I protest. We have used Global Warming (GW), Global Cooling(GB), and Global Climate Change(GCC) far too long. The truth is, we're in in a period of Global Climate Moderation(GCM), brought on by Global Climate Transition(GCT), that is the result of meetings of politicians, who need expend enough hot air to justify their positions. In short, we are now in a full BS Political Circle (BSPC) known by it's common name as election season.
Global Warming? Climate Change? Debunking the hooey.
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
B
I'm going to be honest about this. I'm not sure whether global warming is an actual fact and that we are to blame. So, currently, I am of neither position. One thing we do know for sure is that when you drive cars on diesel or other fuels that come from crude oil it is very bad for the air quality. Global warming or not, I think there's no sane person on this planet who is willing to deny the fact that the air quality is the worst in centuries (if not ever), that the fish in our seas are full of plastics and mercury (especially predators like Tuna for example) and that we are running out of non-renewable resources fast.
I'm not sure whether I agree with the global warming theorists but I can agree with them on one thing:
this planet's pretty messed up!
I'm not sure whether I agree with the global warming theorists but I can agree with them on one thing:
this planet's pretty messed up!
Well, I have a PhD in biology with a minor in chemistry for starters, and during my undergrad I had to study many of the general sciences including climate science, geology and physics. I also had to read countless papers from a wide variety of sources so I have a lot of training in research and how scientific studies are conducted.
Now what are your credentials?
Since you are regurgitating the climategate hoax and the piltdown hoax I already know you don't do any research, so I can pretty much disregard most of your sources.
Freeman Dyson: "My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."
Dyson also agrees that global warming and climate change are real and man made. Really, it would behoove you to fact check before making totally unsourced and erroneous arguments. Even if he did deny global warming, so what? Issac Newton was one of the greatest scientists of his day and still thought you could turn metal into gold via alchemy.
Aside from the fact that I don't believe in conspiracies, you still have not said what the benefit to all this alleged collusion (unsupported I might add) other then assuming lot's of money. Where is this money coming from? What is the gain for the people supposedly paying off these people? How are they keeping thousands of scientist quiet on the "big conspiracy"?
Piltdown man was considered a fraud even at the time it was discovered for numerous reasons, and the reason it was not debunked is because no one was allowed access to the skull. Once access was gained it was confirmed to be a fraud. If scientists, (another branch of them since anthropologists and biologist are a totally different field then climate science and geophysics), are also perpetrating a big giant conspiracy then why would they reveal it to be a fraud when not doing so is to their benefit?
Sorry Shammy. Big mishap. We're dog sitting two additional dogs. Got within 30 feet of our back door and one was attacked by my next door neighbors pitbull / boxer mix. No serious injuries. Neighbors dog forced his way out of a gate. He fled afterwards and we tried to help in the search so we don't lose the neighbors as friends. Our barking dogs sort of caused their big dog to push himself through the gate, so they are likely to blame us for their lost dog. It's an awful situation, for sure.
About our discussion / debate. I will answer all of your questions. I won't dodge any of them that might back me into a corner. I'll give you links and use the best science I can find. This will be a fun debate. Since my wife has the next two days off work, I might not get up to speed until Monday. I'll apologize in advance for the number of posts that are likely to follow. There is so much information on this topic, it will be helpful to get as deep into the weeds as possible. Feel free to refer to me as a denier, as is the way these debates seem to work. I'll probably refer to myself as a skeptic and you as a member of the alarmist crowd. You can refer to yourself as the guy who doesn't believe the earth is flat, like I must. You know what I'm saying.
The hook was baited and you did what any fish would do. Piltdown, Climategate, and Freeman Dyson were my way of making an assessment. Sort of a Rorschach test. I'll get into each more in the coming days. Based on your responses, I feel we are playing chess at a similar level. That's not to say I have your advanced education. I do not. I am working without a net here, or rather, a degree. Oddly, I feel it gives me a slight edge over many people I discuss this topic with. When we get to interpreting feedbacks and other factors that I believe got us to where we are currently at, it will likely require both of us to do additional research. Your expertise in other disciplines may not be totally helpful, other than you know how to find, gather, and assess information so you can present an argument. You will have an advantage over me in that regard.
We both have been in debates online where the other person(s) simply responds to everything with a statement saying you're wrong and that has been thoroughly debunked. Or, they respond and say they refuse to read anything that comes from a site run by so and so. You know, if you don't like the messenger, the message must be false. Hopefully we can work out our sources to each person's satisfaction. Others here are welcome to jump in and comment. I will answer questions from and person who asks a question. I think it leads to a more vibrant debate.
You'll see me quoting contributors to this site...Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change and sometimes this site...https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/author/stevengoddard/ from time to time. I will post up some of the climate gate emails for all to judge, despite your belief their was no wrong doing. Well, you didn't actually say no wrong doing, but it seems that like an investigation of Hillary Clinton, if it doesn't result in indictment and conviction, it must mean nothing wrong was done. We'll see. I'll discuss Freeman Dyson a bit more later. Yes, he believes that the earth has warmed as a result of mankind, but it's important to listen to everything he says on the subject. We also need to discuss the "consensus" that few people fully understand. How many people were given the questionnaire? How specific or vague was the question? How does that compare to the 20,000 people (scientists) who signed a document saying they do not believe in catastrophic global warming? Oh, will we be using AGW or climate change or global warming? It's important to understand that most skeptics will agree that the climate changes and the earth has warmed in the past. AGW theory is blessed in being impossible to disprove. Warmer = climate change. Colder = climate change. Wetter = climate change. Dryer = climate change. A pause with no increase or decrease = climate change.
The question I have not answered is why? Is there some sort of conspiracy? No, I do not believe that. Why are so many climate scientists stating we are in trouble?
I watched a movie called Manhunter in 1989. It was the prequel to Silence Of The Lambs. It was brilliantly directed by Michael Mann. The actor playing Hanibal Lector was fantastic. There was a scene when he was being interviewed by an FBI agent, while he was being held in detention. It went like this;
Will Graham: I know that I'm not smarter than you. Doctor Hannibal Lecktor: Then how did you catch me?
Will Graham: You had disadvantages.
Doctor Hannibal Lecktor: What disadvantages?
Will Graham: You're insane.
I think the answer you are looking for is out there. These climate scientists are not insane, but they have some disadvantages. They are part of a group of people who mostly share the same beliefs. That caused several of them with particularly big egos, to manipulate data in order to become more well know and preeminent in their field of study. Michael Mann (different Michael Mann) and his famous hockey stick come to mind, along with Dr. James Hansen at NASA, Bill Nye the Science Guy, and we all know who Al Gore is and we have seen his mockumentary.
If you ever read Posner's Case Closed, regarding the Kennedy Assassination, you'll see that despite forensic science and even eye witness accounts, fairly intelligent people still believe in different accounts of who killed Kennedy. I believe that to this day, over 70% of Americans do not believe Oswald acted alone. How can that be? All of the false theories have been thoroughly disproved.
It goes both ways. You can say all of the deniers have been given ample proof. I will tell you that the alarmists have failed to make a case and their predictions have not come to fruition. Furthermore, they have been caught changing data, falsifying data, and hiding or deleting data, along with smearing the careers of those who question them.
This is going to be fun. Time for another dog walk. See you soon.
About our discussion / debate. I will answer all of your questions. I won't dodge any of them that might back me into a corner. I'll give you links and use the best science I can find. This will be a fun debate. Since my wife has the next two days off work, I might not get up to speed until Monday. I'll apologize in advance for the number of posts that are likely to follow. There is so much information on this topic, it will be helpful to get as deep into the weeds as possible. Feel free to refer to me as a denier, as is the way these debates seem to work. I'll probably refer to myself as a skeptic and you as a member of the alarmist crowd. You can refer to yourself as the guy who doesn't believe the earth is flat, like I must. You know what I'm saying.
The hook was baited and you did what any fish would do. Piltdown, Climategate, and Freeman Dyson were my way of making an assessment. Sort of a Rorschach test. I'll get into each more in the coming days. Based on your responses, I feel we are playing chess at a similar level. That's not to say I have your advanced education. I do not. I am working without a net here, or rather, a degree. Oddly, I feel it gives me a slight edge over many people I discuss this topic with. When we get to interpreting feedbacks and other factors that I believe got us to where we are currently at, it will likely require both of us to do additional research. Your expertise in other disciplines may not be totally helpful, other than you know how to find, gather, and assess information so you can present an argument. You will have an advantage over me in that regard.
We both have been in debates online where the other person(s) simply responds to everything with a statement saying you're wrong and that has been thoroughly debunked. Or, they respond and say they refuse to read anything that comes from a site run by so and so. You know, if you don't like the messenger, the message must be false. Hopefully we can work out our sources to each person's satisfaction. Others here are welcome to jump in and comment. I will answer questions from and person who asks a question. I think it leads to a more vibrant debate.
You'll see me quoting contributors to this site...Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change and sometimes this site...https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/author/stevengoddard/ from time to time. I will post up some of the climate gate emails for all to judge, despite your belief their was no wrong doing. Well, you didn't actually say no wrong doing, but it seems that like an investigation of Hillary Clinton, if it doesn't result in indictment and conviction, it must mean nothing wrong was done. We'll see. I'll discuss Freeman Dyson a bit more later. Yes, he believes that the earth has warmed as a result of mankind, but it's important to listen to everything he says on the subject. We also need to discuss the "consensus" that few people fully understand. How many people were given the questionnaire? How specific or vague was the question? How does that compare to the 20,000 people (scientists) who signed a document saying they do not believe in catastrophic global warming? Oh, will we be using AGW or climate change or global warming? It's important to understand that most skeptics will agree that the climate changes and the earth has warmed in the past. AGW theory is blessed in being impossible to disprove. Warmer = climate change. Colder = climate change. Wetter = climate change. Dryer = climate change. A pause with no increase or decrease = climate change.
The question I have not answered is why? Is there some sort of conspiracy? No, I do not believe that. Why are so many climate scientists stating we are in trouble?
I watched a movie called Manhunter in 1989. It was the prequel to Silence Of The Lambs. It was brilliantly directed by Michael Mann. The actor playing Hanibal Lector was fantastic. There was a scene when he was being interviewed by an FBI agent, while he was being held in detention. It went like this;
Will Graham: I know that I'm not smarter than you. Doctor Hannibal Lecktor: Then how did you catch me?
Will Graham: You had disadvantages.
Doctor Hannibal Lecktor: What disadvantages?
Will Graham: You're insane.
I think the answer you are looking for is out there. These climate scientists are not insane, but they have some disadvantages. They are part of a group of people who mostly share the same beliefs. That caused several of them with particularly big egos, to manipulate data in order to become more well know and preeminent in their field of study. Michael Mann (different Michael Mann) and his famous hockey stick come to mind, along with Dr. James Hansen at NASA, Bill Nye the Science Guy, and we all know who Al Gore is and we have seen his mockumentary.
If you ever read Posner's Case Closed, regarding the Kennedy Assassination, you'll see that despite forensic science and even eye witness accounts, fairly intelligent people still believe in different accounts of who killed Kennedy. I believe that to this day, over 70% of Americans do not believe Oswald acted alone. How can that be? All of the false theories have been thoroughly disproved.
It goes both ways. You can say all of the deniers have been given ample proof. I will tell you that the alarmists have failed to make a case and their predictions have not come to fruition. Furthermore, they have been caught changing data, falsifying data, and hiding or deleting data, along with smearing the careers of those who question them.
This is going to be fun. Time for another dog walk. See you soon.
A Rorschach test is used to gauge a persons personality, not their knowledge.
I didn't ask you any questions about global warming, only who would benefit from the oodles of money you previously claimed was being thrown at scientists to falsify data and maintain a conspiracy of silence. You have no training in any of the sciences and your evidence is allegations of fraud and right wing blogs by other non-scientists. I really couldn't care less about the opinions of non-experts, that's why I went to university and studied with actual scientists.
Comments like "you are worthy" and implying that you were "testing" me demonstrate a high degree of arrogance that is impervious to facts. There was a famous study of what is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Basically is says that the more ignorant and uninformed someone is, the more they tend to greatly overestimate their own competence wherein a competent person always second guesses themselves. I sincerely doubt you know any scientists and are therefore not qualified to state what their personal beliefs are or how big their egos may be. Implying people don't see things your way because they are too conceited, despite being much better qualified then you are to talk about an issue, betrays your own arrogance not theirs.
I didn't ask you any questions about global warming, only who would benefit from the oodles of money you previously claimed was being thrown at scientists to falsify data and maintain a conspiracy of silence. You have no training in any of the sciences and your evidence is allegations of fraud and right wing blogs by other non-scientists. I really couldn't care less about the opinions of non-experts, that's why I went to university and studied with actual scientists.
Comments like "you are worthy" and implying that you were "testing" me demonstrate a high degree of arrogance that is impervious to facts. There was a famous study of what is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Basically is says that the more ignorant and uninformed someone is, the more they tend to greatly overestimate their own competence wherein a competent person always second guesses themselves. I sincerely doubt you know any scientists and are therefore not qualified to state what their personal beliefs are or how big their egos may be. Implying people don't see things your way because they are too conceited, despite being much better qualified then you are to talk about an issue, betrays your own arrogance not theirs.
Last edited:
Did I really say oodles of money? It doesn't sound like me. My evidence? I like your description of WUWT as a right wing blog. No, not a description, but a dismissal. It is the worlds most viewed climate change site. It allows men of science to view and post articles refuting what alarmists are releasing. Tell me what sites you use and I'll then tell you your skeptical science site is run by a cartoonist. But this is coffee house debate tactics. Dismissing information because you don't approve of a site it is posted on. Don't belittle yourself and go there.
You absolutely do care about the opinions of non-experts. That 97% consensus was the result of mostly non-experts being questioned on the causes of global warming or AGW, whatever you are going to embrace.
OK, lets get past you calling me arrogant and ignorant and uninformed. I get it. Alarmists love dismissing anyone who shares information on this topic if they feel the person posting the information is not qualified to speak on the topic. It's utterly preposterous. Let's do what we can to keep this about the science and the worthiness of research submitted by climate scientists who support AGW. This low brow approach you are going with is demeaning.
I'm not qualified to share the thoughts of Freeman Dyson because I don't know him personally? Are you being serious? Did I misjudge you and give you too much credit based solely on your ability to sit through many years of boring lectures to obtain your degree? Did they give you credit hours for your ability to condescend?
Back to Freeman Dyson. Freeman Dyson and global warming
In a nutshell, he thinks the computer-generated models being used to predict long-term climate consequences are flawed because scientists have too little information about many of the variables that must be taken into account.
In 2007, Dyson reminded a Salon writer: "I was in the business of studying climate change at least 30 years ago before it became fashionable." Having seen many faddish notions come and go, Dyson is distressed that many environmentalists now believe "global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet."
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffff99, align: left"] quotes from Freeman Dyson: [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
You absolutely do care about the opinions of non-experts. That 97% consensus was the result of mostly non-experts being questioned on the causes of global warming or AGW, whatever you are going to embrace.
OK, lets get past you calling me arrogant and ignorant and uninformed. I get it. Alarmists love dismissing anyone who shares information on this topic if they feel the person posting the information is not qualified to speak on the topic. It's utterly preposterous. Let's do what we can to keep this about the science and the worthiness of research submitted by climate scientists who support AGW. This low brow approach you are going with is demeaning.
I'm not qualified to share the thoughts of Freeman Dyson because I don't know him personally? Are you being serious? Did I misjudge you and give you too much credit based solely on your ability to sit through many years of boring lectures to obtain your degree? Did they give you credit hours for your ability to condescend?
Back to Freeman Dyson. Freeman Dyson and global warming
In a nutshell, he thinks the computer-generated models being used to predict long-term climate consequences are flawed because scientists have too little information about many of the variables that must be taken into account.
In 2007, Dyson reminded a Salon writer: "I was in the business of studying climate change at least 30 years ago before it became fashionable." Having seen many faddish notions come and go, Dyson is distressed that many environmentalists now believe "global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet."
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffff99, align: left"] quotes from Freeman Dyson: [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
- In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right. [article by, 2008]
- Climate change is part of the normal order of things, and we know it was happening before humans came. [interview with, 2007]
- Just because you see pictures of glaciers falling into the ocean doesn't mean anything bad is happening. This is something that happens all the time. It's part of the natural cycle of things. [interview with, 2007]
- It makes very little sense to believe the output of the climate models. [YouTube interview Part1]
- Vegetation is really controlling what happens...whereas the emphasis in the climate models has always been on the atmosphere. [YouTube interview Part1]
- There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global. [essay by, 2007]
- The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It distracts people's attention from much more serious problems. [interview with, 2007]
- The average ground temperature of the Earth is impossible to measure since most of the Earth is ocean...So this average ground temperature is a fiction. [YouTube interview Part2]
- When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. [essay by, 2007]
- We simply don't know yet what's going to happen to the carbon in the atmosphere. [YouTube interview Part1]
- Computer models of the climate....[are] a very dubious business if you don't have good inputs. [YouTube interview Part1]
- We do not know how much of the environmental change is due to human activities and how much [is due] to long-term natural processes over which we have no control. [essay by, 2007]
- It is not surprising that honest and well-informed experts can disagree about facts. But beyond the disagreement about facts, there is another deeper disagreement about values. [essay by, 2007]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
I wanted to revisit Piltdown Man. Only because your take on it seemed rather predictable. You left out many years in which many scientists supported Charles Dawson, even when he was being accused of fraud. The very reason many scientists went along with the fraud, as they did with Peking Man and Nebraska Man, was they had no other option than the intelligent design of God.
In 1921, Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined the Piltdown and Sheffield Park finds and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question" and that the Sheffield Park fragments "were exactly those which we should have selected to confirm the comparison with the original type."
On 23 July 1938, at Barkham Manor, Piltdown, Sir Arthur Keith unveiled a memorial to mark the site where Piltdown Man was discovered by Charles Dawson. Sir Arthur finished his speech saying:
In 1921, Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined the Piltdown and Sheffield Park finds and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question" and that the Sheffield Park fragments "were exactly those which we should have selected to confirm the comparison with the original type."
On 23 July 1938, at Barkham Manor, Piltdown, Sir Arthur Keith unveiled a memorial to mark the site where Piltdown Man was discovered by Charles Dawson. Sir Arthur finished his speech saying:
So long as man is interested in his long past history, in the vicissitudes which our early forerunners passed through, and the varying fare which overtook them, the name of Charles Dawson is certain of remembrance. We do well to link his name to this picturesque corner of Sussex—the scene of his discovery. I have now the honour of unveiling this monolith dedicated to his memory.
The Piltdown man hoax succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment believed that the large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery provided exactly that evidence. It has also been thought that nationalism and cultural prejudice played a role in the less-than-critical acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists. It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British, it has been claimed, also wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe, including France and Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Your take on Piltdown man seems to be in conflict with historical evidence and minimizes the number of scientists who went along with the hoax. This is important because you can't seem to imagine how a number of climate scientists would behave in the same manner today. You keep wanting to say it would have to be a conspiracy in order for it to happen, and to you, there is no motivation for them to say the things they have said. We'll see about that.
The Piltdown man hoax succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment believed that the large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery provided exactly that evidence. It has also been thought that nationalism and cultural prejudice played a role in the less-than-critical acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists. It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British, it has been claimed, also wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe, including France and Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Your take on Piltdown man seems to be in conflict with historical evidence and minimizes the number of scientists who went along with the hoax. This is important because you can't seem to imagine how a number of climate scientists would behave in the same manner today. You keep wanting to say it would have to be a conspiracy in order for it to happen, and to you, there is no motivation for them to say the things they have said. We'll see about that.
Eventually, you are going to have to present your own evidence for why you accept AGW. Your replies need to be more than saying I'm ignorant and the sites I quote are right-wing sites. I'm going to present a lot of facts and figures, along with statements from experts. You need to do the same.
Some of my remarks are from previous debates that I looked up. I will quote them and submit them because they offer some valid information.
Some of my remarks are from previous debates that I looked up. I will quote them and submit them because they offer some valid information.