Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

BOMBSHELL: Study shows greenhouse gas induced warming dropped for the past 14 years

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    Your point is? That Spencer is not a scientist? That 40 molecules of CO2 in every 100,000 molecules will inevitably increase to 43 molecules of CO2 out of every 100,000 molecules of air in another 15 years? And that will be a catastrophic amount of an essential nutrient of all plant life on the planet, i.e., CO2?
    What has made you so CO2 phobic? After all, we are talking about carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide.
    My point is that Spencer plays down a massive spike in the data. Even if you have no idea of the consequences it is a reckless attitude. The correct scientific approach is to recognize that there is a large data spike and it might be important because we know that CO2 will trap heat. Then you go measure other things and look for correlations and build models to try to calculate outcomes and so on. What you do not do is just sit on your hands.
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
      My point is that Spencer plays down a massive spike in the data. Even if you have no idea of the consequences it is a reckless attitude. The correct scientific approach is to recognize that there is a large data spike and it might be important because we know that CO2 will trap heat. Then you go measure other things and look for correlations and build models to try to calculate outcomes and so on. What you do not do is just sit on your hands.
      And how is it that you have ascertained that Spencer has just sat on his hands?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by John Reece View Post
        And how is it that you have ascertained that Spencer has just sat on his hands?
        I didn’t say that. What I am saying is that there has to be a scientific response to such an obvious anomaly. Spencer’s response is immediately dismissive and politically motivated.

        “There's probably a natural reason for global warming … We will look back on it as a gigantic false alarm … The Earth isn't that sensitive to how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere. I think we need to consider the possibility that more carbon dioxide is better than less.” – Roy Spencer

        Why would a real scientist refer to his colleagues as Nazis?

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/...warming-nazis/

        “Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist.” – What has that got to do with scientific research?

        From reading your many posts on this subject it is abundantly clear that you have great difficulty separating science from politically motivated commentary and this is why you keep getting it wrong.
        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
        “not all there” - you know who you are

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
          Notice how Roy Spencer on his own website plays down this important fact:

          “It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.”

          Put that way, it sounds like nothing, almost too few molecules to mention; even that increased CO2 is good for the environment but that is 2.5% in 5 years and 10% in only 20 years. And when you see that on a graph it is a massive spike. A scientist seeing that sort of spike in the data starts rubbing his chin rather than pretending at the outset that it is nothing to worry about.
          and the planet has a feedback system. More CO2, the better plants thrive, and absorb more CO2 and release more oxygen.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            and the planet has a feedback system. More CO2, the better plants thrive, and absorb more CO2 and release more oxygen.
            Maybe, but the equilibrium is disturbed and there is no experience yet of how well any balancing mechanism works. We need to do better than just cross our fingers because we are continuing to charge the system with CO2.
            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
            “not all there” - you know who you are

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
              Maybe, but the equilibrium is disturbed and there is no experience yet of how well any balancing mechanism works. We need to do better than just cross our fingers because we are continuing to charge the system with CO2.
              Jumping to conclusions and yelling "The Sky is Falling!" is not exactly the correct response.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                Why would a real scientist refer to his colleagues as Nazis?
                Dr. Spencer answered that question in the context to which your link took me.

                Do you know what a Holocaust denier is? Do you not understand the allusion that the slanderous word denier bears?

                Here is Dr. Spencer's answer to your question:
                Time to push back against the global warming Nazis

                February 20th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

                Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

                When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

                They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

                Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

                I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.

                The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.

                They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.

                Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).

                Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree…even getting journal editors to resign.

                Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.

                I’m not talking about those who think we should be working toward new forms of energy to eventually displace our dependence of fossil fuels. Even I believe in that; after all, fossil fuels are a finite resource.

                I’m instead talking about the extremists. They are the ones who are sure they are right, and who are bent on forcing their views upon everyone else. Unfortunately, the extremists are usually the only ones you hear from in the media, because they scream the loudest and make the most outrageous claims.

                They invoke “consensus”, which results from only like-minded scientists who band together to support a common cause.

                This authoritarianism tends to happen with an over-educated elite class…I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I’m not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.

                So, as long as they continue to call people like me “deniers”, I will call them “global warming Nazis”.

                I didn’t start this fight…they did. Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

                NOTE: A couple people in comments have questioned my use of “Nazi”, which might be considered over the top. Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did — all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause — I think it is very appropriate. Again, I didn’t start the name-calling.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Jumping to conclusions and yelling "The Sky is Falling!" is not exactly the correct response.
                  I agree. Scientific papers as opposed to commentary are very unemotional.
                  “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                  “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                  “not all there” - you know who you are

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                    I agree. Scientific papers as opposed to commentary are very unemotional.
                    As you said, we don't understand the feedback mechanisms that well, so there is no way to model the effect of putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Except that is exactly what you and the "scientific papers" claim to know, therefore begin yelling "the sky is falling" based upon faulty models and no evidence.

                    Nice job Chicken Little.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      As you said, we don't understand the feedback mechanisms that well, so there is no way to model the effect of putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Except that is exactly what you and the "scientific papers" claim to know, therefore begin yelling "the sky is falling" based upon faulty models and no evidence.
                      Yup - when the data was shown to not be consistent with the projections, you'd expect a real scientist to admit there was a problem with the hypothesis. Instead of working out where the hypothesis failed, excuses have been proffered for why the data is wrong. Nor has any apology been offered for basing predictions on hypotheses before they had been verified.
                      But - despite the temperature projections being wildly inaccurate - sea levels continue to rise, and despite the increased area of the polar ice sheets, the actual volume is reduced. That data doesn't indicate that global warming is a myth - it just means that the climatologists got their sums wrong.
                      And they can't demonstrate that human activity has contributed significantly to global warming through increased CO2 levels because .... they got their sums wrong.
                      They are making faith claims and nothing more ... Even if in the end they are shown to be right, they will have been right by mistake.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                        Dr. Spencer answered that question in the context to which your link took me.
                        All this stuff is noise; claim and counter claim; you naturally jump into one camp or the other based not on your knowledge of climate science but your political opinions. You cannot understand the science or even detect a consensus about anything if you are reading commentary at this level. A lot of the actual peer reviewed science is behind a pay-wall but it is usually possible to get at least the authors summary free.
                        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                        “not all there” - you know who you are

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          As you said, we don't understand the feedback mechanisms that well, so there is no way to model the effect of putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Except that is exactly what you and the "scientific papers" claim to know, therefore begin yelling "the sky is falling" based upon faulty models and no evidence.

                          Nice job Chicken Little.
                          Once again, it is no surprise that you did not understand what I said. It matters naught.
                          “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                          “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                          “not all there” - you know who you are

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                            You cannot understand the science or even detect a consensus about anything if you are reading commentary at this level.
                            Ah, so you think science is a matter of consensus?

                            See here.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                              Ah, so you think science is a matter of consensus?
                              See here.
                              No, but look at the size of the project that climate scientists are engaged in, it encompasses the entire globe and even the sun. There has to be a synthesis at some point. And someone has to report to governments on the overall situation and that requires the formation of a consensus.

                              How would you manage it?
                              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                              “not all there” - you know who you are

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                                No, but look at the size of the project that climate scientists are engaged in, it encompasses the entire globe and even the sun. There has to be a synthesis at some point. And someone has to report to governments on the overall situation and that requires the formation of a consensus.
                                It really isn't all that mysterious and complex in terms of actual science.

                                What is so complex is computer modeling designed to fabricate an outcome to satisfy a desired political consensus.

                                See here.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                56 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                244 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                106 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                322 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X