"March for Science protests ramp up around the globe"

[leibowde84]

What utter nonsense, and to use your tactic, Citations proving they are creationists ? Cite also dishonest tactics. Science denialism ? Because they don't come to the same conclusions as you ? Tell me, was Max Planc (you know who he was, right ?) a science denier ? Your penchant for empty hyperbole and resultant bonehead comments is amazing. Who denies the climate is changing, has changed, and has cyclically changed from the beginning ? I mean, no less than that great scientific pioneer, al gore, said in the early 90's that Manhatten would be awash in two feet of water by now. My favorite of these prognosticating scientists, Dr, Paul Erlich, a premier population expert of the time, sad in the 70's that by now the world would be totally destabilized by massive food riots in every country, and millions dying from hunger every day. I think this well respected and acclaimed authority of the scientific method, might have been wrong, ya think ? Climate change, and man caused climate change aren't the same thing, are they ?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but Max Planck discovered Quantum Theory and subatomic processes. So, he was, of course, not a science denier. He was an ardent user and fan of the scientific method. And, Paul Erlich was certainly incorrect in his prediction, but that doesn't support any of your claims here. Scientific predictions are often wrong. His prediction of massive worldwide riots due to starvation had nothing to do with the scientific method, as it was not a scientific theory.

 

[shmogie]

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but Max Planck discovered Quantum Theory and subatomic processes. So, he was, of course, not a science denier. He was an ardent user and fan of the scientific method. And, Paul Erlich was certainly incorrect in his prediction, but that doesn't support any of your claims here. Scientific predictions are often wrong. His prediction of massive worldwide riots due to starvation had nothing to do with the scientific method, as it was not a scientific theory.

The point is that a creationist isn';t a de facto science denier. Planck was a creationist.

 

[shmogie]

The point is that a creationist isn';t a de facto science denier. Planck was a creationist.

Further........... People who deny climate change, or believe the climate is changing but not because of humanity, or want more data about how much humanity might be involved, are all lumped together into the derogatory term of "deniers" with the strong innuendo that they are creationists, i.e. those evil fundamentalist Christians.

Climate change itself seems to have become a religion. If you don't accept it, " you are wacky and going against established science" and are a heretic, and must be silenced, or at least ridiculed. The formula is Christian= science denier, though many many scientists through history have been believers, and naby of them exist today.

 

[Jose Fly]

Dr Curry is a climatologist, and an accomplished one at that, often invited to address politicians on the state of climate science. Here is a list of her peer reviewed papers to 2011.... Curry Papers - Online and downloadable
Here are some on climate Modelling...Climate Chnage

Ok.

No misrepresentation intended, I take note of your correction, thank you.

You're welcome.

However the rhetoric of both AR4 and 5 do not match the reality that the temperature upward trend had paused, and an ever increasing deviation between models and real temperature was evident.

As has been shown several times in this thread, there is no "pause" and the the current trend is occurring faster than the models predicted.

I explained to you that the temperature spike of the last couple of years was El Nino related

Then why are the last few El Nino years so much warmer than those from the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's? If that's all that's driving those years, why do they keep getting increasingly warmer?

 

[Jose Fly]

NASA isn't an administration of climate change investigators. They are scientists and experts in their respective fields. So, your analogy makes absolutely no sense. NASA is not a pro climate change organization. They are merely the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

On the other hand, if you provide a climate change skeptic website as a source for your argument, that would be the same as asking paranormal investigators about ghosts.

It's funny how to the denialists, NASA, NOAA, universities, and professional climatology organizations can't be trusted, but individuals and organizations funded by Exxon Mobil are completely reliable and unbiased.

Just like creationists.......

 

[leibowde84]

The point is that a creationist isn';t a de facto science denier. Planck was a creationist.

The comment about creationists being science deniers wasn't in regards to people from the early 20th century. I would assume he was referring to those who believe in creationism now, in modern times. It makes sense, as there really isn't any verifiable, demonstrable evidence supporting creationism. Especially with young earth creationism, there is a mountain of evidence proving it to be wrong.

