Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
wibble

climate change denial

Recommended Posts

"These kinds of discussions (Along with the Man Caused Global Warming Hoax) have ZERO to do with truth.. EVER..."

I just snipped this bit of science denying from BK in another thread.

Could Blitz or one of the other creationists (it always seems to be creationists who also deny anthropogenic climate change for some reason) explain what is wrong with the following empirical facts:

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has greatly increased the amount of CO2, methane, CFCs and other gases in the atmosphere.

These gases are known to have the effect of trapping heat in the atmosphere.

The global average temperature has been measured to have increased since the early 1900s and the rate of increase has accelerated in the last few decades.

Given the above facts, why would you deny, or even doubt what the climate scientists are telling us ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wibble said:

Could Blitz or one of the other creationists (it always seems to be creationists who also deny anthropogenic climate change for some reason) explain what is wrong with the following empirical facts:

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has greatly increased the amount of CO2, methane, CFCs and other gases in the atmosphere.

These gases are known to have the effect of trapping heat in the atmosphere.

The global average temperature has been measured to have increased since the early 1900s and the rate of increase has accelerated in the last few decades

I am not sure how this covers EvC issues, it seems to be an attempt to try and falsely claim a pattern of science-denial for creationists like when you try and compare only creationists to flat earthers. Though perhaps I am being overly cynical what with your history here at EFF, of using propaganda against us and trying to define creationists as the ones with all the negative traits but never evolutionists. :rolleyes:

In fact creationists don't deny science facts, just conjecture and hypothetics, or inferences from facts.

The fact human activity has increased gas in the atmosphere if scientifically provable, is an accepted fact. Trapping heat in the atmosphere also seems like a science fact, the final fact is also accepted by those creationists that don't accept man-made climate change as far as I can tell. So there seems no denial of the science if you can accept that science without accepting a certain conclusion P.

If they accept those three apparent facts, the science itself is not denied just what it means, as argued by scientistists, is denied.

It seems the only "science denying" is that part to do with inference based on the facts. (Disclaimer: I neither confirm nor deny man is changing the climate) The question is, is it science denial to simply disagree with a likely conclusion from the facts? Not necessarily. in fact many mainstreamists within science deny or doubt conclusions about science all of the time. Does that mean mainstream evolutionist scientists are science deniers? 

Opinion: I am just saying that in mainstream science, obviously there is a philosophy that everything can be explained by science, and because this goes hand in hand with materialism this means that a portion of creationists have become distrustful of the conclusions the mainstream scientists come up with because we have seen the astronomical non sequiturs of evolutionogenesis inferred by them, and we as creationists certainly don't accept mainstream sciences ASSUMPTION that everything has a scientific cause, as, "science". That is simply a materialist philosophy, so we deny philosophy.

Creationists are in fact purist-science. We only accept operational science which uses provable deduction, because logically philosophy-based sciences such as evolution, do not prove their claims, they only use circumstantial evidence, and induce. So creationists are if anything, correctly termed, "epistemically humble". We employ epistemic humility in science, by accepting a definition of science whereby science is limited and is only a tool for operational science. Historical or inferred propositions or stories, are not, "science" by our definition, so we only deny conjecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about the title either, "climate change denial" makes it seem like creationists that don't accept man is changing the climate, would deny that the climate changes and is changing. The climate has always been changing, and the fact they would still accept the climate can and is changing, is proof they do in fact not, "deny" the facts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

I am not sure how this covers EvC issues, it seems to be an attempt to try and falsely claim a pattern of science-denial for creationists like when you try and compare only creationists to flat earthers. Though perhaps I am being overly cynical what with your history here at EFF, of using propaganda against us and trying to define creationists as the ones with all the negative traits but never evolutionists. :rolleyes:

I saw nothing about flat earthers in Wibble's OP.

To the best of my knowledge, most of those who deny climate change .... and especially anthropocentric climate change are creationists.   I guess we could ask list members to chime in on this, but I don't recall seeing anyone on the evolution side deny the Earth is getting warmer and the warming is caused by human activity. 

 

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

In fact creationists don't deny science facts, just conjecture and hypothetics, or inferences from facts.

The fact human activity has increased gas in the atmosphere if scientifically provable, is an accepted fact. Trapping heat in the atmosphere also seems like a science fact, the final fact is also accepted by those creationists that don't accept man-made climate change as far as I can tell. So there seems no denial of the science if you can accept that science without accepting a certain conclusion P.

So creationists can agree that green-house gases are increasing in the atmosphere.  They can also agree that such gases will trap heat in the atmosphere.  Yet they can scientifically deny that human activity has anything at all to do with global warming.   :think:

Well, I guess that is logically allowable even if they are unable to point to an alternative explanation.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is that if you accept the data and question the conclusion, shouldn't you be ready to provide an alternative explanation and supporting evidence for it?

 

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

If they accept those three apparent facts, the science itself is not denied just what it means, as argued by scientistists, is denied.

It seems the only "science denying" is that part to do with inference based on the facts. (Disclaimer: I neither confirm nor deny man is changing the climate) The question is, is it science denial to simply disagree with a likely conclusion from the facts? Not necessarily. in fact many mainstreamists within science deny or doubt conclusions about science all of the time. Does that mean mainstream evolutionist scientists are science deniers? 

To the best of my knowledge, few mainsteam scientists deny climate change.  If fact, I would go so far to say NONE do.  There are a few who may dispute the cause of global warming, but none deny it's taking place.

I would also point out that mainstream scientists may dispute a few specific points ..... but not the findings of multiple diverse independent lines of evidence.

 

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

Opinion: I am just saying that in mainstream science, obviously there is a philosophy that everything can be explained by science, ....

That is not entirely correct.  Scientists are well aware that there are many things that can not be explained by science.  There are also some things that will (probably) NEVER be explained by science.

 

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

....  and because this goes hand in hand with materialism this means that a portion of creationists have become distrustful of the conclusions the mainstream scientists come up with because we have seen the astronomical non sequiturs of evolutionogenesis inferred by them, and we as creationists certainly don't accept mainstream sciences ASSUMPTION that everything has a scientific cause, as, "science". That is simply a materialist philosophy, so we deny philosophy.

Then make your argument in the halls of philosophy and theology, not physics, geology, astronomy, etc......

