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

Why Global Warming Alarmism Isn't Science

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

  • #16
    Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’

    This was recorded just prior to the Heartland Institute climate conference, July 7-9.

    The video available in the link is better than the printed text/article.

    From cnsnews.com

    Comment


    • #17
      Obama’s Alarmist “Climate” Report Debunked by Scientists

      From The New American

      Excerpts:
      Among the experts who debunked the latest White House report: former chair of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Dr. George Wolff, former director of the National Hurricane Center Dr. Neil Frank, Colorado State University Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. William M. Gray, IPCC expert reviewer and University of Missouri professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, retired Environment Canada scientist and IPCC expert reviewer Dr. Madhav Khandekar, and more.

      In their report trashing the latest federal alarmism, the experts noted that over the last 130 years, the 1930s still had the most high-temperature records — with a stunning 70 percent of current state record highs set prior to 1940. Meanwhile, the last 50 years have seen more record lows than record highs, they noted. The latest White House alarmism, the coalition added, even stands in contrast to Obama’s “usual allies” in promoting extreme climate hysteria, with the UN and the National Academy of Sciences both “dialing back apocalyptic claims.”

      “They promote their 'Climate Models' as a reliable way to predict the future climate,” the scientists said in their letter, referring to the federal officials who produced the latest report. “But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection.”

      The blistering critique goes on to knock down the report’s “three crucial scientific arguments,” saying “each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory collapses.” That means that “all of the overblown ‘Climate Disruption’ evidence that they mention, whether true or not, cannot be tied back to man's burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical.”

      [...]

      Asked about top administration officials’ recent “strong statements against CO2 emissions,” Georgia Institute of Technology Professor Judith Curry, who chairs the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, also expressed bewilderment. “I am mystified as to why President Obama and John Kerry are making such strong (and indefensible) statements about climate change,” she said. “Particularly with regards to extreme weather events, their case is very weak. Especially at this time, given that much of the rest of the world is pulling back against commitments to reduce emissions and combat climate change.”

      Comment


      • #18
        Once More: Why “Climate Change” Alarmism Is Not Science

        John Hinderaker introduced the topic of the OP of this thread; in the article below he returns to the topic.

        From Powerline
        POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2014 BY JOHN HINDERAKER

        ONCE MORE: WHY “CLIMATE CHANGE” ALARMISM IS NOT SCIENCE

        Science is a method, not a set of dogmas. The scientific method is pretty simple: you suggest a hypothesis, calculate what facts in the real world must be true if the hypothesis is correct, and then check the hypothesis against reality. If the hypothesis implies false propositions of fact, it is wrong. Case closed.

        [...]

        Comment


        • #19
          Why the Hysteria About Climate Change? Follow the Money

          John Hinderaker introduced the topic of the OP of this thread; in the article below he returns to the topic with the second of two articles in the last two days.

          From Powerline
          POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 BY JOHN HINDERAKER

          WHY THE HYSTERIA ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE? FOLLOW THE MONEY

          Global warming hysteria, as we wrote yesterday, is not science. The models on which it rests are known to be wrong, since they are refuted by observation. So why, then, does climate change hype persist?

          [...]

          Excerpt:
          The most critical number for global warming/climate change is the sensitivity of the Earth to a doubling of CO2, which is called Climate Sensitivity. A 1979 report to the US National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences estimated that Climate Sensitivity would range from 1.5oC to 4.5oC, about 3 to 8oF.

          Since then, five major reports by the IPCC show government-funded science on Climate Sensitivity has not advanced in 35 years. The latest IPCC report, AR-5, still shows the same range of uncertainty. Clearly, there is something wrong with the assertion that CO2 has a significant impact on Earth’s temperatures, or with the procedures used by the IPCC, or both.

          SEPP believes that the problems are both in the assertion and in the procedures. Studies, largely ignored by the IPCC, estimate that the Climate Sensitivity will be below 1.5oC, perhaps significantly below 1oC. These estimates do not justify alarm about global warming/climate change, or the continued massive expenditures on a non-problem.
          Last edited by John Reece; 09-09-2014, 10:48 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            So basically Sylas wrote a great rebuttal to John Reece's opening post, and his response is to post multiple spam link posts? Is he trying to burry the discussion under garbage?

            When Truthseeker started doing this on a regular basis the moderators mandated that he do it in one single thread he got on his own.

            Source: Spamming and Flooding

            Also, please do not “flood” any forum area. This means posting or bumping (replying to a thread solely to move it to the top of the forum) multiple threads, particularly threads with the same or very similar topic within a short period of time when your prior activity level and/or the activity level of the area indicates you are not likely to actively participate in each thread.

            © Copyright Original Source



            Source: Board Etiquette

            Debates (points for your position) made via weblink are not allowed. Weblinks may be used when a substantive summary of the point being made is posted on the board with a link given for further information regarding your position. Remember responsive arguments are to be as personal as possible, not "cut and paste" dueling articles. This can be avoided by giving one's personal analysis along with an article, or just quoting the specifically relevant portions and showing relevance.

