Thread: More global warming shown to be false!

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Your rant about "theory" bespeaks a typical ignorance of the meaning of the term. General Relativity, which explains the gravitational behavior of massive objects, is "merely" a theory, and Natural Selection, which explains the occurrence of evolution, is likewise just a theory. That there is gravity, and that evolution is occurring and has occurred are facts. Facts are things that no rational person can dispute, though, in themselves, they may be rather difficult to observe. For instance, it is a fact that Jupiter has several moons, though you wouldn't be aware of that fact unless you had a telescope.

Quite right, and thank-you for saying so.

X

I'm rather surprised to see this thread go on for so long.

The title is about as valid as "Global warming shown to be true".

Theories are "proofed" or tested. If they cannot be widely disproved, they are generally "accepted" (or "proven" in lay terms).

To a scientist, "proven" doesn't have the same meaning that most lay people think it does.

So-called global warming is a measurable phenomenon. The primary cause currently eludes us and may ever prove to do so.

Originally Posted by milhouse

I'm rather surprised to see this thread go on for so long.

The title is about as valid as "Global warming shown to be true".

Theories are "proofed" or tested. If they cannot be widely disproved, they are generally "accepted" (or "proven" in lay terms).

To a scientist, "proven" doesn't have the same meaning that most lay people think it does.

So-called global warming is a measurable phenomenon. The primary cause currently eludes us and may ever prove to do so.

Actually I was editing the title to read much different when I hit enter instead of the shift key! This is the reason for the title of this thread and as you may know, once you post the thread the title can't be edited!
Oh, by the way, in the seventies I am certain that "global cooling" was also measurable!

Thats one of the primary reasons I disbelieve global warming, these same experts tried to scare me 30-40 years ago with the coming ice age. How long have we kept accurate records of weather patterns in comparison with the age of the world. To everything there is a season...

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Thats one of the primary reasons I disbelieve global warming, these same experts tried to scare me 30-40 years ago with the coming ice age. How long have we kept accurate records of weather patterns in comparison with the age of the world. To everything there is a season...

...turn, turn, turn, turn

Originally Posted by JMS

Actually I was editing the title to read much different when I hit enter instead of the shift key! This is the reason for the title of this thread and as you may know, once you post the thread the title can't be edited!
Oh, by the way, in the seventies I am certain that "global cooling" was also measurable!

Yes, you can. Click 'Edit' and then 'Go advanced'.
That will bring you back to your original post, and you can edit the subject line.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Yes, you can. Click 'Edit' and then 'Go advanced'.
That will bring you back to your original post, and you can edit the subject line.

Yes, but not the title that everyone sees before entering the thread.

Originally Posted by JMS

Yes, but not the title that everyone sees before entering the thread.

Unless it has to do with my moderator superpowers, it should be possible.
If you do the advanced edit and then change the subject title, both the post title as the forum visible title will be changed.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Unless it has to do with my moderator superpowers, it should be possible.

It does have to do with your moderator super powers. Perhaps you could change it for Mark?

X

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

...I contend that I have reasons for my acceptance, and that if I were given other reasons and evidence, then I would be willing to abandon the beliefs that I currently accept. Innuendo against politicians and guilt by association against scientists are not among those reasons.....

Really?...

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I despair of the state of science education in this country.

Of course you can find "scientists" who dispute not only the fact of global warming but also the causal explanation that it is due to increase in carbon dioxide, just like you can find "scientists" that dispute that smoking cigarettes increases your risk of getting cancer, emphysema and other cardio-pulmonary diseases, or "scientists" that dispute the fact of evolution and the theory that natural selection is the main explanation of that evolution. When I say "most scientists," I mean that quite literally.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Those scientists who manufacture your doubt for you have been repeatedly shown to be in the pockets of oil and coal producers,

interesting method of trying to convince me of something...Pot, Kettle....

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

...and their methods and conclusions have been repeatedly shown to be faulty.

The burden of proof is with the accuser...do you have documented instances of this occuring?

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

....I require evidence and argument that actually has something to do with the subject the subject at hand,...

such as arguments about dinosaur etymology, natural selection, general relativity versus special relativity, and other climate change related topics? or arguments based on genuine research...

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

...namely, whether the globe is warming and whether the ever increasing human emission of CO2 has anything to do with it.

No one here has said humans do not affect the climate; only (in my case at least) that the actual effect is being grossly exaggerated or even falsified for political and monetary gain by world governments wishing their subjects to feel somehow responsible enough to entrust those same government entities with more power and money.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I know full well that the increase of CO2 concentrations, which have nearly doubled since the turn of the last century, do not account for the entirety of the warming that is observed. ....

while estimated man-made emissions have allegedly doubled, that is a far cry from saying CO2 concentrations[total] have doubled. Recall that only about 14% of CO2 is from human sources based on your own sources...so right now, CO2 from human sources is less than half of one percent of total greenhouse gas....[simple math] and you wonder why I am a skeptic?

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

....The increase in atmospheric methane since the turn of the last century has more than doubled. Water vapor has an effect too, for as the globe warms, more water is added to the atmosphere. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.

Water vapor is not just *A* greenhouse gas, but accounts for 95% of all greenhouse gases...