 

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

Creationists are in fact purist-science. We only accept operational science which uses provable deduction, because logically philosophy-based sciences such as evolution, do not prove their claims, they only use circumstantial evidence, and induce. So creationists are if anything, correctly termed, "epistemically humble". We employ epistemic humility in science, by accepting a definition of science whereby science is limited and is only a tool for operational science. Historical or inferred propositions or stories, are not, "science" by our definition, so we only deny conjecture.

First:  Creationist scientists (who work for creationist ministries) make a formal statement that any evidence in conflict with a literal reading of Genesis is INVALID BY DEFINITION.  To me, that is the exact opposite of "epistemic humility."   It is also not merely UN-scientific, it is ANTI-scientific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 8:46 PM, piasan said:

So creationists can agree that green-house gases are increasing in the atmosphere.  They can also agree that such gases will trap heat in the atmosphere.  Yet they can scientifically deny that human activity has anything at all to do with global warming.   :think:

Well, I guess that is logically allowable even if they are unable to point to an alternative explanation.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is that if you accept the data and question the conclusion, shouldn't you be ready to provide an alternative explanation and supporting evidence for it?

Exactly.

So how do the creationists respond to this ? With silence so it seems..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 1:22 PM, wibble said:

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has greatly increased the amount of CO2, methane, CFCs and other gases in the atmosphere.

These gases are known to have the effect of trapping heat in the atmosphere.

The global average temperature has been measured to have increased since the early 1900s and the rate of increase has accelerated in the last few decades.

 

So it seems some of your statements can be questioned, for example CMI have said this;

Quote

Analysis of temperatures from many locations, excluding those affected by urban growth,2 show a slight average (see Myth 4) global increase over the last century of about 0.5 degrees C. Whether this increase is due to normal climate cycles over the centuries, changes in the Sun’s activity,3 natural CO2 emissions, or man-caused CO2 emissions is the subject of fierce debate. However, the earth began warming following the end of “The Little Ice Age” (about 1850), well before the increase in CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuels.4 In fact, global temperatures have fallen over the past eight years, despite increases in emissions.

As you can see, the earth began warming after the little ice age, so your conclusion it is because of C02, doesn't follow and would be a presentism fallacy. Example of fallacy; "it says bats were birds in the bible because it lists them as birds." - the fallacy occurs when you put something modern or before it's time, into the argument. In this case you would be using the term, "bird" in the modern context rather than the original hebrew word, "owph" which referred to things that fly. Another example is expecting the word "dinosaur" to be used in the bible.

That doesn't mean it can't be C02 either. It just means logically your conclusion C02 caused it does not follow since the warming began before the C02 increase. CMI admit that C02 levels have risen, but it seems the error in your argument is to then say that this is the only cause of warming, or the major factor of warming.

And;

Quote

Myth 1: CO2 is a pollutant. Wrong. Other things coming out of smokestacks and car exhausts are indeed pollutants; things both harmful and undesirable. Examples are:

  1. Sulfur dioxide, which returns to us as sulfuric acid in rain, and
  2. Soot, particles of carbon that blacken the landscape and get into our lungs.

Such pollutants can be greatly reduced, and should be. But carbon dioxide, a colorless, odorless gas, is a God-designed part of the cycle of life. We do (and must) exhale it with every breath. Plants do (and must) “inhale” it in order to make all of their solid tissue: leaves, wood, bark, roots, fruit, seed, etc. It is amazing that the green we see around us comes from the tiny amount of carbon dioxide in the air today: 387 parts per million, just 0.0387% of all the molecules in the air (as at March 2009). The amount of CO2 in the air would have to increase some hundredfold, say to 30,000 parts per million (3%), before it would become a problem to our breathing.

Higher CO2 levels actually improve plant growth and productivity. There has been a substantial increase in the productivity of the world’s crops and forests due to the increased carbon dioxide concentrations, contributing to the food and fiber production to meet the needs of the growing human population.1

Conclusion: I myself am personally not that interested in this issue and confess haven't read that much about it, but it seems to me that yet again CMI's critical thinking is better than yours. That may be because they are qualified scientists of course.

Wibble, it seems to me they offer very real reasons to doubt the theories we are being told by mainstream scientists about C02. Without some measurable experimental science which can show C02 is the grand cause of heating, without some way to test, I am starting to get the same feeling I get with evolution. Sure, the "picture" they paint sounds sort of right, but you just smell something fishy. What is the problem? The problem is it's usually a case of, "close but no cigar" with mainstream science. That is the essence of sophistry, which is just fallacious reasoning which SOUNDS correct because it isn't totally unreasonable, and does "sort of" fit.

After reading this article I think I lean more towards doubting manmade global warming caused by C02. 

https://creation.com/global-warming-facts-and-myths

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 8:46 PM, piasan said:

So creationists can agree that green-house gases are increasing in the atmosphere.  They can also agree that such gases will trap heat in the atmosphere.  Yet they can scientifically deny that human activity has anything at all to do with global warming.

Yes, because if heating is not substantial enough to actually cause it, the conclusion can be wrong even if the science is right.

For example CMI accept C02 has increased. They accept gas traps gas in the atmosphere, they accept it may heat up things I imagine, however C02 represents 0.0387% of all the molecules in the air.

Think about it in these terms.

mike has a small radiator, he has had it since March and has switched it on every day since that time, in his garden. Since that time it has got warmer and warmer, how then can we deny that his radiator is making it ever hotter as July approaches? After all WE KNOW his radiator gives off heat, you can't even touch it, it's so piping hot!

Although this analogy is OTT, and absurd, it shows the same potential error with the C02 argument. There is an assumption that it is the heat from C02 emissions which is the grand cause, but it would seem even before there was any great carbon footprint the earth was warming up anyway, so how can we tell?

All I am saying really Piasan, is there is a possibility here that the conclusion it's all down to C02, is possibly a wrong conclusion. But yes, you can accept all the science without adopting that conclusion. You can accept C02 is rising and has risen. You can even accept it causes heating, you can even accept man is contributing to the levels, but you don't have to accept it is the cause of global warming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 2:46 PM, piasan said:

So creationists can agree that green-house gases are increasing in the atmosphere.  They can also agree that such gases will trap heat in the atmosphere.  Yet they can scientifically deny that human activity has anything at all to do with global warming.   :think:

Well, I guess that is logically allowable even if they are unable to point to an alternative explanation.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is that if you accept the data and question the conclusion, shouldn't you be ready to provide an alternative explanation and supporting evidence for it?

9 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

Yes, because if heating is not substantial enough to actually cause it, the conclusion can be wrong even if the science is right.

