Global warming or global hoax?

[Shad]

How it is now,

Which means you are attacking a UN that does not exist.

but the pope has a vision for a UN with real teeth. Google Caritas en Veritate encyclical of the pope paragraph 68 and ask yourself why does the pope want a UN with real teeth.

So what? All you are doing is backpedaling from what you thought the UN was in error and attacking an idea of a Pope. He sees the same issue with the UN that I have pointed out. National self interest overrides global interests. He just hammers home the fact that many people maintain a facade of charity, treating people as equal, helping those that need it for ego and opinions of others. When it comes down to it many are unwilling to make any true sacrifices for others.

 

[Kemosloby]

Which means you are attacking a UN that does not exist.



So what? All you are doing is backpedaling from what you thought the UN was in error and attacking an idea of a Pope. He sees the same issue with the UN that I have pointed out. National self interest overrides global interests. He just hammers home the fact that many people maintain a facade of charity, treating people as equal, helping those that need it for ego and opinions of others. When it comes down to it many are unwilling to make any true sacrifices for others.

Yeah the hypocrisy is astounding. So according to the Popes beliefs the world needs a Global government to override national self interests...Global communism. and what better way to achieve it than a global warming hoax where facts become fiction and fiction becomes facts. And anything the Pope says, filters through his channels of authority as "truth".

 

[Milton Platt]

I watched the video. You'd have to take his word for it that the invisible bogeyman is real. Does he sound like a liar while explaining global warming? Yep

You don't have to take his word for it, you could actually look at the evidence for it.

 

[Kemosloby]

You don't have to take his word for it, you could actually look at the evidence for it.

At best they have a computer model which can be adjusted to provide whatever "evidence" they want it to produce.

 

[Nietzsche]

You don't have to be affiliated with Ceasar to march lockstep when Ceasar says Global warming is fact. So you see, it wasn't 10,000 scientists convincing the UN climate change is real, it was the UN convincing convinciing 10,000 scientists global warming is real. When the teacher gave those scientists a test in school, the ones who wrote global warming is real passed the test, they went home with so much pride they popped champagne bottles. The honest ones went home and cried.

The UN can barely keep itself functioning, where the hell do they get the time and resources to literally control every school system on the planet?

You're making outrageous claims here, start backing them up.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm curious now... what will your next thread on the sciences be? You've already hit up biological evolution, and now climate science. Is it time to start disputing the sciences demonstrating the earth orbits around the sun, or that the earth is round? Nah, that's boring... how about we dispute germ theory? That'll make for some riveting discussions on the reality of Satan's influence upon the world and demonic possession!

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder about some of these trumpeters of imminent AGW doom.
Take John Kerry, who journeyed with his entourage to Antarctica.
He's no scientist. Anything he saw there is already available info.

The following article is from a loopy source, but the claim is cromulent.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pat...ry-producing-much-co2-average-american-1-year
What purpose was served by his junket....personal adventure?

If Kerry, Obama & others really believe that our carbon footprint matters,
why is it that they don't care about their own?
(Note that a single week for Obama's family of 4 in Hawaii burns 100,000 gallons of jet fuel.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No. I'm going to let Al Gore do the explaining as its pretty simple and just see how you respond and give you a chance to elaborate why you feel comfortable rejecting the science on this.

I'm not sure how profitable discussion will be to make the effort if you've already made up your mind based on treating the scientific community as liars or frauds, etc. that all but closes the discussion by treating any new information and evidence supporting the existence of recent climate change as a man made pheneomena as fabricated. I'm not going to pretend to know how to change your views if that is the case, but heres the video anyway.

Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. The IPCC is likewise a political institution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

They say we had an ice age then the world got warmer, But now all a sudden when the world gets warmer it's our fault. "Here, try an electric car, and a lil' mercury in your lightbulbs won't harm ya." Is it just a ploy to force things on us we like even less than windows 10?

there was a mile of ice above my head a mere few thousand years ago, which rapidly melted without the aid of a single SUV or lightbulb. There are some fascinating scientific mechanisms behind the dynamic nature of our climate, but the anthropomorphic scare stories are far more valuable politically, they always have and will be.

 

[Laika]

Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. The IPCC is likewise a political institution.

That has no effect on whether the basic science of climate change contained in the video is true.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A rule of thumb for conspiracies is that the simpler they are, the fewer things that can go wrong. What your saying is that basically, the entire global scientific community is lying or has been duped -along with a large number of journalists or politicians- which means the conspiracy would involve thousands of indivduals. Can I ask why you think that is plausible?

Piltdown man?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That has no effect on whether the basic science of climate change contained in the video is true.

The point of science is not having to take anyone's word for it, especially a politician's!!

Give me your own scientific understanding, how do you think global warming works?

 

[Laika]

Piltdown man?

One fabrication does not discredit the entire scientific community, nor does that one instance of science fraud undermine the validity of science of climate change.

The point of science is not having to take anyone's word for it, especially a politician!!

Give me your own scientific understanding, how do you think global warming works?

The planet insulates a certian portion of solar radiation due to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As we burn fossil fuels we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and therefore the amount of solar radioation retained increases, leading to an average global rise in tempratures.

Where are you going with this?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One fabrication does not discredit the entire scientific community, nor does that one instance of science fraud undermine the validity of science of climate change.

No I agree, but to your point, it certainly demonstrates it's quite possible, along with many other examples. Piltdown man was the basis of human evolution for decades, to question it during this period would make you a 'science denier' Just like George Lemaitre and Max Planck were. Science is a method, not an academic consensus- the two can and often are, diametrically opposed.

The planet insulates a certian portion of solar radiation due to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As we burn fossil fuels we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and therefore the amount of solar radioation retained increases, leading to an average global rise in tempratures.

