Climate change lunacy

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by Flying Binghy, Jul 16, 2010.

  1. Humans do affect some reginal climates, i.e. Mt Kilimanjaro ice fields. That is nothing to do with burning coal and adding to atmospheric CO2 which some claim will cause anthropogenic global warming (AGW)

    Adam, please show a proof for the claim that humans have affected world climate via CO2 emmissions.





    .
     
  2. ecodharmamark, i'm still waiting for a reply to this question about your claim.




    .
     
  3. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wait all you like. Feeding time is over.
     
  4. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "mark said,
    Also: a message of this type."

    got me lost? which type? like the one you posted or?

    can't see as where i am tried to incite anything other than get answers to the questions i asked early, questions i have asked before of those who support this climate change idea, and here again no answers. there are lots of implications when you make the poor poorer and create new poor, so just wonder how this fits into this matter?

    mark - yes the weather events we hear of everyday have all happened before that is the best of them and the worst of them anywhere up to the about 200 years ago that some records have been kept, there is nothing new to ilicit fear of horrendous climate change. climate change is a relatively modern trend.

    len
     

  5. Yep, Looks like you are entirely happy to make up any old nonsense.... yer last few shreds of credibility are blown ecodharmamark....




    .
     
  6. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is not ecodharmamark's credibility that is blown.
    We all know who the lunatic is.
     
  7. Looks like Michaelangelica has run out of credible input....:grin:




    .
     
  8. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day Len

    Generally speaking, anything I post in 'italics' (slanted text), or in 'quotation marks' (double inverted commas) is a direct quote from the original source. In this case, "Also: a message of this type" is a direct quote not from me, but from the reference I cited (in text), The Oxford Dictionary. Further, I take this component of the total definition to mean that not only can the term 'troll' be defined as being something 'of the person', it can also mean to be something 'of the message', hence "Also: a message of this type".

    Remembering that the full definition states: "troll, n. Computing slang. A person who posts deliberately erroneous or antagonistic messages to a newsgroup or similar forum with the intention of eliciting a hostile or corrective response. Also: a message of this type" (my emphasis in bold), I did not, nor do I now put you in the category of a 'troll', because even though I do believe that in regards to the topic in question you post "erroneous messages", I do not believe you do it deliberately. Rather, I believe you do it because you are ignorant of the science, of which I have previously posted (including a link in support of the science) a response to your belief that "...it's has all happened before" in #20.

    As for your claim, Len, that "...climate change is a relatively modern trend", if by this you mean human-induced climate change, then I agree with you. For here the science is very simple, and very profound: Increased levels of GHG (greenhouse gases) being emitted to the atmosphere as a result of human activity (i.e. the burning of fossil fuels) contribute to an increase in the greenhouse effect and subsequently, a change in the natural evolution of the climate cycle - hence the popular (short) title: 'climate change'.

    On the other hand, if you mean that the climate has not changed over the past 3-billion odd years-or-so prior to modern era (i.e. post the industrial revolution), then I disagree. The science is also very clear here, Len. For instance, ice-core samples, fossil records, etc. etc. etc.

    Always a pleasure, Len, Markos.
     
  9. Adam

    Adam Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Len, I think you are genuine with your concerns about climate change, but the questions you keep asking about climate change are about its costs and not the phenomenon itself. It's like asking the question, "How much money will it take to fix the Gulf Coast oil spill before it's no longer a problem?" Nobody really knows the answer but that doesn't change the fact that the spill is a reality that we have to deal with. To be honest, I can't really tell what it is about the science behind climate change that you disagree with.

    So len (and FB), please help clear up where your disagreements are with this little questionnaire. That way we can at least know what NOT to argue about.

    Please respond to the following statements with Agree, Disagree, or Not sure?
    1. The scientific method is a reliable tool that we can use to increase our knowledge about how the world works.
    2. The greenhouse effect exists; atmospheric gases absorb radiative energy, increasing the temperature of the lower atmosphere and surface.
    3. The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has greatly increased since the industrial revolution.
    4. The climate is warming.
    5. The climate is warming because of greenhouse gas accumulation.
    5. The climate is warming because of greenhouse gas accumulation, and this is the result of human actions.

    Just to be clear, I agree with all those statements. But where do you stand?
     
  10. Via ecodharmamark...




    .
     
  11. I'll repeat my previous question -

    Adam, please show a proof for the claim that humans have affected world climate via CO2 emmissions.





    .
     
  12. Adam

    Adam Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    FB, firstly, that is not a question. Secondly, the fact that you would demand "a proof" is kind of sad, because it shows that you have no understanding of science. Proofs are found in mathematics, science is not about proving but disproving. If you don't want to answer the questionnaire I don't really care. Len has shown a willingness for some sort of dialogue, you have done no such thing.
     

  13. Hmmm,... i think ah see the problem here. This is not just some abstract scientific discussion where who's right or who's wrong is mearly scored in some abstract scientific journal. The AGW nonsense is expected to be paid for by the taxpayers, the people of Australia.

    Adam, there may be rules of engagement among scientists though i am just a dumb ol hill farmer with barely eight years of school that has lived long enuf to see a few global hysterias and scams pass me by. The hysterias ah dont have to pay for dont worry me much, though when I get asked to pay for the latest fad hysteria scam I expect proof of claims. Saying we should just 'believe' the science while the economy is destroyed dont wash with me.

    In the IPCC report there is basically a 'proof' of the AGW science made up for the guidance of Governments. From what i've seen over the last couple of years the IPCC report has been shown to be in the main a hysterical and corrupted document.

    Adam, perhaps amongst the "overwhelming" science there must be a few things that could proove the AGW claims to this dumb farmer...




    .
     
  14. Having a look-see at the link supplied by ecodharmamark at #20...

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

    What the science says...
    Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.



    Perhaps ecodharmamark can show me where 'science' has worked out what caused the warmer than today medieval warm period ? the Roman warm period ? the mini ice age that ended in the mid 1800's ?


    I see now why ecodharmamarks favorite science site is treated with such derision by anybody who spends more than five minutes researching the AGW claims.




    ------------------------------------------
    “… it needs to be understood that any reasonable simulation even of present climate requires computer models to be tuned. They contain parameters (i.e. pieces of input information) whose numerical values are selected primarily to give the right answer about today’s climate rather than because of some actual measurement of their value. This was particularly so in the mid-eighties. The problem with tuning is that it makes any prediction of conditions different from those of the present far less believable. Even today the disease of ‘tuneable parameters’ is still rampant in climate models,…”

    Quote via the book, “The Climate Caper” by Garth Paltridge. Pg 73. Atmospheric physicist and a former Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research
     
  15. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    as a senior scientist once said "the best science can do is a calculated guess" at the end of the day any guess is as good as any other guess, just depends how many people you can draw in to support teh premise, which after all has no organic basis to the claim just pure science made with unnatural parameters created to fit science story into, hence the gossamer suit is a very relevent morale to this thing that science in its hunt for money, power is thrusting upon us, they are abusing their authority and the trust the masses have in them.

    my questions still stand unanswered, that's because science can't prove the reality of this gossamer subject.

    those who support it cannot even hint at the implications of masses of citizens not having the basics and what those citizens will do to get what you have.

    if the governments where sceptical then this subject would get no air play.

    again daily weather reports show no new levels of temperatures across the globe, there are no reports of coastal land dissapearing under water, all this for past 100 to 200 years, and anything before that they have no idea about, so even if one locality did report a new weather record no one could say with any certainty that it has not happened before.

    false science based on unsupportable fear hype.

    len
     
  16. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day Len

    I find it very difficult to have a discussion with you concerning this matter, because I really do not understand what it is that you are saying. Therefore, I have broken down your last post into segments, and I have responded to each of these in the hope that I can get a clearer picture of your position on this matter. This way I hope that we can continue the discussion, and maybe even come to some sort of consensus on the topic...

    This 'quote' (you don't happen to have the name of the "senior scientist", do you Len?) seems to support a position that 'science' (a definition of which follows shortly) is only concerned with making "calculated guess[es]". I can understand why many people may feel this way, after all, the domain of 'science' is often seen by many to be the antithesis of their own belief structure, and as such is at odds with what many hold to be the 'truth'. It is OK for people to hold their own 'world view', after all, the world would be a very boring place if we all believed in the same things. However, by taking a position and holding a particular belief, and then by broadcasting this belief, surely it is reasonable to expect other people to question why it is one holds this particular belief? If not, does this then mean that if (for a hypothetical example) I 'believe' that all people with blue eyes should be killed, that my belief should not be questioned? It is not why you have come to hold the beliefs that you do, Len, but rather the belief in itself that is being questioned. The same can be said for human-induced climate change. There are those who believe (for whatever reason) that it does not exist, and those (once again, for whatever reason) that do. However, by far the majority in this latter camp would form their belief through the sound process of scientific enquiry, or rational deduction, or by making "calculated guess[es]", if you prefer. So it is with the above in mind, that I now draw your attention to the Oxford Dictionary definition of 'science', and particularly as it relates to its relationship to 'morals', a term that features regularly in your writing:

    Contrasted or coupled with conscience, emphasizing the distinction to be drawn between theoretical perception of a truth and moral conviction.

    From the above, we can begin to see why it is that we are having this conversation, Len, for there is a sharp "distinction" being "drawn" between the "theoretical perception of a truth" (what I believe in; 'science'), and "moral conviction" (what you believe in; 'faith' - please feel free to correct me here if I am wrong in this regard).

    I disagree. If, for example, a measure of what it is to be considered "good" is the value of a jellybean, and both you and I were asked to "guess" the number of jellybeans in a jar in order to 'win' those said beans, and I used scientific reasoning to deduce their approximate number, while you relied on a number that materialised due to your 'moral conviction', do you still feel that your "guess" might be as "good" as mine?

    If by "premise", Len, you mean the human-induced climate change thesis, what then do you mean when you write, "...no organic basis to the claim just pure science made with unnatural parameters created to fit science story into..."? You see, Len, this is where I have trouble understanding what it is you are trying to express. Are you suggesting that the journey of scientific discovery is all a mere "story"? That the great tradition in the science of biology, chemistry, physics, just to name a few of the "pure" sciences, are all just "stories", "created" in order to obtain "money" and "power"? If this is what you believe, Len, then this is probably as far as our discussion can go, and as much as I love practicing the art of dialectical discourse, it would seem that we are not going to reach a consensus on this issue. Once again, please feel free to correct my presumptions if they do not fit with your understanding.

    For an understanding of where the notion of "proof" sits within the scientific spectrum, please see Adam's very erudite description of this matter.

    Once again, Len, it is a bit of a mystery to me (at least) as to what it is you are trying to convey here. By "it", do you mean 'human-induced climate change', the implications of the same, or maybe even the various propositions that have been put forward (including permaculture) to respond to "it"?. If we are going to continue the discussion in this vein, Len, you are going to have to clarify what you mean by "it".

    I have tried very hard to understand what you are suggesting here, Len. But for the life of me I have not a clue. Could you please elaborate on the above?

    If you are talking about 'weather' here, Len, as opposed to 'climate', may I suggest that the two are very different phenomena, and that the latter is definitely responsible for the former. Here's a very easy to read NASA article: What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate? If you would care to direct your question to the points raised in this article, I am sure that we can continue our discussion. Of course, if you believe that the article, indeed NASA itself, is all part of the great "gossamer suit" conspiracy, then it would seem that we have no further ground on which to discuss this particular matter.