For example CMI accept C02 has increased. They accept gas traps gas in the atmosphere, they accept it may heat up things I imagine, however C02 represents 0.0387% of all the molecules in the air. 

 

OK .... As of the date of the article you used, it was 0.0387%.   We normally use "parts per million" (ppm) for CO2 concentrations.  That would be 387 ppm.  According to NASA

"Half of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the last 300 years has occurred since 1980, and one quarter of it since 2000. Methane concentrations have increased 2.5 times since the start of the Industrial Age, with almost all of that occurring since 1980. .... The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is currently at nearly 412 parts per million (ppm) and rising. This represents a 48 percent increase since the beginning of the Industrial Age, when the concentration was near 280 ppm, and an 11 percent increase since 2000, when it was near 370 ppm."

So, even though atmospheric CO2 is a low percentage, it has increased by nearly 50% in the last couple hundred years.  Methane, (an even more potent greenhouse gas) has more than doubled.

 

9 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

Think about it in these terms.

mike has a small radiator, he has had it since March and has switched it on every day since that time, in his garden. Since that time it has got warmer and warmer, how then can we deny that his radiator is making it ever hotter as July approaches? After all WE KNOW his radiator gives off heat, you can't even touch it, it's so piping hot!

Although this analogy is OTT, and absurd, it shows the same potential error with the C02 argument. There is an assumption that it is the heat from C02 emissions which is the grand cause, but it would seem even before there was any great carbon footprint the earth was warming up anyway, so how can we tell? 

Well, there are two main drivers of Earth's atmospheric temperature.   Solar input and atmospheric conditions.  From https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=8   :

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.

Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008. 

TSI vs. T

Then there is this information from https://sealevel.info/co2_logscale_with_1960_highlighted.html
Atmospheric CO2 level (log scale)

Notice, CO2 levels have been pretty stable until about 1880 then began to increase dramatically.

9 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

All I am saying really Piasan, is there is a possibility here that the conclusion it's all down to C02, is possibly a wrong conclusion. But yes, you can accept all the science without adopting that conclusion. You can accept C02 is rising and has risen. You can even accept it causes heating, you can even accept man is contributing to the levels, but you don't have to accept it is the cause of global warming. 

I guess it is "possible" that the causative relationship between CO2 and atmspheric heating is a wrong conclusion.  You can also reject it.  But if you do reject it, you should be prepared to provide an alternate explanation for the observed increases in global temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mike the wiz said:
On 2/6/2020 at 1:22 PM, wibble said:

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has greatly increased the amount of CO2, methane, CFCs and other gases in the atmosphere.

These gases are known to have the effect of trapping heat in the atmosphere.

The global average temperature has been measured to have increased since the early 1900s and the rate of increase has accelerated in the last few decades.

 

So it seems some of your statements can be questioned, for example CMI have said this;

Quote

Analysis of temperatures from many locations, excluding those affected by urban growth,2 show a slight average (see Myth 4) global increase over the last century of about 0.5 degrees C. Whether this increase is due to normal climate cycles over the centuries, changes in the Sun’s activity,3 natural CO2 emissions, or man-caused CO2 emissions is the subject of fierce debate. However, the earth began warming following the end of “The Little Ice Age” (about 1850), well before the increase in CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuels.4 In fact, global temperatures have fallen over the past eight years, despite increases in emissions.

Makes me laugh that you run to CMI every time you want to answer something. And you class yourself as objective ? This article isn't even the view of CMI, it's the viewpoint of Russell Humphreys, who is most certainly not a climate scientist. Do you think his unqualified opinion on the subject eclipses those of practically every scientist involved in climate research ? Do you think the Little Ice Age is something that they are not aware of ?

The CMI article was written in 2009 and it wasn't even true then that global temps had fallen over the last eight years (I think there was a slowdown in the increase because of a phase of ocean circulation patterns that carried heat into the deep ocean). Temps have risen sharply since then. Surely you are aware that all the hottest ever years are all clustered in the last decade or so ?

Here is a graph of proxy reconstructed temperatures from the last 2000 yrs. The black line since 1850 is the instrumental record.

1199px-2000-Year-Temperature-Comparison.

Also, previous warm and cold periods (including the LIA) during the last 2000 yrs have not been synchronous global events. Temperature anomalies varied regionally at different times over the centuries, while the recent warming has happened over 98% of the world's surface.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02179-2

10 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

I myself am personally not that interested in this issue and confess haven't read that much about it, but it seems to me that yet again CMI's critical thinking is better than yours. That may be because they are qualified scientists of course.

I am just as qualified as Humphreys on this particular subject (neither of us are climate scientists). That article he wrote for CMI is awful and he doesn't present any alternative theory as to why the Earth is warming if it isn't down to increase in greenhouse gases. He builds a strawman by refuting that melting icecaps will drown the continents when no one is saying that. It is lower lying areas that are at risk. He spouts some nonsense about "some" secular geophysicists being aware of higher CO2 levels in the past and being afraid to speak out when its common knowledge that this was the case during periods of Earth's history (such as during the Jurassic). Bizarrely, he claims that the interpretation that there have been many Ice Ages in the past (in contrast to the ridiculous YEC belief that one ice age lasting just 500 yrs accounts for the evidence) is down to misinterpretation of carbon dating by scientists. What has carbon dating got to do with any ice age prior to the current one ?

Now have you actually got any alternative theory as to why the world is warming if you are going to side with Humphreys? If not, why wouldn't you accept what is universally agreed by actual climate scientists who are doing the actual research ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wibble said:

Makes me laugh that you run to CMI every time you want to answer something. And you class yourself as objective ?

I don't, "run to CMI". This sentence is a classic example of rhetorical spin which you apply to my actions (superimposed). I remember a scene in the movie, "Rambo" that gives a prime example. Rambo hamstrings a team of inept police officers and the reporter, to make the local police look good, says this; "only their skilled training in police work saved their lives." But in fact Rambo deliberately let them live and could have killed them all, it had nothing to do with the spin he put on it.

In the same way PRETENDING my motives are, to "run to CMI" is simply to attach spin to my motives. It seems there was no point in your personal attack here, it was unprovoked. Since I have said it doesn't matter to me if your theory of manmade climate change is true or false, one has to wonder why you feel so defensive for no apparent reason. We can see a clear distinction with yours and Piasan's post. He and I are just discussing the matter without making it personal but as always you can't help but let me feel the lash of your tongue. 