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

But it is the increase in the concentrations of CO2 which gets this whole process started, which is why we can say the activities of mankind that release ever more quantities of CO2 are the cause of this occurrence.

This is a drastic assumption at best.
By definition, greenhouse gases are called such because they can help trap heat. The total amount of CO2 (not just from people) and methane and others are only in the remaining 5%. Current sources also concede that in the past several years, methane levels have leveled off and begun to decrease rather than increase. They also do not make the jump to conclude methane is tied primarily to CO2 as you suggest, but tie it to agricultural processes in China,(rice production) large fires, and cattle outgassing (literally) due to overfeeding by ranchers attempting more meat production from their cattle.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I've given the evidence that supports my beliefs by posting a link and excerpts from among the most prestigious climate science organizations in the world.

created by a political organization, in support of its interests. Some of the science is good, but then it is tainted by political meddling with the results, and even downright lying to alter the results, as evidenced above with the IPCC quietly correcting its report after being taken to task by a sharp eyed Briton....

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I await your evidence that either the Earth is not warming, or evidence that carbon dioxide is not playing the initiating causal role. Let me explain the concept of an initial or primary cause again for you.

I'm not so unsophisticated as to not understand what you are writing. I submit that you have been told a good lie, but a lie nonetheless. My position has never been that the world is not warming, but that it has been warmer before, and also cooler, in recent history, and that the information widely disseminated has been altered by a global political organization to slant in favor of the position giving it the most power(big surprise there...)at the exclusion of other, equally viable and equally supportable theories...tossed out because they are, well, not taxable. For instance, the astronomical theory

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

You know those domino designs that people with too much time on their hand set up and then knock down? The primary, or initial cause of all those dominoes falling down is knocking down that first domino. Increasing human emissions of carbon dioxide is that first domino.

This is the claim they make, but it is scarce backed up. The current percentages of greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is part, is easily demonstrable, but the assumption it has suddenly spiked requires one to acknowledge "estimates" of global temperatures over past centuries which have since been called into question.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Even an increase in average global temperatures of 0.1 degrees centigrade is enough to thaw more of the arctic tundra and release methane, melt more snow which would have reflected more heat back into space, and evaporate more water which is also a greenhouse gas.

Making a statement such as this about the effects of increased global temperature does nothing to demonstrate the cause of that increase.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

But I'm not going to address your skepticism any longer for the simple reason that doubt must be justified as well as belief. It is no more reasonable to go around doubting things just because you can than it is to go around believing things just because you can. You have to have reasons for all of it.

Obviously, I do...

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Your skepticism about the warming power of carbon dioxide is the closest thing you have to a legitimate reason to doubt, and since, as you admit, you are not a climate scientist, and likely not a chemist either, I'll take the word of those who know.

Ahh, I see we are back to bashing my credibility again...if I am not a climate scientist, my opinion does not matter. I would remind you that neither are you, btw, and one cannot simply cherry pick the facts and evidence and assume everything is understood. Based on your logic in this statement, none of us should discuss this topic anyway, as we obviously do not know what we are talking about...not being climate scientists, chemists, or whatever else it is you assume I am uneducated in.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I don't have to go out and verify their results for myself, only look at whether their predictions turn out to be true. So far, they have.

Adjusting the "theory" to allow for the fact the world was cooler this past year than the year previously, does not constitute a prediction turning out to be true...
So, just curious...if it is true, as generally accepted, that methane has 20 times the effect (approximately) on global warming as CO2, and both of these in turn occupy only 5% of total greenhouse gases...does the recently reported decrease in methane in the atmosphere for whatever reason constitute the net result of "canceling out" the effects of CO2 by a multiple of 20 also? Or, if CH4 (methane) is reduced by an increment of 1%, the overall effect on warming is the same as if CO2 had been reduced by 20 %...? Just speculating here.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

In fact, I'm done with this thread entirely. I'm tired of your, and other's accusations that all I'm interested in is provoking controversy. I present my beliefs and the reasons for them. I defend myself from your spurious attacks on my and other's credibility and integrity. And yet, somehow, I'm in the wrong here. Whatever.

While it disturbs me that a college professor would drop out of a debate with an opinionated knuckle-dragger like myself so easily, I would point out there have been no spurious attacks on your integrity. Your credibility is only called into doubt to the same level you have attacked mine (first, by the way...see above, for instance) and others. You have not been attacked, nor have you needed to defend yourself. Only the theories you support and some of your statements have been attacked, and if they do not stand up to scrutiny, that alone should sound the alarm bells that they bear closer attention. As to whether or not your main interest is provoking controversy, I don't know. How many razor and shaving related topics have you posted in recently? That might be where people get this opinion. Personally, I enjoy a good argument, as long as it stays civil. Other members here can attest to my enjoyment of a good harangue.
No need to be defensive.
If you wish to swallow the hook and entrust your money to the government with finding a solution, that is your choice. I, being a member of the government, will gladly PM you my paypal address and allow you to send all the money you wish to my newly formed "Global Warming Study Fund" after which I will submit my findings from fact-finding trips to tropical climates to see if they are warmer, and other areas for which I would need a yacht...errr "research vessel" to do studies at the ocean surface around the world. Of course, to REALLY help the environment, perhaps you should help start a campaign, and get all your friends to donate also! All of the funds will go to a government entity


Night folks.


John P.