• 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

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Introductory post:

Due to popular demand, I will show what the scientists are actually saying about human-caused climate change, and I will show that they seem to overwhelmingly be saying that there is no cause for alarm (meaning no reason to stop burning hydrocarbons for energy).

I will provide links to video recordings in this thread. The criteria I am using is that I have to actually be able to see and hear what they are saying from their own mouths, and they have to be providing a talk, presentation, discussion, or interview where they are covering the impact of climate change due to human activity; the video recording has to also provide their name, and it either has to provide their credentials, or I have to be able to find information to corroborate that they are subject matter experts.
What an excellent example to demonstrate the misuse of scientific information. This seems to be an example of scientism (a word I recently learned from the forum) in its most misleading presentation. There are so many problems with this but i will try to keep it simple and direct. Scientism in this argument - when people misuse use scientific information that is correct to make conclusions that cannot explain.

These scientists have no previous information about a species that can influence the planet to the degree humans can and have. So all their information of the past is not an adequate predictor of our current situation.

Science is overall reductionist. So these scientist are seeing it from a limited view in a system that is integrated and complex. It is not just climate change in an isolated problem. As already pointed out we are also degrading the ocean and degrading the land. They also do not address increasing increasing population either.

What you have are scientist using scientific information to predict what they want to see. This is normal human denial that is disconnected from the world. You do not need to have the scientific data to see what is happening. What humans are doing is easily understood experientially and better predicted in indigenous "science" than in all their "advanced" scientific appearance which is shallow in understanding at best.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
You asked why POPs persistent. I gave you the answer. You were unable to accept that the correct answer was provided and went on a tangent to explain how bacteria break POPs down , which I know already and is not the question you asked.

Holy carp what a joke .. your answer - in the context of Ocean Pollution .. was 99% wrong .. leaving out biodegradation the main way these persistent organic pollutants degrade .. Pollutants that do not degrade through the processes you mentioned .. hence the term persistant .. and are difficult for bacteria to degrade as well. You gave small part of the degradation process .. the overall answer was a fail - missing the primary degradation process.

Your answer regarding resource ratio theory is partially accurate-

There were no inaccuracies in my answer .. and I gave a couple of examples .. as requested. The fact that there are more examples than the ones I gave ..detracts not from 100% on your test .. a test which was silly.

I have said nothing about your posts. I merely asked you to provide your credentials since you said you are both a scientist and a subject matter expert.

Yes friend .. and this is the problem --- you have said nothing on the topic .. and that is what we are here to do .. as opposed to playing Ad Hom Fallacy games .. and get personal with each other.. I don't want your phone number friend .. nor your personal details .. the fact that you can't seem to figure out why is not suggestive of academic success ..

I gave you my credentials .. Chemist - Applied Microbiology - worked in Environmental Consulting for 3rd largest engineering firm in the world .. was alternative remediation option Expert .. explaining to you that means anything other than "dig and dump" .. told you that Bioremediation being one of my specialties ..

What part of .. "those are credentials" -- are you having difficulty understanding ?

Now did you have anything to say on the Topic ? - Some education you would like from the Subject Matter Expert .. Let us try to stick to the topic friend .. no more of this asking for my name and phone number .. I am not on here to date poeple .. happily Married thanks.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Definitely not an English major.

Correct .. Science is my Domain .. the spelling B not my game.. nor relevant to the Topic -- looking for that elusive valid argument - sans the personal invective and Ad Hom Fallacy .. or .. at least in addition to that .. so there is some point to the whole thing other than "hiding out in tree-tops .. shouting out rude names .. now coming to the "name that tune or artist" part of the segment :) Hint .. whistling
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Correct .. Science is my Domain .. the spelling B not my game.. nor relevant to the Topic -- looking for that elusive valid argument - sans the personal invective and Ad Hom Fallacy .. or .. at least in addition to that .. so there is some point to the whole thing other than "hiding out in tree-tops .. shouting out rude names .. now coming to the "name that tune or artist" part of the segment :) Hint .. whistling
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Robert Balling - PhD & professor (Arizona State University)

Here is a (very long) list of articles and peer-reviewed work by this scientist: Robert C. Balling


