One giant hoax

from your posts, it appears your major problem with the whole issue is that it might prove inconvenient - and you don't give a rat's posterior what happens to the earth after you're gone. I do - I have children, grandchildren and great grandchildren I care what kind of earth they inherit and if there's even the slightest chance we may be F*cking it up, I want to do what I can to reverse it
[h=1]Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong[/h]At some point in the history of all scientific theories, only a minority of scientists—or even just one—supported them, before evidence accumulated to the point of general acceptance. The Copernican model, germ theory, the vaccination principle, evolutionary theory, plate tectonics and the big bang theory were all once heretical ideas that became consensus science. How did this happen? An answer may be found in what 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called a “consilience of inductions.” For a theory to be accepted, Whewell argued, it must be based on more than one induction—or a single generalization drawn from specific facts. It must have multiple inductions that converge on one another, independently but in conjunction. “Accordingly the cases in which inductions from classes of facts altogether different have thus jumped together,” he wrote in his 1840 book The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, “belong only to the best established theories which the history of science contains.” Call it a “convergence of evidence.”

Consensus science is a phrase often heard in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Is there a consensus on AGW? There is. The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW is in fact real. Why?
It is not because of the sheer number of scientists. After all, science is not conducted by poll. As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors against Einstein, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” The answer is that there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. (Creationists have the same problem overturning evolutionary theory.) This they have not done.
A 2013 study published in Environmental Research Letters by Australian researchers John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and their colleagues examined 11,944 climate paper abstracts published between 1991 and 2011. Of those papers that stated a position on AGW, about 97 percent concluded that climate change is real and that it is caused by human activity. What about the remaining 3 percent or so of studies? And what if they are right? In a 2015 paper published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Nuccitelli and their colleagues examined the 3 percent and found “a number of methodological flaws and a pattern of common mistakes.” That is, instead of the 3 percent of papers converging to a better explanation than that provided by the 97 percent, they failed to converge to anything.
“There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” Nuccitelli concluded in a commentary published August 25, 2015, in the Guardian. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.” For example, one skeptical paper attributed climate change to lunar or solar cycles, but to make these models work for the 4,000-year period that the authors considered, they had to throw out 6,000 years' worth of earlier data.
Such practices are deceptive and fail to further climate science when exposed by skeptical scrutiny, an integral element to the scientific process.



This article was originally published with the title "Consilience and Consensus"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/
Click to expand...
 
Have you taken the time to look up anthropenogic? And what are you doing about it personally if you are so concerned?

I ride a bike, walk, public transit and rarely drive.

Where's the spelling police. I have a tough time with anthro whatever.

What I am skeptic all about is that it is 100 percent caused by humans. I just think that 100 percent nonsense.

I could trade websites with you all day and your unfounded accusations are 100 percent nonsense.
 
At first this may seem to be "off topic' but bear with me. It will be apparent.

LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES
Here in California, there are numerous daily Tv "public awareness" commercials on the dangers of smoking. Yes, everyone knows smoking is bad for your health BUT anti-smoking activist fanatics are now lying to the public.

In an attempt to instill hysteria in the minds of the public, California Dept of Pubic Health is running the following Tv ads.

Scene: A summers day. A young woman is out on her balcony smoking a cigarette. The smoke rises up, enters the upstairs neighbors apartment and goes through the living room, down the hallway, turns right and enters the baby's room. We see the heavy smoke cloud descend into the baby's crib. The baby coughs and grabs it's nose. The forgoing ad is ridiculous.

Scene #2: A man is smoking in his apartment living room. The smoke drifts around and enters an air duct. The smoke moves around through many feet of air ducts and enters the neighbors apartment. A child, in that apartment, coughs, and waves away the smoke.

I don't expect everyone to know much about how air ducts are built but surely there must be some men who have built HVAC's units in apartment buildings. For those who do not know, the HVAC in your apartment is NOT connected to anyone else's apartment. It is physically impossible for cigarette smoke to enter your neighbors apartment through the HVAC system.

I wrote an email to the CA Dept of Public health and told then that I do not appreciate their lies. Surprisingly, they emailed back saying that "environmental scientists" have proven the cigarette smoke can enter anther persons apartment even through electric outlets. What total rubbish. Lies, lies, and more lies.

I write this post to demonstrate that there are fanatics out there who object to a wide variety of human behavior, AND that those fanatics are more than willing to lie to the public to stir up hysteria. Whether it is anti-smoking fanatics or AGW fanatics, they are quite willing to go to ANY lengths , including lying, to get their own way.
 
.

My brother retired from his science career at NASA a few years ago...
but still participates in what once was an all NASA climate study group.

When I emailed asking about global warming... this was part of his overview:

" The truth lies between those who say there is no global warming caused by humans and those who say the Earth and mankind face rapid and certain catastrophe. My view is that we cannot ignore future warming, but response should be measured, phased, and carefully thought out. "

" The “doom predictors” use computer models of future warming. These model predictions are all over the map, but in past have predicted more warming than occurred. Models range from about 2 to about 8 deg-C total warming for each CO2 doubling. The truth is likely between 2 and 3. But politicians and Greens adopt numbers of 5 to 8, which are unlikely. "
 
Olivia said:
You didn't get the answer to that is because that's what the argument of this thread is really all about. And no one has the answer. The only agreement for those who agree to humans being involved is that they are, but not how much. At least not any percentage I've heard about.
Click to expand...
AGW means humans are 100 percent responsible.
 
My favorite commentator Rex Murphy. Keep the grants flowing. That's what it's all about.

We are fortunate to have such guardians, to direct us away from our senses, and beckon us back on the road to faith. Climate Change can cause cold temperatures, too, they intone. And wet weather. And dry. Hurricanes and cyclones. Droughts and floods. In fact, any variety of weather whatsoever can be traced, if you but model hard and often enough, keep the grants flowing and the contradictions unexamined, to the One Holy Underlying Theory of All Weather. Climate Change, everything proves it. It’s the scientific method at its best.
So ignore the frigid moment. All is unfolding as it should. As soon as our Climate Superheroes, Mr. Trudeau and Ms. McKenna, bring in the new, higher carbon dioxide tax — reminder: it is NOT a carbon tax, no tax on soot — temperatures will rise, summer will return, and with another 20 or 30 dollars a ton, by next year Newfoundland will be indistinguishable from Tahiti in the golden days under a Polynesian sun.
 
A thermos bottle can keep hot drinks warm all day long or it can keep cold drinks cool all day long... how does it know whether to keep things warm or to keep them cool?

Do you know why the variation in daily high temperatures to daily low temperatures vary more under clear skies than cloudy skies (all other things being equal) in regions where they get some hours of sunlight?
 
dpwspringer said:
A thermos bottle can keep hot drinks warm all day long or it can keep cold drinks cool all day long... how does it know whether to keep things warm or to keep them cool?
Click to expand...

The vacuum between the two layers of glass inhibits heat exchange by convection and the mirror coating of the glass prevents heat transfer by radiation. There is some heat transfer by conduction but glass is a rather poor conductor of heat.

Do you know why the variation in daily high temperatures to daily low temperatures vary more under clear skies than cloudy skies (all other things being equal) in regions where they get some hours of sunlight?
Click to expand...

The cloud contains water vapour which is a weak green house gas. It certainly results in warmer ground temperatures than when the air is clear. I can tell when it is about to rain during the night because I wake up sweating.

The lack of moisture in deserts causes baking temperatures during the day as the sun's heat is absorbed by the ground's surface but at after sundown heat is radiated back to the atmosphere and you need a fire or a good sleeping bag because it gets very cold just before sunup.
 
Warrigal said:
Or it means that part of global warming for which humans are responsible as distinct fro natural cyclic (or otherwise) warming of the planet?
Click to expand...

No one tells you that. It's all hyped up to blame humans.

an·thro·po·gen·ic
ˌanTHrəpōˈjenik/
adjective
adjective: anthropogenic

  • (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity.

    "anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide"




 
Camper6 said:
Have you taken the time to look up anthropenogic? And what are you doing about it personally if you are so concerned?

I ride a bike, walk, public transit and rarely drive.

Where's the spelling police. I have a tough time with anthro whatever.

What I am skeptic all about is that it is 100 percent caused by humans. I just think that 100 percent nonsense.

I could trade websites with you all day and your unfounded accusations are 100 percent nonsense.
Click to expand...

First of all I rode a motorcycle to work year round - gas consumption 43 to 50 mpg - depending on which bike I rode. My car is 4 years old and has less than 10,000 miles on it - gas consumption +/_ 43 mpg. I recently replaced my motorcycles with a battery assisted bicycle. We recycle everything we can, eat very little meat and many other small actions. I find it somewhat contradictory you take the steps you do considering you claim to be a climate change denier. Interesting
 
Camper6 said:
Terrific. Why haven't you kept up? AGW wasn't in the curriculum was it?

My science teachers taught healthy skepticsm not wholesale grasping.
Click to expand...

LOL.What makes you so sure I haven't? You have no idea what I do or do not know or what i have done or what my science teachers did or did not teach me. For the most part I feel no need to lord it over others to massage my own ego.
 
Dragonlady said:
First of all I rode a motorcycle to work year round - gas consumption 43 to 50 mpg - depending on which bike I rode. My car is 4 years old and has less than 10,000 miles on it - gas consumption +/_ 43 mpg. I recently replaced my motorcycles with a battery assisted bicycle. We recycle everything we can, eat very little meat and many other small actions. I find it somewhat contradictory you take the steps you do considering you claim to be a climate change denier. Interesting
Click to expand...

Well here's the thing. I am not a climate change denier. I do believe in climate change and I do believe humans might contribute but they are not 100 % responsible. Without humans the world will continue to warm. For how long, who knows. My thrust is that humans are not 100 percent responsible and that if we don't do something about it we are doomed to find another planet to survive. That's so for want of a better word 'dumb'. And I don't care if the best scientist in the world claims it.

From what I have experienced and I am an old person and have seen it all.

From what I see of pollution we are miles ahead of what I experienced as a young person. There was no sewage treatment plants. Raw sewage was dumped in the river. No fines for dumping chemicals in streams or rivers. No scrubbers on chimneys. Nothing like that. We are much more pollution conscience and much more recycle considerate.

So when we talk about what we are going to leave for future generations. What did our previous generation leave us?

Now where I live I have yet to experience the joy of global warming.

The climate I live in is cold. Winters are for a better word 'brutal'. And I have checked the historical temperatures for the last 100 years where I live and the average temperature hasn't changed one degree. In fact. It's half a degree colder.

If you try to understand I need something to sink my teeth into rather than an ice cube.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top