Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

Status
Not open for further replies.

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,527
39,616
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
1. How far back do the actual measured pH records go? (has the technology used to measure changed during the last 50 million years?)
2. Apparently, with recent discoveries - we have more ocean life than ever....
3. The current pH level is apparently equal to the pH level of the oceans from 23 million years ago (from what I saw)....and has fluctuated up and down over time...
4. You use words like "could" create.....why so much uncertainty? Can't you give us some idea of what it "will" create?

As usual.....you want us to make millions of changes to our planet in the hopes that we "might" alter things just enough so it won't possibly have possible chaos that "could" be created by not doing anything. OR, we could look for signs of change beyond hypothetical before we attack it.

There is way more proof that Cam Newton took money than there is of global warming - yet, you believe in Global Warming.....what's your take on Cam?
Actually, we do have a pretty good measuring stick - the pH of our own blood and other ground-dwelling animals which left the oceans around the same time. The pH of the oceans now are far different. Hard rock geology actually backs up this theory. Also, waiting until something is "proven" to our (whose?) satisfaction certainly sounds like a formula for waiting too late. Sounds a lot like the tobacco company arguments I heard growing up - "prove it." Correlation means nothing...
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,723
362
Mountainous Northern California
Can you not look at the statement "it took the planet millions to store up" and see that that implies it was higher previously?

Here is how I look at global warming. #1 Either all the scientist are right and this is all avoidable. And I say ALL because all the deniers cling to a small minority of scientist when they site this or that. #2 If the deniers are right we are screwed anyway because the temp is still going to rise and when sea levels rise in the next 200-300 yrs and a large percentage of the planet is going to have to relocate. Plus we aren't going to be able to feed ourselves due to worsening draughts.

So I really hope #1 is the case and we can fix this. The human race has alway been incredibly short sighted when it comes to future planning. Between global warming, over fishing of the oceans, reliance on GMO seeds for the world crops, the increase worldwide of animal protein in diets, we are really setting us up for a global disaster where we can't even feed ourselves.
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

31,487 American scientists is not an insignificant number. That page gives a breakdown on what relative fields of science they come from as well.

There are many questions still unanswered regarding anthropogenic climate change and whether climate change in general will be catastrophic or even perhaps overall beneficial.

Deniers is a political word that beyond being wildly inaccurate is emotionally charged and has nothing to do with the issue. Logical fallacies like appeal to authority and insulting word implications (appeal to emotion) will not improve your evidence or argument. They certainly will not prove you correct. Why is it that people continue to use logical fallacies to promote a scientific viewpoint, are astonished at those who are too sophisticated to fall for them, and then double down on the logical fallacies?! Their use makes you less credible. As does the track record of failed projections and predictions.

People, including scientists, have said for decades that the population bomb and increase in wealth throughout the world is going to lead to catastrophic consequences in short order. We've blown right past every dire prediction with increased population and wealth - and not just the top 1% of 1%.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state?language=en
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,258
5,930
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
You're going to have to do better than the long since since discredited Oregon Petition.

The Seattle Times reported that it includes names such as: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor), "Robert C. Byrd" (the Senator), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author), not to mention a Spice Girl, aka. Geraldine Halliwell: the petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."[SUP][5][/SUP] The petition also contains duplicate signatures, signatures of a last name only with not even a first initial, and even "signatures" attributed to corporations.[SUP][6][/SUP] Although as Mitt Romney taught us, corporations are people too. In an interview the Robinson, said, "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake." Scientific Americanexamined the list and came to the conclusion that a large percentage of the alleged Ph, D. signatures probably are fake.[SUP][7][/SUP]Notwithstanding its rather dubious methodology, that bastion of scientific rigor, Fox News, has quoted the petition in its news stories.[SUP][8][/SUP]
 

CajunCrimson

Moderator (FB,BB) and Vinyl Enthusiast
Staff member
Mar 13, 2001
26,511
20,446
337
Breaux Bridge, La
Actually, we do have a pretty good measuring stick - the pH of our own blood and other ground-dwelling animals which left the oceans around the same time. The pH of the oceans now are far different. Hard rock geology actually backs up this theory. Also, waiting until something is "proven" to our (whose?) satisfaction certainly sounds like a formula for waiting too late. Sounds a lot like the tobacco company arguments I heard growing up - "prove it." Correlation means nothing...
But again ... I just believe that as technology continues to advance, we realize that we were previously mistaken.....

Perhaps the altered pH levels in the ocean have more to do with what's inside the planet vs what's on top.....and perhaps we have nothing to do with it at all.

I found a chart that goes back millions of years and it shows sharp rises and falls -- similar to our current path -- to me that shows me it has less to do with us and more to do with maybe the Earth just has a fever and it needs some time to feel better.....
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,527
39,616
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
But again ... I just believe that as technology continues to advance, we realize that we were previously mistaken.....

Perhaps the altered pH levels in the ocean have more to do with what's inside the planet vs what's on top.....and perhaps we have nothing to do with it at all.

I found a chart that goes back millions of years and it shows sharp rises and falls -- similar to our current path -- to me that shows me it has less to do with us and more to do with maybe the Earth just has a fever and it needs some time to feel better.....
Please give the citation to the chart indicating changing pH levels over millions of years...
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,527
39,616
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Ocean acidification is essentially irreversible during our lifetimes. It will take tens of thousands of years for ocean chemistry to return to a condition similar to that occurring at pre-industrial times (about 200 years ago). Our ability to reduce ocean acidification through artificial methods such as the addition of chemicals is unproven. These techniques will at best be effective only at a very local scale, and could also cause damage to the marine environment.
Pretty bleak outlook...
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
You are a denier of the current scientific theory that climate change is man made. That is what I meant by point #2. IF you are right then the planet is getting warmer, we are screwed in 200-300 yrs, and there is nothing we can do about it.
I have no doubt that man's activities have an impact on the Earth.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,723
362
Mountainous Northern California
LOL. Hello, genetic fallacy. :D

Since it doesn't pass your ideological purity test, how about the Seattle Times or Scientific American?

And it's not on me to discredit it. That's already happened.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

I'm sure these have been discredited as well, though. But yeah, every scientist in the world agrees that the end is near. The war with the fundies on why is just around the corner.

There have been a number of very prominent scientists, including atmospheric scientist, climate scientists, and others who disagree with the "consensus". A "consensus" means little to me anyway. It doesn't prove anything. Scientists arguing against it doesn't prove anything.

The reason I linked the petition (and yes, some names have been verified as fake, some had faked credentials, and some real scientists who really signed it have since changed their mind to one degree or another) and the Forbes article was to show that there is legitimate disagreement among scientists. And there is disagreement. And not just on the fringe. The disagreements are usually about the cause and the consequences.

Either way, previous climate models with wild predictions about catastrophic consequences have not quite panned out that way. Previous predictions made in peer-reviewed studies and by the IPCC or similar groups have not come true. By and large, the models can't even predict the past. IOW, they fail when past numbers are fed to them to predict what already did happen in the past. If a model for prediction is to be credible it has to be able to "predict" what we already know has happened. The current models fail miserably at that.

I'd appreciate if you laid off the ad hominem remarks, especially in regards to fambly. If the best you can do is attack the messenger and have no support for your message then - what am I talking about? This is the perfect place for you. Just keep it cordial, please.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,258
5,930
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

I'm sure these have been discredited as well, though. But yeah, every scientist in the world agrees that the end is near. The war with the fundies on why is just around the corner.

There have been a number of very prominent scientists, including atmospheric scientist, climate scientists, and others who disagree with the "consensus". A "consensus" means little to me anyway. It doesn't prove anything. Scientists arguing against it doesn't prove anything.

The reason I linked the petition (and yes, some names have been verified as fake, some had faked credentials, and some real scientists who really signed it have since changed their mind to one degree or another) and the Forbes article was to show that there is legitimate disagreement among scientists. And there is disagreement. And not just on the fringe. The disagreements are usually about the cause and the consequences.

Either way, previous climate models with wild predictions about catastrophic consequences have not quite panned out that way. Previous predictions made in peer-reviewed studies and by the IPCC or similar groups have not come true. By and large, the models can't even predict the past. IOW, they fail when past numbers are fed to them to predict what already did happen in the past. If a model for prediction is to be credible it has to be able to "predict" what we already know has happened. The current models fail miserably at that.

I'd appreciate if you laid off the ad hominem remarks, especially in regards to fambly. If the best you can do is attack the messenger and have no support for your message then - what am I talking about? This is the perfect place for you. Just keep it cordial, please.
As a matter of fact, Taylor got it flat wrong. So wrong, in fact, he's wandered into fractal wrongness territory. Why am I not surprised? :)

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/

84% of those respondents aren't scientists at all. LOL. The disagreement among scientists in the field is extremely minuscule. It's always the same names trotted out by the denialists. Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Curry, Soon, Nova, Singer, etc.

And there was no ad hominem remark. Maybe I should have referred to it as the fallacy of virtue or the fallacy of origin.

Pick something you want to discuss specifically instead of Gish galloping, please. Want to discuss the models? Let's do that. They're more accurate than you realize. The consensus? That's fine too. One subject at a time, if you would.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,723
362
Mountainous Northern California
As a matter of fact, Taylor got it flat wrong. So wrong, in fact, he's wandered into fractal wrongness territory. Why am I not surprised? :)

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/

84% of those respondents aren't scientists at all. LOL. The disagreement among scientists in the field is extremely minuscule. It's always the same names trotted out by the denialists. Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Curry, Soon, Nova, Singer, etc.

And there was no ad hominem remark. Maybe I should have referred to it as the fallacy of virtue or the fallacy of origin.

Pick something you want to discuss specifically instead of Gish galloping, please. Want to discuss the models? Let's do that. They're more accurate than you realize. The consensus? That's fine too. One subject at a time, if you would.
The subject is climate change, no? There is a lot of misinformation out there - and it's not just one-sided. As for that site, not impressed, once again. Clearly a spin. And clearly an ad hominem attack on the oil and gas ties without mention of government grant ties of other scientists or of the concerted effort to keep skeptical articles from peer-reviewed publications.

So, if you want to talk global warming it's really simple - prove that it's anthropogenic since you want to spend trillions of dollars fixing the problem. Prove the models spelling gloom and doom are accurate. It's not my burden to prove a negative. That's just not possible. I know the Earth has warmed in recent times. I know it was very cold recently as well, with "The Little Ice age" and even a "Year Without a Summer".

So what is Earth's "normal" temperature and what has been man's direct impact on that? Remember always that correlation does not equal causation.

Remember also that attacking the skeptical messenger does not prove your point. At all. Not even a little.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,258
5,930
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
The subject is climate change, no? There is a lot of misinformation out there - and it's not just one-sided.

It's a very complex subject. Trying to distill multiple facets into one post is stupid unless your position happens to be "it's a conspiracy!" or you have too much time on your hands.

As for that site, not impressed, once again. Clearly a spin.

Why am I not surprised? The fact that Taylor misinterpreted the study is just that. 100% fact. Again, duly noted how sources fail your ideological purity test regardless of how correct they are.

And clearly an ad hominem attack on the oil and gas ties without mention of government grant ties of other scientists or of the concerted effort to keep skeptical articles from peer-reviewed publications.

I don't think you know what an ad hominem attack is.

So, if you want to talk global warming it's really simple - prove that it's anthropogenic since you want to spend trillions of dollars fixing the problem. Prove the models spelling gloom and doom are accurate. It's not my burden to prove a negative. That's just not possible. I know the Earth has warmed in recent times. I know it was very cold recently as well, with "The Little Ice age" and even a "Year Without a Summer".

Prove the models are right? LOL. Pick out a specific model or graph and let's go over it. No model will ever be 100% percent accurate. It's a model after all.

But, again, they have been more accurate than you seem to realize:




So what is Earth's "normal" temperature and what has been man's direct impact on that? Remember always that correlation does not equal causation.

There is no "normal" temperature. There are periods of equilibrium, but the climate has and always will react to whatever forcings are acting upon it. We're currently the dominant one.

Remember also that attacking the skeptical messenger does not prove your point. At all. Not even a little.

So pointing out something is wrong and explaining why constitutes an attack? OK.
ditto
 
Last edited:

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,527
39,616
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Ain't that the truth.

This is the second time I've waded into this little debate, both times it's been met with the same kind of obfuscation.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
No, it's not just you. I've seldom waded into this issue, because the arguments quickly turn political/quasi-religious and no one will admit the enormous carbon load we're placing on our climate makes a damn. And with that, I'm out. Continue tilting at windmills, gentlemen. Signed, your resident pragmatist...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.