Where are you going with this?

We agree so far! as do scientists on both sides.

Now how much have we added?

 

[Kemosloby]

One fabrication does not discredit the entire scientific community, nor does that one instance of science fraud undermine the validity of science of climate change.



The planet insulates a certian portion of solar radiation due to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As we burn fossil fuels we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and therefore the amount of solar radioation retained increases, leading to an average global rise in tempratures.

Where are you going with this?

There is just no evidence that we can see, you see. The sky looks pretty blue today and temperatures change as a normal part of nature. Or was the ice age a lie too? And if the ice age was a lie...where do the lies end.. lies or disproved "theories". For something as perfect as science, they have a lot of theories...

 

[Laika]

We agree so far! as do scientists on both sides.

Now how much have we added?

The often repeated quote is that "97% of climate scientists accept man-made climate change" and therefore represent a consensus.

The reason the "consensus" matters is not political or "rule by majority", but hecause these scientists cover a variety of specialisms. It is because people studying the changes in concentration of co2 and other greenhouse gases in ice cores, the decline in glaciers, the bleeching of coral reefs, etc have all- largely independent of one another- reached the same conclusion.

Science is a method but the consensus in science often reflects the fact that scientists reach the same conclusions from the same evidence even in conditions where political control is absent. The "galileo gambit" that what was once considered wrong in science becomes right is not true of political control of science but of new information that became avaliable forcing a change in the consensus or a "paradigm shift". Its "creative destruction" in terms of ideas. The deniers do not have new information so that is not the case for climate change.

There is just no evidence that we can see, you see. The sky looks pretty blue today and temperatures change as a normal part of nature. Or was the ice age a lie too? And if the ice age was a lie...where do the lies end.. lies or disproved "theories". For something as perfect as science, they have a lot of theories...

Would you dispute the fact the earth is round because you see the horizon is flat? Or that the earth is the centre of the solar system because it appears that the sun, stars and planets revolve around us?

Whilst free thought implies individualism, knowledge itself is not exclusively a product of the individual. We didn't learn everything from our own senses even if someone did at some point. We are "socialised" to accept certian ideas and our scientific knowledge is included in that. As such is the accumulation of social knowledge by everyone over time. True, it can be subject to distortion as "history is written by the victors" but in free socities at least, it is a problem of emphasis rather than politically motivated fabrication.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The often repeated quote is that "97% of climate scientists accept man-made climate change" and therefore represent a consensus.

.

100% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, and they should know, they're the experts- right?

The fact that a full 3% of climastrologers don't even buy their own c**p is a pretty big red flag in itself.

But again, science is a method, not an academic consensus. What is your understanding of the science?

How much CO2 have we added?

 

[Laika]

100% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, and they should know, they're the experts- right?

The fact that a full 3% of climastrologers don't even buy their own c**p is a pretty big red flag in itself.

But again, science is a method, not an academic consensus. What is your understanding of the science?

How much CO2 have we added?

you can't say "3%" is a red flag for climate science, when you wouldn't trust "100%" of paranormal investigators as "experts" in their field. Thats contradictory- so its not about the numbers.

Is it you take issue trusting scientists as an intellectual authority that makes you suspicious?

 

[Kemosloby]

The often repeated quote is that "97% of climate scientists accept man-made climate change" and therefore represent a consensus.

The reason the "consensus" matters is not political or "rule by majority", but hecause these scientists cover a variety of specialisms. It is because people studying the changes in concentration of co2 and other greenhouse gases in ice cores, the decline in glaciers, the bleeching of coral reefs, etc have all- largely independent of one another- reached the same conclusion.

Science is a method but the consensus in science often reflects the fact that scientists reach the same conclusions from the same evidence even in conditions where political control is absent. The "galileo gambit" that what was once considered wrong in science becomes right is not true of political control of science but of new information that became avaliable forcing a change in the consensus or a "paradigm shift". Its "creative destruction" in terms of ideas. The deniers do not have new information so that is not the case for climate change.



Would you dispute the fact the earth is round because you see the horizon is flat? Or that the earth is the centre of the solar system because it appears that the sun, stars and planets revolve around us?

Whilst free thought implies individualism, knowledge itself is not exclusively a product of the individual. We didn't learn everything from our own senses even if someone did at some point. We are "socialised" to accept certian ideas and our scientific knowledge is included in that. As such is the accumulation of social knowledge by everyone over time. True, it can be subject to distortion as "history is written by the victors" but in free socities at least, it is a problem of emphasis rather than politically motivated fabrication.

99% of Catholic priests accept Catholicism. Got to accept the dogma if you're to be accepted into the community.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

you can't say "3%" is a red flag for climate science, when you wouldn't trust "100%" of paranormal investigators as "experts" in their field. Thats contradictory- so its not about the numbers.

Is it you take issue trusting scientists as an intellectual authority that makes you suspicious?

No, I don't particularly trust 'scientists' - I trust science- and so it's the science that makes me skeptical, not the scientists either way

Personally I think the 10's of thousands of qualified scientists, who personally signed petitions declaring AGW scientifically illiterate garbage... are vastly more compelling than the handful of disgraced political agencies disseminating this stuff..

We're talking about very experienced qualified unaffiliated scientists like Dr Roy Spencer- climate scientists who have been around long enough to live through global cooling hysteria in the 70's
versus hastily assembled 'IPCC expert reviewers' like' 'women for climate justice' and long lists of alternative energy investors and political activists

But once again- the point is that this is utterly worthless as a scientific argument for my position.

And once again, we all agree that - all things being even- increasing the amount of GH gas enhances the GH effect- ..duh..

So how much have we added, any idea at all?!