Maybe read this:
From 1989 to 2002, Balling received more than $679,000 from fossil-fuel-industry organizations; as of 2007, he also had received more than $7 million in research funding from the National Science Foundation and the EPA.[17] He has also come under scrutiny because he was listed as a tentative author of the Heartland Institute's NIPCC report; however, ASU's vice president of public affairs, Virgil Renzulli, pointed out that this did not imply that Balling had been receiving money from Heartland. Balling himself added that his prior involvement with the Heartland Institute's activities amounted only to appearing at a luncheon they held in 2008.[18] -- Robert Balling - Wikipedia
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
If the earth had no water, the earth's surface would be about 151F. With water; oceans, the earth currently averages about 59F. Water moderates the temperature and climate of the earth. How does manmade climate change take into account this most important variable in terms of global temperature and climate.? We have water hurricanes and not CO2 hurricanes within the earth's climate. Man made climate change should be called man made-up climate change, since water is the top dog, yet CO2 is trumping water in that mythology.

A simple way to compare water and CO2, is to look at heat capacity, which is defined as the amount heat needed to raise a material 1 degree. The higher the heat capacity, the more heat the material can store, before its temperature rises. Water has an unusually high heat capacity, which is why the earth is not 151 degrees but more like 59F. Water can store lots of heat without the temperature having to increase very much. If the solar heat was analogous to a hose, water is like a large swimming pool, where the water rises very slow. CO2 is more like a narrow tank that the hose can fill, vertically, much faster.

Water is unique on earth in that water exists in three phases on earth at the same time; ice, water and vapor. Typically the order of heat capacity, for materials, is the solid state is highest, then the liquid state, and then the vapor state. CO2 only exists in the vapor form, and has about 1/10 the heat capacity of the liquid water in the oceans; skinny tank versus the swimming pool. The even high heat capacity of the polar ice, compared to the oceans, could partially explain why it is not melting on schedule; even bigger pool.

If you plot the heat capacity of water as a function of temperature, it is not a flat sloped curve like CO2 and most other materials, where heat capacity increases with temperature. The hydrogen bonding of water, which gives water its's usually high heat capacity, also creates an anomalous heat capacity curve, where the heat capacity of water decreases with temperature and reaches a minimum at 104 F, then it increases again. This odd shape minimum curve has global climate implications.

In terms of CO2 and its typical heat capacity curve, since the upper atmosphere is colder, CO2 has less heat capacity the farther its gets away from the surface. The thermal insulation value of CO2 decreases, as its heat capacity decreases with distance from the surface. Lab experiments will measure higher heat capacity at STP, than in real life applications in the upper atmosphere. I hope they made the adjustment.

The reason this is important can be explained with a real life heat capacity analogy we encounter each summer. If you have even gone to the beach, in the summer, the dry sand will be very hot, while the wet sand will be cool, even though both have the same sun. This has to do with the differences in heat capacity of the water; higher, versus the sand; lower.

Heat capacity is also a measure of how well a material can redistribute heat, with higher heat capacity able to spread the heat faster, so temperature rises much slower at the main heat transfer surface. The dry sand, due to its lower heat capacity, cannot redistribute the heat very fast, so the sun heats surface material very fast, and the surface temperature rises faster; gets hot. The CO2 as it lower temperature as it rise heat up faster and radiates more heat into space.

The unusual heat capacity curve of water, allows the earth's mantle to impact global climate. Heat from the mantle, through crustal boundaries and tectonic plate movement; volcanoes, add heat to the ocean floor; thermal vents. The crust is not as thick under the deep ocean, as on land, so mantle heat can escape easier. Water is continuous from oceans into the mantle.

Since the heat capacity of water increases with temperate, after the minimum at 104F, a 1 degree temperature drop of 200F mantle water, can heat say, 104F water, more than 1 degree, since at 104F heat capacity is minimized; sand effect. The impact is a radiant heat boost maximum that allows the bottom to heat the water faster, in terms of temperature, with the same heat.

The top of the oceans, will see the heat capacity of water lowering, from cold ocean surface temperature, all the way to heating tropical heating to say 104F, with the same amount of heat, making the temperature rise faster, as we get closer to 104F; beach sand effect. The oceans slowly warm in the early summer and then get warmer faster.

The human body, at 98.6F, is designed by nature to be close to the minimum heat capacity of water; sweet spot. Tolerances are tight, with a 104F fever, at the heat capacity minimum of water, getting very close to upsetting the entire physiological equilibrium of the human body. Water regulates the human body and the earth's body.
 

anotherneil

Active Member
Ok, and I got my degrees in Archaeology and Anthropology, which focuses on ancient geology and climate as well. So my opinion is as valid as his, and he's wrong.