 

[shmogie]

The comment about creationists being science deniers wasn't in regards to people from the early 20th century. I would assume he was referring to those who believe in creationism now, in modern times. It makes sense, as there really isn't any verifiable, demonstrable evidence supporting creationism. Especially with young earth creationism, there is a mountain of evidence proving it to be wrong.

The science petition project, which to this date has over 30,000 signatures to this point is going to show that the numbers used to claim that the majority by a huge margin, of scientists are weather alarmists is bogus. The petition is signed by certified scientists in all fields, and it states that the causes of weather change are truly not clearly known, and until they are, and if humanity is even involved huge disruptive changes to people and the economy aren't warranted, and can be harmful.

There is much evidence for creationism or intelligent design. there are many well qualified scientists that accept it. the others prefer to believe in along, long chains of improbable to the point of ridiculousness chance incidents from the beginning of the universe to life on earth

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok.


You're welcome.


As has been shown several times in this thread, there is no "pause" and the the current trend is occurring faster than the models predicted.


Then why are the last few El Nino years so much warmer than those from the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's? If that's all that's driving those years, why do they keep getting increasingly warmer?

Correct, the pause that was evident in the temperature trend from 1998 El Nino onwards was busted by the El Nino 2015/6 spike. You will note the spike on the graph below, but when the La Nino cuts in, if the temperature falls below the 1998 levels, a pause would come into existence again. this time showing it to be about 19 years plus duration. And this seems likely to happen when you see the graph below, the temperatures are falling quite quickly towards La Nina territory..

Yes, the last couple of El Ninos have seen record highs, this latest one is about 0.07 C higher than 1998. As noted earlier, the average global temperature has only increased about 1 C over the last 130 years, and the world has actually benefited with the increased greening of the planet and agricultural production due to increased plant 'food'..CO2.

Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998 « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Jose Fly]

Correct, the pause that was evident in the temperature trend from 1998 El Nino onwards was busted by the El Nino 2015/6 spike. You will note the spike on the graph below, but when the La Nino cuts in, if the temperature falls below the 1998 levels, a pause would come into existence again. this time showing it to be about 19 years plus duration. And this seems likely to happen when you see the graph below, the temperatures are falling quite quickly towards La Nina territory..

Yes, the last couple of El Ninos have seen record highs, this latest one is about 0.07 C higher than 1998.

This is exactly why I characterize you as a science denialist. Your entire argument is centered on arbitrarily cherry picking 1998 as your frame of reference. It's such a common denialist tactic, it's covered on just about every science advocacy website out there. For example....

Three Ways Climate Deniers Cherry-Pick Facts about Climate Change

A common climate denier tactic is focusing on a specific year in a data set, usually one that happens to be an outlier. A great example of this is the year 1998.

Nineteen-ninety-eight was one of the hottest years on record thanks to an unusually strong El Niño. That means when you pull a subset of climate data from 1998–2012 (as deniers often do), you’re starting at a record high point. And when you look at the years that follow – years that vary naturally in temperature with some falling well below the 1998 peak – the upward trend in temperatures wasn’t as visually obvious.

Visual data can be purposefully skewed or misrepresented. Let’s look at the chart below, which shows the global air temperature changes from 1998–2012. The red trend line on the chart isn’t a trend at all — it’s simply connecting the two dots on either side of the chart that show two yearly averages of global air temperature change. A trend line on this chart should, in fact, trend upwards. And if we started this chart with the year 1999, it would look quite different.

Or if we zoom out even further, we see an even more obvious increase in average temperatures over time.