The actual reason I went to CMI, is to see what their position is because generally speaking they are a better example of critical thinking and can give a fresh take and perspective on a matter, and reveal things not put forward by the media, etc...I know this from experience, having actually read CMI properly, over the years. I can pick up on things pertaining to critical thinking and the veracity of arguments, that I can notice in different people groups, where there are various nuances and biases. CMI are not perfect and I can offer proof I disagree with them in a recent post I made as "Michael S", as they can be a bit snobbish and superior sometimes, and let over-caution make them seem exclusivist. I wrote a post in the article recently published about the "Red Sea Miracle".

But in simple Wibble-world where everything is black and white (rather than in mike's one million shades of grey world), mike is simply someone that agrees with everything CMI says and runs to them. :rolleyes: (in fact most of my arguments I create myself, have you even read my blog, it contains very little you would find at CMI)

Yes, believe it or not I am not designing my worldview to purposefully agree with everything other creationists say. They, like evolutionists, can make just as many mistakes and say many things I don't agree with. 

1 hour ago, wibble said:

Do you think his unqualified opinion on the subject eclipses those of practically every scientist involved in climate research ?

 But this is a bait and switch fallacy, because you have changed the matter I actually talked about (critical thinking), to the subject of being a climatologist.

If you read my comments properly, it was actually critical thinking I was referring to.

I said; "I myself am personally not that interested in this issue (climate change) and confess haven't read that much about it, but it seems to me that yet again CMI's critical thinking is better than yours"

So you SWITCHED the issue I was talking about to "climate research". I don't think Humphreys knows more, I think Humphreys puts forward a critical analysis the climate scientists would not be willing to put forward, like when evolution scientists won't admit that something reasonably falsifies evolution but instead create ad-hoc conjecture and rescue devices, proving they are prone to fallacies in logical reasoning.

If science is the dots, joining them is the critical thinking, and in my experience over the years of reading mainstream scientists, generally they are not that much improved in their critical analysis of the science facts, than the average man. Certainly CMI generally speaking at least, avoid many of the fallacies evolutionist scientists indulge such as circular reasoning, and epithets such as, "evolutionary change" or, "human like" or, "red blood cell like". And many other errors CMI can spot. 

1 hour ago, wibble said:

Here is a graph of proxy reconstructed temperatures from the last 2000 yrs. The blank line since 1850 is the instrumental record.

Was the medieval warm period because of manmade C02 caused by the industrial revolution that came centuries after it? And if I admitted to the heating, and didn't deny it has increased, then why show the graph? But the graph won't prove it was manmade C02 that caused it. It might indicate it, it might match it, or correlate, but that doesn't prove the case.

Also you can "make something" of an increase and overlook another period of increase without the C02 (bias).

Logically if there is a possibility climate change and heating can take place without C02 from mankind, and if increases happened in the past without manmade C02 emissions, then logically because it is factual it can happen without that, it is at the very least a possibility that it isn't the main cause. otherwise you are ipso facto, then claiming that it is, "impossible", even though it has happened before! (bizarre) How can it be impossible if the heat increase happened before in the medieval warm period without C02 from the industrial revolution and afterwards?

Note my conclusion isn't that it is NOT the main cause, just that it is possibly not, according to logical rules. Whereas it is NOT possible that oxygen doesn't exist, or that germs don't exist, or the boiling point of water, or downforce. So then it is reasonable if something is not, "certainly true", for a rationalist like me to have a reasonable doubt or sit on the fence if they believe certain knowledge is not in place. (epistemic humility)

Or do you want me to pretend I know things I don't know? 

1 hour ago, wibble said:

That article he wrote for CMI is awful and he doesn't present any alternative theory as to why the Earth is warming if it isn't down to increase in greenhouse gases

He would only provide an alternative theory if he was rejecting the theory you are talking about. Hence your fallacy is begging the question, because you are hiding the fact that you are assuming that his position is certainly against your position by 100%. But that isn't what he said, his actual words were this, (in the overly optimistic hope you understand english, ho, ho, don't you know)

"Whether this increase is due to normal climate cycles over the centuries, changes in the Sun’s activity, natural CO2 emissions, or man-caused CO2 emissions is the subject of fierce debate"

The term, "whether" highly indicates that his opinion is that there isn't the knowledge to know for sure which one, so there are a number of possibilities on the table including manmade C02 contributions. So then for those who understand english the alternatives were mentioned in this quote. 

But there is more to this, in that logically speaking the scenario might not actually be a disjunctive syllogism where there is a logical disjunction, and if the scenario is NOT that then this is potentially a limited choice fallacy, if we say, "either this or that", because if in actual fact it is a MIXTURE of all those causes, then you cannot blame it only on the one option. (which highlights why your own binary thinking is not the best critical thinking because we don't necessarily have to insist there is one cause because there are it would seem many things which can potentially increase heat, which are many causes.) 

1 hour ago, wibble said:

Now have you actually got any alternative theory as to why the world is warming if you are going to side with Humphreys?

So can you only think in black and white binary terms then? You can only see Humphreys on one side and you on the other, even though he suggested several possible answers to climate change, one of them being C02 emissions? Why can't I simply say that because there are potential causes, I don't have to favour one over the other? If I don't have the knowledge isn't it okay to simply admit it?

1 hour ago, wibble said:

why wouldn't you accept what is universally agreed by actual climate scientists who are doing the actual research ?

Until you separate the black and white into shades of grey you will continue to think in simplistic terms. Can't you see yet that I am not, "rejecting" their research, I am only rejecting the notion that their conclusion is "true to the point it's impossible it isn't true".

To highlight this so that you can understand what I mean, it is impossible that oxygen isn't true. It wouldn't matter if we sealed a rat under a dome one million times, the result would always be the same, exotic air is proven to exist. It is impossible that downforce doesn't exist. We can put an F1 car with aerodynamics on a track, one with wings and one without, and every lap, even if we run one trillion laps, the results will be the same. It is impossible that there is not a force at work whereby things are attracted to the centre of the earth. We can throw Dawkins from a cliff and all the anti-theists on earth, none of them will magically not fall to the ground. It is no longer possible for these things to be, "perhaps possibly false".

That is the difference, the climate change issue is not proven. "universally accepted" is loaded terminology in favour of an indirect argument. It is a tautology that all secular scientists will accept what secular science officially puts forward. It tells us nothing more than the fact secular scientists believe in secular science. But this tells us nothing since they joined because they believed in science. The chances most would not accept what they believe in as part of that science team, is about the chances of expecting Trump haters to vote for Trump.