Do you have peer-reviewed work on climate change? Supposedly this is a requirement.

If your argument is pertaining to your following post about climatologists, as in whether or not a degree in climatology is required (it isn't) to be qualified to speak about climate change, then you may have good company, as none of these scientists have degrees in climatology, including the one who came up with the hockey stick graph:

Michael Mann - PhD & professor (Pennsylvania State University)
Peer-reviewed work: Michael E. Mann
Academic background specifics: PhD in geology & geophysics, masters degrees in physics & geology, undergrad in applied math & physics



Guy McPherson - PhD & professor (University of Arizona)
Peer-reviewed work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guy-Mcpherson
Academic background specifics: MS & PhD in range science, undergrad in forest resources



Tim Palmer - PhD & professor (University of Oxford)
Peer-reviewed work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tim-Palmer
Academic background specifics: PhD in general relativity theory, undergrad in math & physics



James Hansen - PhD & professor (Columbia University)
Peer-reviewed work: James E. Hansen
Academic background specifics: PhD in physics, undergrad in physics and mathematics, M.S. in astronomy

 

anotherneil

Active Member
Got any of them climatologists?

As in the ones I already mentioned?

John Christy (Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying)

Roy Spencer (Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying)

David Legates (Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying)

Garth Paltridge (Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying)


Or, do you just want me to post more?

Ian Clark - Professor (University of Ottawa)
Peer-reviewed work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian-Clark-14



Hans Jelbring - PhD (Stockholm University)
Peer-reviewed work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hans-Jelbring



Richard Keen - PhD (University of Colorado), Emeritus Instructor of Atmospheric Science, University of Colorado
Peer-reviewed work:



Chris de Freitas - PhD & professor (University of Auckland)
Peer-reviewed work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher-De-Freitas

 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
As in the ones I already mentioned?

John Christy (Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying)

Roy Spencer (Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying)

David Legates (Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying)

Garth Paltridge (Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying)


Or, do you just want me to post more?

Ian Clark - Professor (University of Ottawa)
Peer-reviewed work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian-Clark-14



Hans Jelbring - PhD (Stockholm University)
Peer-reviewed work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hans-Jelbring



Richard Keen - PhD (University of Colorado), Emeritus Instructor of Atmospheric Science, University of Colorado
Peer-reviewed work:



Chris de Freitas - PhD & professor (University of Auckland)
Peer-reviewed work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher-De-Freitas

No, they don't count (videos aren't proof).

I was just hoping not waste my time watching videos.

Guess not.

Waste away.
 

anotherneil

Active Member
No, they don't count (videos aren't proof).

I was just hoping not waste my time watching videos.

Guess not.

Waste away.
Oh, ok; I understand. I suppose you want in-person or one-on-one conversations with them, or perhaps a schedule of the next talk by a scientist about human-caused climate change. I can respect that, but you're on your own; I'm not going to contact them for you to make such arrangements or to get that sort of information. I think if you have the ability to create an account on a forum and be active on it, then you 're capable of reaching out to them or finding such information & schedules.

For all you folks who are putting in the effort to notify me that you're not going to watch a video, I thank you for that. However, it is not necessary to notify me, and you don't need my permission to not watch a video. This thread is not for you; it's for everyone else, and it's to help protect those who are being victimized by politicians trying to ban access to hydrocarbon fuels so they can afford to cook on stoves to feed themselves & to afford to keep themselves warm in the winter, to afford to purchase an inexpensive vehicle so they can travel to work, the supermarket, etc.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
This thread is not for you; it's for everyone else, and it's to help protect those who are being victimized by politicians trying to ban access to hydrocarbon fuels so they can afford to cook on stoves to feed themselves & to afford to keep themselves warm in the winter, to afford to purchase an inexpensive vehicle so they can travel to work, the supermarket, etc.
Perhaps 'we' are being a bit paranoid, don't you think?
Can you show us how politicians are doing this?

Politicians have to answer to their voters, and furthermore, I would say that volatile energy prices
are more of a problem than tax policy.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Oh, ok; I understand. I suppose you want in-person or one-on-one conversations with them, or perhaps a schedule of the next talk by a scientist about human-caused climate change. I can respect that, but you're on your own; I'm not going to contact them for you to make such arrangements or to get that sort of information. I think if you have the ability to create an account on a forum and be active on it, then you 're capable of reaching out to them or finding such information & schedules.