            © Copyright Original Source

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              So basically Sylas wrote a great rebuttal to John Reece's opening post, and his response is to post multiple spam link posts? Is he trying to burry the discussion under garbage?

              When Truthseeker started doing this on a regular basis the moderators mandated that he do it in one single thread he got on his own.
              That's the only reason there have been any additions to this thread subsequent to the OP and sylas' response: I was asked by an owner to have all my "alarmism" related threads and posts combined into a single thread related to global warming / climate change "alarmism".

              I have told an owner, and I hereby state to the entire team of TWeb owners and staff: If my threads and posts are unacceptable, just tell me so, and I will happily cease all posting in any forum other then Biblical Languages 301 ― and there too if it will make TWeb a happier place.

              At age 80+, with more health problems than I can list at any given time, I am very limited in terms of activity I can engage in, on or off the Internet. One thing I can no longer cope with ― to much extent if any ― is argumentation. If that disqualifies me from acceptable participation in any forum or the entire website, so be it.

              I will report this post and abide by the response I receive.
              Last edited by John Reece; 09-09-2014, 10:53 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                I wouldn't mind John Reece posting a lot of news articles as long as he had one dump thread like Truthseeker had to put it all in. As it is, he's opening three times as many threads with basically the same format and content (Global Warming Dissent News).

                At any rate I'm sorry to hear of your health problems John. I'll pray for you.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Moderated By: mossy

                  We are allowing John to post "climate alarmist" links in this thread. He is free to post other climate-related issues in the appropriate fora as he wishes. If people want to respond to any of his posts, they are welcome to do so. If you have any issues with this, please take them up in the padded room, or pm me and I will set you straight.

                  ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                  Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                  Last edited by mossrose; 09-11-2014, 08:34 PM.


                  Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                    that glare was meant for seer right mossy?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                      that glare was meant for seer right mossy?
                      I forget. But it wasn't for John.


                      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Global Warming Alarmists Are Getting Desperate

                        Just to carry on with the official TWeb designation of this thread as a repository of news regarding global warming alarmism, here is an item that I do not think has been included in the list heretofore.

                        From Forbes:

                        Excerpt:
                        Moreover, even that laughable 97 percent figure was arrived at via highly tendentious means some have described as “doctoring.” Yet even 100 percent metaphysical certainty on the statement “humans are causing some amount of global warming” doesn’t actually tell us what U.S. energy policy should be. Sorry, alarmists, but you aren’t going to drown out the realists any more than the Atlantic Ocean is going to drown Miami.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

                          The last post contained a comment that 'even that laughable 97 percent figure was arrived at via highly tendentious means some have described as “doctoring.”' The following article from Forbes expands on that.

                          Concluding paragraphs:
                          Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

                          These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by sylas View Post
                            The article cited in the OP is wrong. The inference of global warming, and the human causes for that, are solidly science.
                            The article does not deny the solid science.

                            The solid science does not distinguish the amount of warming that is due to human activity from the warming that is due to natural climate variations that are, and always have been, perennial ― including ocean-related phenomena such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Arctic Sea Ice Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the El Niño-Southern Ocean Cycle, not to mention sun-climate variations.

                            No solid science has yet been presented to distinguish natural from man-made warming, except in terms of its timing.

                            If I be not mistaken, most of the warming since 1850 came before 1940, prior to the recent increase in CO2 emissions produced by human activity.

                            It is logical to assume that human activity has exacerbated current warming to some degree; however, solid science does not indicate that human activity ― as only one of many factors known to affect the climate ― is an existential threat warranting massive reductions (80% reduction cited as a government-mandated goal) in the use of affordable-for-ordinary-people sources of energy.

                            From the OP:
                            The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is based entirely on models, which are programmed by their creators to predict disaster. But we know for a fact that the models are wrong, because they disagree with reality. When the facts collide with a theory, the facts win.

                            That is not contrary to solid science, but is rather related to "fudge factors" in the climate models. See here and (three pages) here.
                            Last edited by John Reece; 09-16-2014, 04:15 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                              (80% reduction cited as a government-mandated goal) in the use of affordable-for-ordinary-people sources of energy.
                              Solar power is finally starting to make a sizeable contribution to the energy industry. In the first quarter of this year 74% of all new power-generating capacity was solar (GTM Research and Solar Energy Industries Association). I would not be greatly surprised to see a huge drop in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 volume by 2020.
                              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                                Solar power is finally starting to make a sizeable contribution to the energy industry. In the first quarter of this year 74% of all new power-generating capacity was solar (GTM Research and Solar Energy Industries Association). I would not be greatly surprised to see a huge drop in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 volume by 2020.
                                I seriously doubt that. And will you please start giving links to your claims and quotes? It has become a real problem with you. If you can't cite your sources better, then don't bother making the claims.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 07:54 AM
                                11 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Backup
                                by Backup
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 12:06 PM
                                5 responses
                                50 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-18-2021, 06:43 AM
                                28 responses
                                164 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-18-2021, 06:27 AM
                                14 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by seer, 06-17-2021, 11:25 AM
                                7 responses
                                73 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Working...
                                X