I personally think it is a compelling case, and seems awfully coincidental if man does have nothing to do with it. But then it seems to me I simply have no way to know for sure. 

Learning when the law of the excluded middle doesn't apply might help you to not see things in black and white. 

EXAMPLE of the law NOT applying;

Lawyer: "mike do you think he is bad or not?"

The law doesn't apply in this example because a human being can be a mixture of bad and good traits. It would be simplistic to just say, "yes or no".

Lawyer: "mike the issue is whether animals adapt and change or they don't, if they do it's evolution now do you accept they change or don't you, yes or no".

But the changes are superficial and not at all equivalent to the large scale anatomical changes that would have to occur, so you can accept they change without accepting they change to the point of science fiction. 

Conclusion: If I understood correctly, it seems Piasan can acknowledge that you can accept the science they tell you is factual without necessarily accepting the official conclusion. Can you acknowledge that? can you acknowledge that I haven't rejected any obvious science information which is factually true? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piasan, you have to be careful to not only focus on the graphs that don't show a correlation with solar activity, but you have to also look at the ones that do;  we can all show charts that are either favourable to a conclusion or unfavourable. For example I can show this chart on the left, where C02 doesn't match as well as the solar activity, or I can show the medieval warm period where there was no industrial revolution. 

5256fig2and3_large.png

The national academy of sciences also approved a graph that OMITS the medieval warm period and little ice age to PUSH manmade global warming, here; it was published in "nature".

5256fig4_large.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, piasan said:

The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008. 

But is that a sound conditional implication?

For example the change is relatively short in terms of time, if you leave a hot room heated by the sun, it will take a while to cool, and even if the sun goes down depending on humidity it might not change the temperature immediately. Isn't there also a possibility that heat is trapped by the increased C02? It seems the period he notes is too short perhaps to show a trend, at least POSSIBLY, if there is the chance of an insulating effect. The earth by analogy, can be seen as a house which is very well insulated. 

It's just a suggested possibility. Note I am objective because I suggest C02 might play a part here as my suggestion, showing despite Wibble's waffle, that I am just looking at the facts and asking the questions that need to be asked. I hope you can see past that type of cynicism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mike the wiz said:
14 hours ago, wibble said:

Makes me laugh that you run to CMI every time you want to answer something. And you class yourself as objective ?

I don't, "run to CMI". This sentence is a classic example of rhetorical spin which you apply to my actions (superimposed). I remember a scene in the movie, "Rambo" that gives a prime example. Rambo hamstrings a team of inept police officers and the reporter, to make the local police look good, says this; "only their skilled training in police work saved their lives." But in fact Rambo deliberately let them live and could have killed them all, it had nothing to do with the spin he put on it.

In the same way PRETENDING my motives are, to "run to CMI" is simply to attach spin to my motives. It seems there was no point in your personal attack here, it was unprovoked. Since I have said it doesn't matter to me if your theory of manmade climate change is true or false, one has to wonder why you feel so defensive for no apparent reason.

Oh the irony of you accusing me of being defensive when you roll off a couple of paragraphs merely because I said you run to CMI for your answers (which you do on scientific matters). You have a pretty low threshold for what constitutes a "personal attack" and "the lash of my tongue". And you are hypocritical as well because in pretty much every post to me you make some barbed remark questioning my intelligence and/or my credentials.

13 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

He would only provide an alternative theory if he was rejecting the theory you are talking about. Hence your fallacy is begging the question, because you are hiding the fact that you are assuming that his position is certainly against your position by 100%. But that isn't what he said, his actual words were this, (in the overly optimistic hope you understand english, ho, ho, don't you know)

"Whether this increase is due to normal climate cycles over the centuries, changes in the Sun’s activity, natural CO2 emissions, or man-caused CO2 emissions is the subject of fierce debate"

This is the problem, there is no fierce debate about whether anthropogenic warming is real between the actual scientists, not because of some excuse you might proffer of a neurotic agreement, but because of the overwhelming weight of the data. It's just an example of Humphrey's intellectual dishonesty. Any fierce debate between biased and uninformed members of the genera public is immaterial.

We all know that science doesn't prove things, only disproves but it seems to me that you are hiding behind that as a reason to ignore the weight of evidence that is strongly in favour of human induced climate change being real, and just sit on the fence leaning towards the opinion of some numpty on CMI. And of course the likes of Blitzking actively deny humans have anything to do with it but aren't able to come up with anything rational to explain their position. It is this ignorance and dogmatism that threatens large sections of the world's population if we choose to pretend everything is ok and not curb emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

That doesn't mean it can't be C02 either. It just means logically your conclusion C02 caused it does not follow since the warming began before the C02 increase.

Just to boil it down to a few sentences, the Earth's temperature involves many factors. For decades, scientists have been looking for factors to explain the current rise in global temperatures. At the end of the day, no one has yet found a factor that can explain the current warming and the rate of warming observed, except for one factor: CO2.

As for our contribution to the increase in CO2, this can be objectively measured with isotope ratios as the ratios are different in fossil fuels than in the atmosphere. When scientists crunch the numbers the results are that about 98-99% of the increase is man made.

While qualified skeptics do exist, they are extremely rare. For all practical purposes there is no debate in the scientific community that man-made global warming is true.

3 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

Piasan, you have to be careful to not only focus on the graphs that don't show a correlation with solar activity, but you have to also look at the ones that do;  we can all show charts that are either favourable to a conclusion or unfavourable. For example I can show this chart on the left, where C02 doesn't match as well as the solar activity, or I can show the medieval warm period where there was no industrial revolution. 

5256fig2and3_large.png

 

The first thing to note is that the graph is about "arctic" temperatures, not global temperatures. Pi's graph was about global temperatures, and is accurate. I'll note that while the coloring in your graphs is probably a layman addition, the actual data behind it is genuine and the original graphs were done by a someone from the University of Southern California. (source)

I found this paper explaining the temperature data for the arctic as expressed in your above graph: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02645

The short version is that they break apart the century into three periods, early, middle, and late (their words). In the early part of the century the best fit models attribute it to natural causes like the sun and volcanoes resulting in a warming trend. From around 1940-1970, the "middle" period, there is a drop in temperature. The models that best explain this indicate that this is due to human activity of releasing aerosols into the atmosphere, which actually lowered the arctic temperatures despite a rise in green house gases. From about 1970 onward, the "late" period, greenhouse gases overtake aerosols in their contribution to arctic temperatures as the main factor involved, and we see a warming trend. And yes, they did include solar activity in their models.