So there we have it. If the best you have is merely repeating tired, old denialist talking points that are blatently fallacious, then I'll just let that speak for itself.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's NASA, which is a non-political administration.

riiiiight

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Correct, the pause that was evident in the temperature trend from 1998 El Nino onwards was busted by the El Nino 2015/6 spike. You will note the spike on the graph below, but when the La Nino cuts in, if the temperature falls below the 1998 levels, a pause would come into existence again. this time showing it to be about 19 years plus duration. And this seems likely to happen when you see the graph below, the temperatures are falling quite quickly towards La Nina territory..

Yes, the last couple of El Ninos have seen record highs, this latest one is about 0.07 C higher than 1998. As noted earlier, the average global temperature has only increased about 1 C over the last 130 years, and the world has actually benefited with the increased greening of the planet and agricultural production due to increased plant 'food'..CO2.

Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998 « Roy Spencer, PhD

I'm not sure any believers really care about getting this far into real science, but it's also important that increased temps due to El Ninos are disproportionately distributed in equatorial latitudes.

Any increased temps from an enhanced GH effect would have the exact opposite fingerprint, high latitudes, predominantly polar regions BOTH poles- but it would take far far higher levels of CO2 to ever achieve this.

 

[Jose Fly]

Climate Change Altering the Arctic Faster Than Expected

Evidence continues to mount that climate change has pushed the Arctic into a new state. Skyrocketing temperatures are altering the essence of the region, melting ice on land and sea, driving more intense wildfires, altering ocean circulation and dissolving permafrost.

A new report chronicles all these changes and warns that even if the world manages to keep global warming below the targeted 2°C threshold, some of the shifts could be permanent. Among the most harrowing are the disappearance of sea ice by the 2030s and more land ice melt than previously thought, pushing seas to more extreme heights.

The findings, released Monday in the Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) assessment, come after a winter of extreme discontent for the region. Sea ice receded a bit in November, a rare occurrence, and hit a record-low maximum for the third year in a row. Temperatures averaged 11°F above normal, driven by sustained mild weather that was punctured by periods of almost unheard of heat when temperatures reached up to 50°F above normal.

This past winter is just the latest in a string of bizarre years and the report, authored by 90 Arctic experts, is the latest in a long line of increasingly dire warnings for the fastest-warming region on the planet. If carbon pollution isn’t slowed, parts of the Arctic could warm a whopping 16°F by the 2050s.

“With each additional year of data, it becomes increasingly clear that the Arctic as we know it is being replaced by a warmer, wetter, and more variable environment,” the scientists wrote. “This transformation has profound implications for people, resources and ecosystems worldwide.”​

 

[metis]

The petition is signed by certified scientists in all fields, and it states that the causes of weather change are truly not clearly known

When 98% scientists in their own field say X is real, you can pretty much take that to the bank. I as an anthropologist am simply way out f my realm in nuclear physics.

and if humanity is even involved huge disruptive changes to people and the economy aren't warranted, and can be harmful.

Actually there are many advantages in "going green".

There is much evidence for creationism or intelligent design.

Not true or even close to being true. Science cannot in any way confirm either.

 

[shmogie]

When 98% scientists in their own field say X is real, you can pretty much take that to the bank. I as an anthropologist am simply way out f my realm in nuclear physics.

Actually there are many advantages in "going green".

Not true or even close to being true. Science cannot in any way confirm either.

Evidence and confirmation are not the same thing.

Neither can science confirm how the universe burst forth from nothing, or how it turned out to be favorable to life by a chain of many, many statistically impossible co incidences, or how runoff from rocks and lightning became living organisms.

The point is that 98% is a bogus number for either scientists in total, or climatologists.

Interesting ! My daughter is an anthropologist

 

[Jose Fly]

The science petition project, which to this date has over 30,000 signatures to this point is going to show that the numbers used to claim that the majority by a huge margin, of scientists are weather alarmists is bogus. The petition is signed by certified scientists in all fields, and it states that the causes of weather change are truly not clearly known, and until they are, and if humanity is even involved huge disruptive changes to people and the economy aren't warranted, and can be harmful.

