Alfa Romeo Forums banner

921 - 940 of 1356 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,044 Posts
We're already there. The "science" argument has been reduced to endless to-ing and fro-ing because the social movement incorporating climate change arguments to provide moral justifications for its social-engineering (i.e., "behavioral economics") experiments has already moved on to blatantly authoritarian coercive "reforms". This stuff has been well discussed (F.A. Hayek's "Road To Surfdom" and Erick Hoffer's "The True Beliver" come to mind).
Politics, not science, and it could be suggested that an intolerance of the actual science is engaging in the sort of thing that authoritarians do. Ironic to say the least.

Meanwhile - the actual data says...

The First Six Months of 2015 Have Been the Hottest on Record

The first half of 2015 was the warmest first six months on record for the globe, according to a pair independent analyses from government scientists released Monday.

Global temperatures from January through June 2015 exceeded 2010 as the warmest first half of any year, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA's National Climatic Data Center...






http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/earth-record-warmest-january-june-2015
 

·
Push hard and live
Joined
·
8,909 Posts
He's back. Time to find somewhere fun to play.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Politics, not science, and it could be suggested that an intolerance of the actual science is engaging in the sort of thing that authoritarians do. Ironic to say the least.
So too can it be said about the belief that CO2 emitted by man causes global warming.
 

·
Certified Oldschooler
Joined
·
7,003 Posts
While there is rising alarm, yes, that we are heading back into a mini-ice age due to forecast low solar activity, so what if the Earth is up an ALARMING 0.6 deg C. THIS is WARMING? And there is no correlation with CO2, so lets get off the man-made bandwagon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Trying to think what I would do were I a convinced 'believer' in human-caused climate change.

I don't think I would be trying to convince others with lies or data I would know is misleading or not giving the whole picture. Because this is the age of shared and widely available information, right? You know, internet. I would be soon found out.

In fact the only people doing that, to my mind, would be those either lying and manipulating to promote some kind of agenda, or one of the gullable people following and echoing said manipulators.

That makes the church of human-caused global warming, hard to take sincere. Because all we hear is things like.
' The actual data say :The First Six Months of 2015 Have Been the Hottest on Record '.

What record? Whose record? Because the first serious and scientifically credible records started in some places -not 'worldwide' - in the 1700's. And a volume of worldwide data starts from the 1800s. Given modern human existance started about 50 000 years ago, it seems not very telling, you know?

Will it be warmer than in the ice age when Stockholm was under several meters of ice? Probably.
Will it be warmer than when London was a desert? Probably not.
Do those numbers in fact inform us of anything?
Not really. Not to me anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,044 Posts
So too can it be said about the belief that CO2 emitted by man causes global warming.
No, not really unless you reject nearly all of what we know about our world and how we know it and you cannot do that selectively (doing so is a logical fallacy in multiple ways and demonstrates that the person doing so is not interested in the actual science but is instead driven by things other than science).

We've know that CO2 is a warming gas since the 1800's - some might be embarrassed to argue against that something so basic and fundamental that it predates radios even being invented.


From The American Institute of Physics



"Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. "


https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,044 Posts
I don't think I would be trying to convince others with lies or data I would know is misleading or not giving the whole picture.
I agree - so please post your citations for your claims made otherwise it is just unsubstantiated personal opinion.

In fact the only people doing that, to my mind, would be those either lying and manipulating to promote some kind of agenda

Please - no slipping into ad hominem attacks, in addition to being against AlfaBB policy it is both engaging in logical fallacies as well as being an admission that one cannot engage on the actual science they are seeking to discredit.


What record? Whose record?
It would be helpful if you took the time to read and understand what has been posted - this is why citations are provided. The sources are clearly identified both in the quotations and citations.


Because the first serious and scientifically credible records started in some places -not 'worldwide' - in the 1700's. And a volume of worldwide data starts from the 1800s.
No citation = unsupported personal opinion. Citation please.

Given modern human existence started about 50 000 years ago, it seems not very telling, you know?
That is logically inconsistent with what you write later on which claims knowledge of things outside of that time period thereby making your assertion logically invalid.