So, your example of arctic temperatures is a good example of how climate scientists don't automatically assume that CO2 is responsible for everything, that they do in fact consider other causes and accept other causes when appropriate, and how the data does in fact indicate that the recent warming is caused by man made greenhouse gases, at least in your specific case of the arctic.

As for our recent global temperature increase, as Pi's graph demonstrates, solar activity cannot be the cause.

Quote

There is an assumption that it is the heat from C02 emissions which is the grand cause, but it would seem even before there was any great carbon footprint the earth was warming up anyway, so how can we tell?

Because there are many factors involved in climate, and when climate scientists look at those factors none of them can explain the current warming trend except for CO2.

Quote

For example CMI accept C02 has increased. They accept gas traps gas in the atmosphere, they accept it may heat up things I imagine, however C02 represents 0.0387% of all the molecules in the air.

Think about it in these terms.

mike has a small radiator, he has had it since March and has switched it on every day since that time, in his garden. Since that time it has got warmer and warmer, how then can we deny that his radiator is making it ever hotter as July approaches? After all WE KNOW his radiator gives off heat, you can't even touch it, it's so piping hot!

Just as a general point, consuming 0.0002% of your body weight in arsenic has the potential to kill you. Even small changes can have big effects.

I know Pi touched on this explaining that we have had almost a 50% increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, but I'd like to expand on that a little. As you know, the Earth releases heat and greenhouse gases trap that heat warming the planet, but not all greenhouse gases are created equal. The heat released from Earth are at all different wavelengths, and different molecules will trap in heat at different wavelengths. So adding in extra CO2 is helping to trap in wavelengths that would otherwise escape, even if those CO2 concentrations are relatively small compared to the rest of the atmosphere. I'll also point out that it has less to do with relative percentages and more to do with absolute numbers - i.e. the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.

However, that is not the end of the story, and increasing CO2 has other effects. The biggest greenhouse gas contributor on Earth is water vapor, and the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is positively proportional with the temperature. When the temperature rises, say from an increase in CO2 trapping wavelengths that slip past water vapor, more water from the oceans can evaporate to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere creating a positive feedback loop. This, and other positive feedback mechanisms, is why scientists say that even if we could wave a magic wand and stop all man made CO2 emissions, the temperature of the Earth will continue to rise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 3:20 PM, wibble said:

Makes me laugh that you run to CMI every time you want to answer something.

On 2/13/2020 at 4:47 PM, mike the wiz said:

I don't, "run to CMI".

 

"Run to" may not be the best way to say it.

But it is amusing that you complained about creationists being stereotyped as climate change deniers in your first comment when the only source you have provided is a creationist ministry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 2:05 PM, piasan said:

.... there are two main drivers of Earth's atmospheric temperature.   Solar input and atmospheric conditions.  From https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=8   :

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.

Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008. 

TSI vs. T

I guess it is "possible" that the causative relationship between CO2 and atmspheric heating is a wrong conclusion.  You can also reject it.  But if you do reject it, you should be prepared to provide an alternate explanation for the observed increases in global temperatures.

On 2/13/2020 at 5:12 PM, mike the wiz said:

But is that a sound conditional implication?

For example the change is relatively short in terms of time, if you leave a hot room heated by the sun, it will take a while to cool, and even if the sun goes down depending on humidity it might not change the temperature immediately.

 

Unless you have some other mechanism for changing atmospheric temperatures, it's about as sound as it gets.  It's really quite simple.   If we have two major factors determining atmospheric temperature (T), solar input (S) and atmospheric conditions (A).  Both are direct relationships in that an increase of S or A will increase T.

Now, if S decreases and T increases, what accounts for the change of T?

Yes, it will take the room a while to cool.... and the cooling could possibly be very slight.  At a minimum, with decreasing solar energy input, we should expect some reduction in the rate of increase.  It is worth note, the temperature increase continues as if the reduction of solar energy didn't even happen.  What that suggests is that if energy input had been constant, the rate of increase would be accelerating.

And it's not just that 8 years.  Look at the graphs again.  Temperature has been increasing while solar output has been decreasing since the 1960's.

 

On 2/13/2020 at 5:12 PM, mike the wiz said:

It's just a suggested possibility. Note I am objective because I suggest C02 might play a part here as my suggestion, showing despite Wibble's waffle, that I am just looking at the facts and asking the questions that need to be asked. I hope you can see past that type of cynicism. 

I can understand the cynicism.

That skeptics don't propose an alternative explanation beyond "it could be something else" reminds me of an exchange I had with Laurie Appleton.  We were discussing the circumstellar ring around Sn1987a and I explained what we would see if the ring were closer than; the same distance as; or farther than the star.  Laurie kept saying I wasn't considering all the possibilities .... but he couldn't produce anything other than closer, the same distance, and farther.

If you want to be skeptical, that's fine.  But I think we're reached a level of scientific consensus on global warming and man's role in it that it's time for the skeptics to produce an alternative explanation and their supporting evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 5:02 PM, mike the wiz said:

Piasan, you have to be careful to not only focus on the graphs that don't show a correlation with solar activity, but you have to also look at the ones that do;  we can all show charts that are either favourable to a conclusion or unfavourable. For example I can show this chart on the left, where C02 doesn't match as well as the solar activity, or I can show the medieval warm period where there was no industrial revolution. 

5256fig2and3_large.png

 

Goku has already commented on some of the problems with these graphs.

I just want to remind you that the ones I provided were a running 11 year average, which serves to minimize impact due to the solar cycle.  We are, after, talking about climate which is much more than seasonal peaks and valleys.

The second thing is that the graph is of regional (Arctic) surface temperatures.  We're talking about global atmospheric temperatures.  Surface temperatures will be much more responsive to solar input than CO2 concentration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, piasan said:

I can understand the cynicism.

That skeptics don't propose an alternative explanation beyond "it could be something else" reminds me of an exchange I had with Laurie Appleton.  We were discussing the circumstellar ring around Sn1987a and I explained what we would see if the ring were closer than; the same distance as; or farther than the star.  Laurie kept saying I wasn't considering all the possibilities .... but he couldn't produce anything other than closer, the same distance, and farther.

If you want to be skeptical, that's fine.  But I think we're reached a level of scientific consensus on global warming and man's role in it that it's time for the skeptics to produce an alternative explanation and their supporting evidence.

No you're kind of putting me in a position I'm not in, here Pi. 