Oh look, yet another commonality between creationism and global warming denialism.....reliance on petitions from "scientists" rather than doing any actual science. Apparently the denialists believe that what a person who spends his days making computer chips thinks about evolution or climatology is more relevant than anything from evolutionary biologists or climatologists.

Again, denialism is essentially the same, regardless of the topic it's focused on.

 

[metis]

The point is that 98% is a bogus number for either scientists in total, or climatologists.

According to the symposium of climate scientists that met several years ago, that's what they concluded. And when science agencies, such as the NAS, NOAA, NASA, and even the U.S. Department of Defense, say that there's more than enough evidence to conclude that human endeavor has caused most of the increase in temperature, that pretty conclusive. And, as a long term subscriber to "Scientific American", I have seen the gradual evolution of studies that have increasing concluded what these agencies have also arrived at.

Neither can science confirm how the universe burst forth from nothing, or how it turned out to be favorable to life by a chain of many, many statistically impossible co incidences, or how runoff from rocks and lightning became living organisms.

Just because we don't know the answers to these questions doesn't mean that a deity must be the supposed cause. And you'll probably have a very hard time convincing both cosmologists and quantum physicists that "statistically impossible coincidences" are not in the running to explain our universe/multiverse. According to researcher Leonard Susskind, he says that surveys of them indicate that infinity is considered a far great possibility than any theistic causation.

As far as I'm concerned, maybe read my signature statement at the bottom of my posts.

 

[metis]

Interesting ! My daughter is an anthropologist

What's her specialization?

I started out in physical anthropology but shifted over fairly early in my undergrad work to cultural. In the latter area, I've specialized in the Woodland Indians (especially Huron and Ojibwe) and the Polar Inuit. Needless to say, I've spent a great deal of time on reservations here in the States and in Canada. Matter of fact, I'm going to be at an Ojibwe reservation in da U.P. in about two weeks. Even though I'm now retired, my interest and studies haven't retired.

 

[Jose Fly]

Just because we don't know the answers to these questions doesn't mean that a deity must be the supposed cause.

One of the things creationists don't get is that gaps in our knowledge aren't reasons to insert "therefore God did it", but are instead the reason we do science.

If we didn't have unanswered questions, we wouldn't have science.

 

[metis]

One of the things creationists don't get is that gaps in our knowledge aren't reasons to insert "therefore God did it", but are instead the reason we do science.

Exactly.

BTW, I grew up in one of those fundamentalist Protestant churches, so I know the indoctrination process they tend to use. But even back 60 years ago when I was in high school, it was obvious to me that I wasn't being told "the other side of the story". I just wish people would do objective research instead of just swallowing what they're being told.

A confidential survey of Baptist ministers done about 40 years ago found that roughly 70% of them did accept the basic ToE, but most of them said there was pressure on them not to divulge that to their congregation or the powers over them.

 

[Jose Fly]

Exactly.

BTW, I grew up in one of those fundamentalist Protestant churches, so I know the indoctrination process they tend to use. But even back 60 years ago when I was in high school, it was obvious to me that I wasn't being told "the other side of the story". I just wish people would do objective research instead of just swallowing what they're being told.

That's fascinating, because I grew up in pretty much the same environment (although about 20 years later). I was fed a steady diet of Chick Tracts, taken to weekly "teen events" where we were assured the Soviets would show up any day and behead us for being Christians, given books about the evils of rock and roll, and all the other typical fundamentalist fare.

Makes you wonder how we got here today, doesn't it? Sometimes I wonder if critical thinking and skepticism is at least partially innate, since no one ever taught me those things when I was young.

A confidential survey of Baptist ministers done about 40 years ago found that roughly 70% of them did accept the basic ToE, but most of them said there was pressure on them not to divulge that to their congregation or the powers over them.

That doesn't surprise me. I remember when we were trying out new pastors and one showed up and preached about how Christians had nothing to fear from science, including evolution. That was his first, and last. sermon at that church!