don't clarify.
Exactly how are my charactorizations of your position a strawman?
I gave three examples of your claims of conspiracy among scientists to hide or distort evidence. Seems pretty clear.
Not all conspiracy theories are wrong.
Your theory is not wrong, simply because other conspiracy theories are completely ed.
The fact that many conspiracy theories are ed though, should lead someone rational to be deeply skeptical of theories based on large groups of people being able to be completely silent about a chosen course of action.
Your theory may indeed be true, but that same rational, appropriately skeptical approach would demand a bit more evidence than has, so far come to light.
One easy to prove aspect of your theory about a conspiracy of scientists, is that the evidence available is physical, and therefore reproducible.
If such a conspiracy of scientists to lie about the evidence exists, that would be obvious and eventually exposed, i.e. it would collapse under its own weight. Real scientists would know this. This would seem to make such a conspiracy unlikely, given that most people are not dishonest, and it would take a lot of dishonest people to keep this up.
You cannot argue the evidence that something other than human made CO2 emissions is responsible for the obvious warming, can you? Hundreds of pages later, I really have yet to see anything approaching an alternative working theory.
In this, the "it is NOT humans, but something else" theory is a lot like the "moon landings are faked" theory to me. When I ask for solid evidence pointing to some other explanation for the available evidence there, it always fails too.
Who cares if it was the warmest?
I wonder how misleading the blog is you linked?
Finny how it cites NOAA for temperatures, but then used modeled MEERT2 data...
But... I guess it doesn't matter to parrots who don't know what they are debating.
Wow. What does that mean?
Just hoiw daft are yolu?
I say there is no evidence that greenhouse gasses are causing "these changes" and you change it to "warming." By "these changes" I was referring to the norther ice meant, not temperature changes. Ice can melt without an increasing its surrounding temperature...
I have specified the changing ice albedo due to aerosols, and specifically soot.
I guess you have no concept what a change of a 0.9 albedo to a 0.7 albedo does to ice... par for the course...
How can you not understand such a simple concept?
That you are referring to a blog. Letting them tell you what to believe.
It's like talking about an apple, but showing a picture of an orange.
Now the jist of the blog may be correct, but it is stupid to rely on what a blogger says, then repeat it, link it, without verifying it factually.
That is... unless you like being a dumb parrot... repeating what someone says without understanding it...
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
