Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,986
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
That's true both sarcastically and literally.
-
Features
New report on climate change released today
- Thread starter southernhybrid
- Start date
We can measure the solar output. It's not responsible for what we see happening here. The increase is very slow until almost all the hydrogen in the core is gone. It's responsible for major changes over the millions and billions of years, it's not responsible for things on a human scale.
And I note no reply to my post showing trees on a local ridge line. If CO2 settles out what is it doing up there over 10,000'?
George S
Veteran Member
From the Friends of Science Society:
[YOUTUBE]l3Ve84pPs6o[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]l3Ve84pPs6o[/YOUTUBE]
Friends of science says that the sun is the main driver of climate change. Maybe they can point out the data showing the changes in incoming solar radiation in the last 100 or so years. Maybe they can show too the balance of radiation at the top and bottom of the atmosphere.
Friends of Science smells like astroturf.
I'm the first to argue that you cannot blame any one weather event on climate change. But, you can look at the frequency of occurrence of certain types of weather events and see how those average out. That is an indicator of climate change.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,241
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,742
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
With friends like that, science doesn't need enemies.
Everybody 'fucking loves science' until it contradicts one of their beliefs.
angelo
Deleted
There once existed a scientific consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it! Today 31.000 scientists world wide have signed a petition calling human caused GW/CC/CD a political rather than science based cult.
I have posted this link before, but please be my guest and have another look. There are some very notable people on that list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
Here are some more "friend of science" types.
https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/
https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/
Their use of relative humidity here is on par with creationists insisting that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Relative humidity is dependent on temperature. You want to look at moisture in the atmosphere you look at dewpoint or total precipitable water in the air column, not just surface relative humidity.
Last edited:
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
From your link:
"They are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry."
Is George messing with us?
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,986
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
What group of professionals would seriously name themselves, “Friends of Science’?
DBT
Contributor
Wasn't it the Church that supported geocentricity? Even to the extent of torturing people when the belief came to be questioned....
angelo
Deleted
angelo
Deleted
angelo
Deleted
Truth is the First Casualty of Global Warming
Dec 18, 2018 BJØRN LOMBORG
The truth about climate change is nuanced: it is real, and in the long term it will be a problem, but its impact is less than we might believe. And yet we are too eager to believe the problem is far worse than science shows, and – conversely – that our solutions are far easier than reality dictates.
BRUSSELS – The latest global climate summit in Poland has generated familiar predictions of doom and disaster from environmental activists. Climate change seems to freeze our capacity for critical thinking: we are too eager to believe the problem is far worse than science shows, and – conversely – that our solutions are far easier than reality dictates.
Consider weather events: it is second nature now to link these to climate change. Whenever a flood hits, the media blames global warming and warns that floods are increasing. But the most authoritative conclusion by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that it is not even clear whether floods have increased or decreased globally over the past century.
Dec 18, 2018 BJØRN LOMBORG
The truth about climate change is nuanced: it is real, and in the long term it will be a problem, but its impact is less than we might believe. And yet we are too eager to believe the problem is far worse than science shows, and – conversely – that our solutions are far easier than reality dictates.
BRUSSELS – The latest global climate summit in Poland has generated familiar predictions of doom and disaster from environmental activists. Climate change seems to freeze our capacity for critical thinking: we are too eager to believe the problem is far worse than science shows, and – conversely – that our solutions are far easier than reality dictates.
Consider weather events: it is second nature now to link these to climate change. Whenever a flood hits, the media blames global warming and warns that floods are increasing. But the most authoritative conclusion by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that it is not even clear whether floods have increased or decreased globally over the past century.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,986
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Another thing to note on how this paper spread and who picked it up and ran with it. This paper showed a strong warming trend but attributed it to "relative humidity". I noticed Anthony Watts of Wattsupwiththat spreading it. His big claim to fame in the "climate skepticism" game was that he stated that warming was fake. He claimed that bad surface stations with a warm bias were the primary cause of measured increases in average temperature. He held that warming had not and was not occurring but that stations that were biased by being too close to tarmac or HVAC units or by being in urban heat islands were being deliberately included without correction by the great global warming hoaxers. But then he waves this paper around too...
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
Galileo wasn't arguing against the prevailing scientific consensus of his day. He is generally acknowledged to be the father of the scientific method, he was literally the sum of the scientific consensus of the day.
He was arguing against accepting the Bible as the authority for the arrangement of the solar system, which by that time could be observed. He believed what you clearly don't believe, that we have to believe the evidence gained by observation and that we should base our actions on the evidence. Science doesn't produce truth, it presents facts based on the evidence discovered by hard work, work that the climate change skeptics are unwilling or unable to do.
The closest examples that we have today to what Galileo faced are the almost 175 year battle against evolution as an explanation for the large diversity of life that we see in the world and the explanation of the origins of the universe, the big bang. Both of these battles pit science against religion.
The climate change skeptics are less about religion than they seem to be pushback to a problem so large that only concerted efforts by governments can fix it. But these all have a common thread. Religion and the idea that anarchism, in the form of "the nine scariest words" or we don't need the government, are the providence of the social and political conservatives. Those who believe in preserving the status quo and believe that we should be mainly guided by traditional values, even the ones that violate evidence and logic.
These are among the rather impressive list of reasons why we must return to the days of ignoring conservatives as we did after the Great Depression, caused by laissez faire capitalism run amuck in the financial sector of our modern industrial economy, and World War II when we had to fight the ultimate expression of radical conservatism, fascism, which wanted to organize society along racial, militaristic and rabidly nationalistic lines.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
The Quakers? They're pretty much friends with everything.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
No, any scientist today who doubts the science without any evidence supporting the doubts is going to have trouble getting a university position. But they aren't going to have a problem landing a job in a conservative think tank.