For all you folks who are putting in the effort to notify me that you're not going to watch a video, I thank you for that. However, it is not necessary to notify me, and you don't need my permission to not watch a video. This thread is not for you; it's for everyone else, and it's to help protect those who are being victimized by politicians trying to ban access to hydrocarbon fuels so they can afford to cook on stoves to feed themselves & to afford to keep themselves warm in the winter, to afford to purchase an inexpensive vehicle so they can travel to work, the supermarket, etc.
No, just the peer reviewed articles that they have written. Scientists do not communicate through videos. Maybe they will in the future, but they do not do that today. What people have been asking for is the peer reviewed articles that these supposed scientists have written about AGW.

I will grant that many of them are scientists. But what a biologist says about the causes or severity of AGW is meaningless. They would be proper sources to go to for the consequences of AGW, but I do not think any of yours have done that. And even then, when they did serious work they would publish it via peer review.

Do you know what happens when scientists avoid peer review? We get "cold fusion". A lot of nonsense but no fusion. We get Archaeoraptor. Even my spell check knows that is a fraud:


The comments of scientist about topics outside of their areas of expertise are of little value. If they contradict the experts you will be right almost all of the time if you go with the experts. Especially if there is a rich vested interest paying them. Your "evidence" against AGW is no better than the "evidence" of doctors about smoking from the 1950', oh and spoiler alert, scientists do not communicate via ads either:

1714004781123.png


1714004813867.png


1714004869243.png
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
In the news, a US tax payer funded national news organization; NPR or National Public Radio, which is supposed to news neutral, has been finally shown to have totally Left Wing biased coverage of important news cycles. This was obvious for years, but covered up with misinformation. Now it has been shown, via a top level executive whistle blower, that NPR was not just biased; tell one side, but on a mission to damage the other side with misinformation. The tax payers were told they are hearing unbiased news by a non profit, even though we now know NPR only hires 100% Liberals, even though Conservative taxes payer were paying half their tax payer tab. NPR should have to pay back the stolen money, as a Conservative tax rebate. Below is an article from the USA News, which is slanted Left.

NPR editor quit after telling the truth about liberal bias in media. It's time to defund them.

If you look at Academia, this is controlled by Liberal Ideology; at the very top and in the middle. Many of the Liberal Scientists are the same Scientists who will peer review papers for Man Made-up Climate change. This team is similar to how NPR was supposed to peer review news stories in an unbiased fashion. Can we expect a Liberal Dominated University peer review system to be unbiased?

By Samuel J. Abrams
March 23, 2023

One misconception about college life today is that faculty on campuses are monolithically progressive. That description comes closer to being true about college administrators, but a new survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) of almost 1,500 professors at four-year U.S. colleges and universities reveals that while faculty tend to lean to the left, ideological diversity still exists. Fifty percent of professors identify as liberal, 17 percent as moderate, and 26 percent as conservative.

Hypothetically, say Liberal dominance in Academia, headed by a predominance of Liberal Administrations, who decide research priority, and a majority of Professors are Liberal, all used the NPR model; have the same political marching orders. Say they sponsor more Liberal science papers for publication and they dominate the peer review process, while the conclusion are discredited for Conservative views; less funding and fewer papers. Say also the Liberal science being accepted is good science. However, there are few opposing papers, by Conservatives, who do not agree with man made, which are also good science, the most prestigious publications. This would be like DEI in terms of Liberal science being boosted, to be fair. Twenty years ago there were more Conservative Scientists, so DEI could be justified.

Until the University system purges their political bias, from top, down, all we will get is a consensus of Liberal DEI science, that controls the funding and peer review processes. This is easy to do and make look legitimate. Climate science is still dice and cards science, which means black box, and any theory goes, if the theory appears to plot well; hotdogs as a function of won baseball games.

Due to the subjective nature of dice and cards science, and since politics uses the same math, it is easy to take the subjective science cut you want and called it a science consensus, since consensus is also how politics works; same math.

Rational science is not this flexible in terms of stacking the deck or loading the dice. Universities need to upgrade to rational science so science is not dumbed down to the level of political consensus. When the political divide in the USA, over manmade climate change, is dominated by Liberalism, ands Liberalism ideology dominates the universities, you know we have political science of dice and cards.
 
Top