There's a difference between skepticism and epistemic humility. I think you're conflating the two. Especially since one of my suggestions to you was C02 as a major role. How can someone put that forward as one of the main causes as a possibility if they are against it being C02?

If I come into a court of law it's not sceptical to take neither side if you have only heard say 20% of the case. It also seems you admit it isn't a provable case. So then for me to treat climate change DIFFERENTLY to how I would treat ANY case, intellectually would be to basically request I partake of a double standard, and treat it as a special case.

Here's some things I reiterate.

1. I don't think the scientists are, "lying", or even have an agenda pertaining to science that is innocuous in terms of the origins debate, as such but we do have the example of that science academy and, "nature" omitting the medieval warm period so that nobody would question C02 manmade global warming.. 

2. Any clear scientific facts I can accept, including the best data being for C02. (However no people against the man-induced global warming have come forward, so I would have to also hear their case.)

3. I understand because of experience in critical thinking analysis, that the scientists can be wrong in their conclusions even if their data supports their position. Other data may not (possible fallacy of exclusion) whether that data is there or as yet undiscovered. This is why I mentioned that problem of not knowing for sure based on experimental results, so of course intellectually there is a door that remains open in my mind until I hear ALL arguments and evaluate ALL data. But am I going to do that for this issue? No, because I don't really care which side is true, it doesn't really matter that much anyway in a sense because of what Goku said; the difference mankind can make now may well be negligible. What can I do? Change my lightbulbs to energy efficient? (ludicrous). You might as well ask me to stop farting.;)

15 hours ago, piasan said:

"Run to" may not be the best way to say it.

But it is amusing that you complained about creationists being stereotyped as climate change deniers in your first comment when the only source you have provided is a creationist ministry.

This is begging the question, Pi. First you mention climate change deniers then you imply that I am one because I "provided" a creationist source, as though I was providing it to take that position of denying climate change. I was providing that to get their opinions, they have real scientists at CMI, and a long list of them, so it makes sense to see what they think of the matter. 

Anyone can read back and see your reason wasn't the reason I provided the link, and the author of the article was not taking the position of denying climate change either, but it seems was taking a neutralist position. The position of saying, "could be several possibilities here or a combination" is completely rational.

It seems you guys don't go to CMI very often because it's a pretty well known thing that they don't take any official position on the global warming position because it isn't relevant to the EvC debate. So even if you quote one ministry member saying something about it, that isn't necessarily the position another may take.

14 hours ago, piasan said:

The second thing is that the graph is of regional (Arctic) surface temperatures

Captain Obvious X 2 doesn't = ignorance. 

"mike did you know your name starts with M?"

"I told him that already, I can't believe he doesn't know his name starts with M".

Seriously, guys? :rolleyes:

(I am suspicious of "nature" and some science academies because they OMITTED the medieval warm period. And I notice how utterly silent you guys are about that.) If someone wants to make a graph look like a flatline so they omit facts or misrepresent facts, hmmmm, what does that remind me of.....hmmmm, I remember these drawings in biology textbooks, with the terms, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" above them.......hmmm I remember drawings of rhodocetus with a tail fluke, when they did not find any tail bones and it could have had a tail. (IIRC)

Do I believe scientists can be untrustworthy over facts? You bet I do, after all they believe people exist because slime farted. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

(I am suspicious of "nature" and some science academies because they OMITTED the medieval warm period. And I notice how utterly silent you guys are about that.)

I didn't comment on it because I wasn't able to find the graph, and don't have time to chase it down anymore right now. Can you link to the creation article or the Nature paper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

No, because I don't really care which side is true, it doesn't really matter that much anyway in a sense because of what Goku said; the difference mankind can make now may well be negligible. What can I do? Change my lightbulbs to energy efficient? (ludicrous).

You should care, because its important. And I think you have misrepresented Goku there because he didn't say any changes we do would have a negligible effect. We can't stop future warming even we reduce emissions to zero right now but positive action can ameliorate climate change compared to a "business as usual" approach. And even you are as apathetic as you sound, why wouldn't you want to reduce your energy bill ?

4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

(I am suspicious of "nature" and some science academies because they OMITTED the medieval warm period. And I notice how utterly silent you guys are about that.)

I already told you (and provided a link that you didn't look at), that climate anomalies during the last couple thousand years such as the medieval warm period have not been global but rather regional changes over different time periods. The graph you posted, that you proclaim through your prejudice against secular science was trying to hide the medieval warm period, was doing no such thing because it is a graph of average temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere. The medieval warm period seems to have primarily been a north Atlantic phenomenon (probably due to ocean current circulation changes). See the below graph, as you can see the record for CET (Central England Temperature) clearly shows the contrast between the local and hemisphere temperatures.

Estimates-temperature-variations-Norther

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wibble:

Quote

global warming advocate Kevin Trenberth admits: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate” (p. 16). Indeed, the climate models failed to predict the 21st-century standstill, despite the fact that global CO2 emissions have continued to soar.

Also from a secular site; (highlighted in blue)

Quote

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900–1300 AD, when global temperatures were somewhat warmer than at present. Temperatures in the GISP2 ice core were about 2°F (1°C) warmer than modern temperatures (Fig. 8.14). The effects of the warm period were particularly evident in Europe, where grain crops flourished, alpine tree lines rose, many new cities arose, and the population more than doubled.

The Vikings took advantage of the climatic amelioration to colonize southern Greenland in 985 AD, when milder climates allowed favorable open-ocean conditions for navigation and fishing

 

1 hour ago, wibble said:

The medieval warm period seems to have primarily been a north Atlantic phenomenon

 

Quote

During the Medieval Warm Period, wine grapes were grown as far north as England, where growing grapes is now not feasible and about 300 miles (500 km) north of present vineyards in France and Germany. Grapes are presently grown in Germany up to elevations of about 1800 ft (560 m), but from about 1100 to 1300 AD, vineyards extended up to about 2500 ft (780 m), implying that temperatures were warmer by about 2–2.5°F (1–1.4°C). Wheat and oats were grown around Trondheim, Norway, suggesting that the climate was about 2°F (1°C) warmer than present 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

and this;

Quote

Just as the Medieval Warm Period was an obstacle to those trying to suggest that today's temperature is exceptional, and the UN and its supporters tried to abolish it with the “hockey-stick” graph, the warmer temperatures in the 1930 and 1940s were another inconvenient fact that needed to be “fixed.”