    There really is only one 'solution' to the problem of 'fear', Len, and that comes through the acquisition of 'knowledge'. On this subject, one excellent book that I would like to recommend is A Philosophy of Fear:

    Svendsen ultimately argues for the possibility of a brighter, less fearful future that is marked by a triumph of humanist optimism. An incisive and thought-provoking meditation, A Philosophy of Fear pulls back the curtain that shrouds dangers imagined and real, forcing us to confront our fears and why we hold to them.

    Cheerio, Marko.
     
  17. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ah you'd make a good politician mark,

    you mentioned my faith i said before when adam tried to belittle my personality by bringing belief or faith into it, that is a smoke screen (and not the sign of a person who can debate about something like keep to the subject matter) i thought we were talking about the climate change debacle that cannot be proven beyond any shadow of any doubt, the only proof that can be gained is from scientific formulation created withing the paramaters that the science chooses to use, those parameters ahve no organic background they are purely man made for the purpose to back up a story. this climate change science is what we are talking about. and when masses are forced to livei n the streets with no food etc.,. etc.,.(or does that not fit into your formula?) you'd be best served for a temporary time to build a castle with a moat around it because like i said if you have it then the mob will want to take it from you. now i will say it again i asked a couple of questions earlie that still hav not been answered. and yes of cause climate and weather go hand in hand, if temp's are increasing or lessening to new levels then it will show up in our daily lives, or do climate scientists believe that it will all become evident all of a sudden like?

    len
     
  18. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'ay again, Len

    Yes, I mentioned 'faith' in the context of your 'world view', your 'belief structure', as I did mine. My 'faith' is based on science. You do not believe (one can only assume, given that you have not been able to answer any questions concerning your 'beliefs') that the science of human-induced climate change exists. Therefore, the discussion I really want to have with you (because, personally, I do not care if you have 'faith' in the existence of a god, the tooth fairy, or any other character of fantasy), about how we are going to respond to human-induced climate change, is null and void. If you do not believe that we have a problem, then how can we have a discussion about how it is we are best going to respond?

    I am trying my very hardest to have this discussion with you, Len. Please help me out a bit and at least have a go at answering Adam's very reasonable questions. At least then we can begin to address the topic of what we are going to do about all those billion's of people that do appear to be on a collision cause with great suffering as a direct and indirect result of human-induced climate change.

    Cheerio, Mark.
     
  19. .

    " Seven Eminent Physicists; Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg are all skeptical of "man-made" global warming (AGW) alarm...."

    Here's one...

    "Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful." - Frederick Seitz

    Frederick Seitz, A.B. Mathematics, Stanford University (1932), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1934), Proctor Fellow, Princeton University (1934–1935), Instructor in Physics, University of Rochester (1935–1936), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1936–1937), Research Physicist, General Electric Company (1937–1939), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1939–1941), Associate Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1941-1942), Professor of Physics, Carnegie Institute of Technology (1942-1949), Research Professor of Physics, University of Illinois (1949-1965), Chairman, American Institute of Physics (1954-1960), President Emeritus, American Physical Society (1961), President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences (1962-1969), Graduate College Dean, University of Illinois (1964-1965 ), President Emeritus, Rockefeller University (1968-1978 ), Franklin Medal (1965), American Institute of Physics Compton Medal (1970), National Medal of Science (1973)





    .
     
  20. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "the granddaddy of global-warming skeptics"

    "..."the granddaddy of global-warming skeptics". Seitz was once a director and shareholder of a company that operated coal-fired power plants..."

    "Dr. Seitz is a former President of the National Academy of Sciences, but the Academy disassociated itself from Seitz in 1998 when Seitz headed up a report designed to look like an NAS journal article saying that carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate. The report, which was supposedly signed by 15,000 scientists, advocated the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol. The NAS went to unusual lengths to publically distance itself from Seitz' article..."

    Source: ExxonSecrets Factsheet - Frederick Seitz
     

Share This Page

-->