...Not to me anyway.
Very well, but that is unsubstantiated personal opinion not science. You are certainly welcome to your personal opinion, but not so much your own personal data, history, physics and chemistry on the matter of science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,044 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,132 Posts
In fact the only people doing that, to my mind, would be those either lying and manipulating to promote some kind of agenda, or one of the gullable people following and echoing said manipulators.
Well, this pretty much defines people who so strongly identify with the goals of a social movement that they incorporate its goals, narratives, mythologies, etc. into their self identities. One thing that Hoffer was interested in was how and why the "true beliefs" develop. As I mentioned earlier, these kinds of "norm oriented" social movements are not uncommon. I once talked to a surviving member of The Women's Christian Temperance Union who, decades later, was still rabidly loyal to her anti-drinking ideology despite the fact that both it and she were clearly quaintly irrelevant. All social movements come to an end and true belivers sometimes transform their goals into pathologies or even cults. Its not surprising that something like this is happening with warmism.
 

·
Push hard and live
Joined
·
8,909 Posts
I have generally observed that those who propose government intervention "for the good of the people" do so because they believe humans are inherently bad, and so must be protected from themselves. Global warming, according to the current crop of alarmists, is human-caused. It fits perfectly with their belief that humans will do bad if not tightly regulated, leading them to be unable to see alternatives to their global view.

I continue to wonder why Skippy just keeps banging away. His mass of "proven, scientific, irrefutable, one-true-god" badgering does not persuade. It does not persuade because those of us who believe humans are inherently good can see the corrupt sources and agendas of those few power-elites that have creating the warmist alarm. Yet, he just bangs away, ignoring the total lack of persuasion within this thread.

I have relatives that are hard-core, right-wing Southern Baptists. The intensity of their passion is much the same as we see here. A broader view is simply not able to get through to them.

And Skip - repeating your drivel about science, and unfounded opinions, etc, really is tiresome. It is not persuasive. Just tiresome. Please stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,044 Posts
All social movements come to an end and true belivers sometimes transform their goals into pathologies or even cults.
Hmmmm - would that include ignoring facts and resorting to puffy political rants and long diatribes that are counter to the known physics and chemistry? Is that not exactly what you are doing and why you refuse (or cannot) post any actual science on the matter of climate science?

Meanwhile, back in the real world:



http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/115/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,044 Posts
Increasing temperature causes increasing CO2.

As the saying goes--Proof Positive.
Uh, no. As with your other assertions on trend (debunked repeatedly) you are incorrect on this assertion.

First - notice the correlation between the two showing Alfanuts assertion to be completely incorrect.

Second - you cannot explain temperature increases absent CO2, thereby confirming it's role in warming

Third - your assertion has already been debunked here.

"Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years....We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies. "

Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,044 Posts
Please - no personal attacks and nastiness. That is a violation of AlfaBB policy.

...Global warming, according to the current crop of alarmists, is human-caused.
Uh, yes because it overwhelming likely is (please remember or take the time to understand how science works before lashing out about "proof"). You cannot explain the warming we are seeing absent CO2. To assert otherwise requires a willing disbelief of the laws of physics and chemistry and the very things you rely upon not to die when you are flying. That would be an illogical stance to put it quite mildly.




...Please stop.
Uh, no, don't think I will. It is regrettable that you do not wish to see the actual science of climate science - which it may be noted is distinctly odd if one professes to actually be a rational person - but it is hard to see how posting actual facts and science could possibly be problematic unless a given individual is so wrapped up in an irrational stance that they would feel threatened by actual data and physical observations that showed that their personal beliefs were simply wrong.

Anyway - back in the real world:




https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
All you have to do it look at the chart.

I can see cause and effect when I see it.

Or is it effect and cause?

OK --what prompts the change in both series?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,044 Posts
All you have to do it look at the chart...
Right - temperature and CO2 are clearly linked, glad you agree that silly assertions that they are unrelated are just that, silly assertions.

As explained and documented several times before climate responds to multiple drivers. Science is not saying that CO2 acts alone, nor is science saying that CO2 has already initiated warming. What science has figured out is that:

1) CO2 amplifies warming
2) Past temperature changes cannot be explained absent CO2
3) The driver for the current warming we are seeing is different and distinct from past warming events
4) The sun cannot possibly be driving the warming we are seeing

1-4 from here: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

"Increases in concentrations of carbon dioxide (top) and methane (bottom) coincided with the start of the Industrial Revolution in about 1750. Measurements from Antarctic ice cores (green lines) combined with direct atmospheric measurements (blue lines) show the increase of both gases over time. (NASA graphs by Robert Simmon, based on data from the NOAA "


 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
I was wondering about what prompted the huge changes on your chart that goes back some 800,000 years.

The "cause" of change since the mid-1800s has been widely promoted.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,347 Posts
Please - no personal attacks and nastiness. That is a violation of AlfaBB policy.
And it will get this thread closed for good. Your moderators are tired of dealing with reports about the general tone of this "discussion".
 
921 - 940 of 1356 Posts
Top