In each of the databases, the land temperatures from that period were simply adjusted downward, making it look as though the rate of warming in the 20th century was higher than it was

And finally even wicked-wiki acknowledge it, highlighted here in blue;

Quote

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region lasting from c. 950 to c. 1250.[1] It was likely[2] related to warming elsewhere[3][4][5] while some other regions were colder, such as the tropical Pacific. Average global mean temperatures have been calculated to be similar to early-mid-20th-century warming. .......Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity,

Cocnlusion: what did you think if you shown a graph only showing England I'd walk away foxed? Lol. And the northern hemisphere is half the world Wibble, notable changes would obviously occur physically in the colder parts of the world so it's an indirect argument from ignorance as there likely wasn't any physically notable effects in the southern hemisphere. Indeed, most of the populated world were in the northern hemisphere, it has most of the land mass.

Here:

Quote

The Mollwiede projection of Earth shows that there is more landmass in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere

from; http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-3/regional-temperature/explanation-2.php

There were more people to report things in the northern hemisphere because of the effects, we know there is more land mass in the north.

 

1 hour ago, wibble said:

You should care, because its important

Quote

CMI: Lawson readily admits that he is not a scientist, but notes that neither are most people who pontificate on the matter with far greater certainty. He adds: “[T]he great majority of those scientists who speak with such certainty and apparent authority about global warming and climate change, are not in fact climate scientists, or indeed Earth scientists, of any kind, and thus have no special knowledge to contribute

That bit in blue seems to apply to you. Seems you looked no further than google pertaining to the medieval warm period or deliberately pretended it didn't generally affect the globe which it generally did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wibble said:

And even you are as apathetic as you sound, why wouldn't you want to reduce your energy bill ?

:argue:Go hug a tree, wibbly wobbly. My hope isn't in this temporary system of things. "for the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are unseen are eternal."

I don't believe mankind can save mankind from ruining the world, I believe in the true saviour, the one Who made it without any pollution, but mankind said, "no thanks we know better."

And before you use the strawman, "see, you approve of destroying the earth", HORSE MANURE!!!, the bible says we are stewards of the earth, it hasn't been in the hands of Christians, it's in the hands of your side. I haven't even drove a machine for nine years, how much polluting have you done since then, lazy boy? ;)

Don't blame me for the earth sinner men have ruined. I put out less than half a hobbit's lifetime. Not that I'm trying to, because God designed me to breathe, I don't have to tape up my mouth because someone with the science of Gillian McKeith's bachelor pontificates about it from his soap box. :rotfl3:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: Of course I love God's creation, and trees, as you can see;

 

worldsample.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

No, because I don't really care which side is true, it doesn't really matter that much anyway in a sense because of what Goku said; the difference mankind can make now may well be negligible. What can I do? Change my lightbulbs to energy efficient? (ludicrous). You might as well ask me to stop farting.;)

As Wibble said that is a bit of a misrepresentation. We can certainly lessen the effects, and if we as a species get serious about it I do not think our efforts will be negligible in the long run, but it will take generations to fully realize all that we have done.

Quote

Also from a secular site..........

From one of the sites you linked to (quote in red; GHG = green house gases): https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

As has been documented during the last few decades, the increase in GHGs, especially atmospheric CO2 and methane, has caused significant warming of the atmosphere. As of 2016, the average global warming is 1.4°C above the long-term average for the 19th century (NASA, 2016). Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years (Fig. 10).

All of this heat originally comes from the Sun, but it should be pointed out that solar radiation is not constant. Increases in solar radiation can bring about temperature increases in Earth's atmosphere. For instance, during the Medieval Warm Period (c.AD 1100–1200), increased levels of solar radiation are linked with temperature increases in the Northern Hemisphere on the order of 0.6°C. Conversely, lower than average levels of solar radiation (the so-called Maunder Minimum) that occurred from the mid-1600s to early 1700s are linked with temperature decreases in the Northern Hemisphere on the order of 0.6°C below the long-term average (Shindell et al., 2001). The first decade of this millennium witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007–09. Based on previous minima in solar radiation, climate models would predict a drop in surface temperatures on Earth, but in fact global temperatures continued to increase throughout that decade. This is just another indication that the high levels of GHGs in the modern atmosphere are now the most important driver of global climate change on this planet.

 

My point is whether or not some scientist fudged the data or not by omitting the Medieval Warm Period is kind of irrelevant. You never did give a source for the graph, so it is hard for me to say much about it, but I did find a similar graph from the early 2000's from the IPCC, and according to Wiki many scientists at the time questioned the data.

At any rate, as your own source demonstrates, there are scientists out there that accept the event and that it was caused by natural factors like solar output, and at the same time (as has already been demonstrated in this thread) the current warming does not correlate with the sun or other known natural factors. I omitted the next part of the article above for brevity, but it goes into the natural cycles of interglaciation and that we should, according to the natural cycle (Milankovitch cycles), be moving into a colder period with less CO2 in the atmosphere, but that is not what is happening.

As I said in my opening post, there are many factors involved in the climate, and climate scientists are well aware of them. In addition, scientists have been looking for factors to explain the current warming, and no driving factor can explain it, except for CO2. Scientists can measure how much CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human activity, and since the beginning of the industrial revolution, something around 98-99% of the increase is from human activity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 5:22 AM, wibble said:

"These kinds of discussions (Along with the Man Caused Global Warming Hoax) have ZERO to do with truth.. EVER..."

I just snipped this bit of science denying from BK in another thread.

Could Blitz or one of the other creationists (it always seems to be creationists who also deny anthropogenic climate change for some reason) explain what is wrong with the following empirical facts:

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has greatly increased the amount of CO2, methane, CFCs and other gases in the atmosphere.

These gases are known to have the effect of trapping heat in the atmosphere.

The global average temperature has been measured to have increased since the early 1900s and the rate of increase has accelerated in the last few decades.

Given the above facts, why would you deny, or even doubt what the climate scientists are telling us ?

"Could Blitz or one of the other creationists (it always seems to be creationists who also deny anthropogenic climate change for some reason"

Could that "Some Reason" be that Creationists believe that God has taken care of the Earth and the climate for over 6000 years now and he is in full control as to what happens with the climate and NOT puny man?   

It appears that Atheists and Oval-Earthers are ALWAYS trying to promote man as having power over the climate and not God..   (For some reason) LOL

You see, NONE of this (like Evolutionism) has anything to do with science whatsoever.. It is all philosophical in nature..  it isnt a HEAD issue, it is a HEART issue...

Here are a few links that you wont read..

https://www.city-journal.org/global-warming

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms