• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying

Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
IMO, post videos if you want, but here's my take on people who post videos with no commentary:

It takes seconds - if that - to copy-paste a YouTube link. OTOH, it takes the length of the video to just watch it, and then much more time to transcribe quotes out of it in order to respond to them properly.

When someone posts a video link without any commentary or thoughts of their own, they're effectively saying that the video is worth little to no effort. Well, I'm sure not going to put a ton of effort into critiquing a video just because some random on the internet suggested that I do, especially if the random on the internet tells me through their actions that the video is practically useless.

It's fine to post posts like "Person X said '____', and I think this is important and convincing because of _____, and if you want, you can go to 12:26 in this video to confirm Person X really said it."... but what you're doing in this thread is basically waving a big flag saying "I'm a crank!" If that's the impression you want to cultivate, well, you do you. You aren't going to change any minds, though.
Click to expand...
Video without commentary is against the rules isn't it?

The disrespect for rules, for the world scientific community, and the people responding to the op
adds up to something less than I want to interact with.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Audie said:
Video without commentary is against the rules isn't it?

The disrespect for rules, for the world scientific community, and the people responding to the op
adds up to something less than I want to interact with.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. I forgot about that. I have been reminded to put at least small comments on some videos. Here we have a thread based upon them, which means that a short synopsis would be the minimum one would expect.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
anotherneil said:
Patrick Michaels - PhD & research professor (University of Virginia):

Here are some sources on some of his writings, journal articles, etc:

Search | arXiv e-print repository

arxiv.org arxiv.org

Loading…

www.jstor.org

Author Page for Patrick Michaels :: SSRN

Total downloads of all papers by Patrick Michaels
papers.ssrn.com

Click to expand...
So trot out a list of scientists
and doctors who found no harm,
or even actual health benefits from tobacco.

And scientists who denounce the
theory of evolution.

Make sure they are vids nobody will
watch.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
anotherneil said:
Carter received a BS in geology and PhD in paleontology: Profile

Part of paleontology is studying ancient climates: Paleontology - Wikipedia

Peer-reviewed material: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Carter/R.+M.
Click to expand...
Yes, ancient climates, but they are all local. None of his work is with global climate. You might have noticed that we are discussing Anthropomorphic GLOBAL Warming.

I used to debate against global warming and Bob Carter was one of my go to guys. He only ever shows local climates. I have a feeling that he cherry picks, but I cannot prove it. He is not a proper source since his work is never in global climate.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
And you never responded to the graphs that I provided that showed that the models of AGW are very accurate. Providing that you use the more mainstream ones. There are extremist models for both too much heat and too little. But the average of all of them is almost dead on.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Yes, ancient climates, but they are all local. None of his work is with global climate. You might have noticed that we are discussing Anthropomorphic GLOBAL Warming.

I used to debate against global warming and Bob Carter was one of my go to guys. He only ever shows local climates. I have a feeling that he cherry picks, but I cannot prove it. He is not a proper source since his work is never in global climate.
Click to expand...
Ancient climates were most definitely not
all local.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Audie said:
Ancient climates were most definitely not
all local.
Click to expand...
I never said that. You ignored the context of the conversation. Bob Carter's work was in local areas. Climates vary all around the globe. During warming or cooling periods climate boundaries shift so if one cherry picks one's work one can often claim that "There was less CO2, but it was warmer in Tuscaloosa." Okay, that may be the case. What was it like globally? And we never get that answer from Bob.

I even gave the example of how Europe is worried a bit about AGW because it could possibly shut off the Gulf Stream. Quite a bit of Europe is rather northerly, but it still has a mild climate dues to all of the warmth from the Gulf Stream. You can have fairly large areas that buck the trend which is why one has to always consider the entire globe's climate rather than trying to interpret it from just one single spot. Climate is usually to complex to do that.
 
Brickjectivity

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
crossfire said:
Question: was there a noticeable drop in 2020 when the world shut down due to Covid -19? If there was a drastic drop then, it would make human caused warming more believable, or at least give us an idea how much humans are contributing to it, and hence, how much power we have to change it.
I found this: interesting!
Click to expand...

crossfire said:
snippet:
(The pandemic-based drop in carbon dioxide production didn’t have a cooling effect. Human civilization produces so much of the planet-warming gas every year, and it persists so long in the atmosphere, that the pandemic didn’t even register as a blip.)
Click to expand...
Yes. Sometimes the cures offered for environmental problems actually make things worse. Plastics were supposed to help reduce pollution, but they made it much worse because of how they were used and disposed of.

The sacred, expensive institutions (universities) did not inform the public, did not educate the public, did not help the situation. Instead they participated in the lies. Every campus had recycling containers for plastics.

The science establishment has become questionable lately. It has a bias towards publishing positive results which is undermining other aspects of its journalistic integrity. Results are peer reviewed without being duplicated. Not duplicated, yet accepted. Publish, publish, publish junk junk junk. 'Peer reviewed' has become a magic term that means not enough. Getting your paper mentioned in another paper is what matters. 'Paper mills' means two things now. It means institutions can turn out both useless degrees and also useless papers.

This does not help clarify climate change. Nor does a cacophony of public voices make it sure. Nothing is more uncertain to the layperson than climate change, and its perfectly reasonable not to believe any of the hype.

But @anotherneil all these videos are also meaningless. Sorry, but they are meaningless. In the face of the plastics industry and our continual pollution of the oceans and reefs, nobody in authority can be taken seriously. There is no faith. The institutions are dirty, and the government is dirty. The UN, Congress, the EU et all are just not trustworthy. They had us all separating out our plastics for years and years.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
I never said that. You ignored the context of the conversation. Bob Carter's work was in local areas. Climates vary all around the globe. During warming or cooling periods climate boundaries shift so if one cherry picks one's work one can often claim that "There was less CO2, but it was warmer in Tuscaloosa." Okay, that may be the case. What was it like globally? And we never get that answer from Bob.

I even gave the example of how Europe is worried a bit about AGW because it could possibly shut off the Gulf Stream. Quite a bit of Europe is rather northerly, but it still has a mild climate dues to all of the warmth from the Gulf Stream. You can have fairly large areas that buck the trend which is why one has to always consider the entire globe's climate rather than trying to interpret it from just one single spot. Climate is usually to complex to do that.
Click to expand...
Touchy touchy!
And acting like a creationist,
making things up things to complain about.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Audie said:
Touchy touchy!
And acting like a creationist,
making things up things to complain about.
Click to expand...
No, it seemed that you misinterpreted my post. And that does not help when dealing with someone that appears to be a science denier.

As I said, I used to argue against AGW and Bob Carter and others like him were my sources. But I found that others were right when they pointed out that all of the examples that these deniers use are examples of local climate. And local climate can get cooler in places even during a warming event. So to an amateur that does not understand this slight of hand, as was the case with me, one could think that one had scientists that refuted AGW. But cherry picked examples do not refute any broad spread idea.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, it seemed that you misinterpreted my post. And that does not help when dealing with someone that appears to be a science denier.

As I said, I used to argue against AGW and Bob Carter and others like him were my sources. But I found that others were right when they pointed out that all of the examples that these deniers use are examples of local climate. And local climate can get cooler in places even during a warming event. So to an amateur that does not understand this slight of hand, as was the case with me, one could think that one had scientists that refuted AGW. But cherry picked examples do not refute any broad spread idea.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about you.

You chose to make it about you.
 
Soandso

Soandso

ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Audie said:
So trot out a list of scientists
and doctors who found no harm,
or even actual health benefits from tobacco.
Click to expand...

This ^^^

There will always be liars and grifters in books and videos and there's a sucker born every minute to eat it all up. Scientific papers, please
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top