A practical guide to countering science denial

A practical guide to countering science denial
Science denial can come in many forms, but you need to be careful when debunking it. Credit: Bryan Rosengrant/Flickr, CC BY-ND

It should go without saying that science should dictate how we respond to science denial. So what does scientific research tell us?

One effective way to reduce the influence of science denial is through "inoculation": you can build resistance to by exposing people to a weak form of the misinformation.

How do we practically achieve that? There are two key elements to refuting misinformation. The first half of a debunking is offering a factual alternative. To understand what I mean by this, you need to understand what happens in a person's mind when you correct a misconception.

People build mental models of how the world works, where all the different parts of the model fit together like cogs. Imagine one of those cogs is a myth. When you explain that the myth is false, you pluck out that cog, leaving a gap in their mental model.

A practical guide to countering science denial
Debunking myths creates gaps in people’s mental models. That gap needs to be filled with an alternative fact. Credit: John Cook, Author provided

But people feel uncomfortable with an incomplete model. They want to feel as if they know what's going on. So if you create a gap, you need to fill the gap with an alternative fact.

For example, it's not enough to just provide evidence that a suspect in a murder trial is innocent. To prove them innocent – at least in people's minds – you need to provide an alternative suspect.

However, it's not enough to simply explain the facts. The golden rule of debunking, from the book Made To Stick, by Chip and Dan Heath, is to fight sticky myths with even stickier facts. So you need to make your science sticky, meaning simple, concrete messages that grab attention and stick in the memory.

How do you make science sticky? Chip and Dan Heath suggest the acronym SUCCES to summarise the characteristics of sticky science:

Simple: To paraphrase a quote from Nobel prize winner Ernest Rutherford: if you can't explain your physics simply, it's probably not very good physics.

Unexpected: If your science is counter-intuitive, embrace it! Use the unexpectedness to take people by surprise.

Credible: Ideally, source your information from the most credible source of information available: peer-reviewed .

Concrete: One of the most powerful tools to make abstract science concrete is analogies or metaphors.

Emotional: Scientists are trained to remove emotion from their science. However, even scientists are human and it can be quite powerful when we express our passion for science or communicate how our results affect us personally.

Stories: Shape your science into a compelling narrative.

Mythbusting

Let's say you've put in the hard yards and shaped your science into a simple, concrete, sticky message. Congratulations, you're halfway there! As well as explaining why the facts are right, you also need to explain why the myth is wrong. But there's a psychological danger to be wary of when refuting misinformation.

When you mention a myth, you make people more familiar with it. But the more familiar people are with a piece of information, the more likely they are to think it's true. This means you risk a "familiarity backfire effect", reinforcing the myth in people's minds.

There are several simple techniques to avoid the familiarity backfire effect. First, put the emphasis on the facts rather than the myth. Lead with the science you wish to communicate rather than the myth. Unfortunately, most debunking articles take the worst possible approach: repeat the myth in the headline.

Second, provide an explicit warning before mentioning the myth. This puts people cognitively on guard so they're less likely to be influenced by the myth. An explicit warning can be as simple as "A common myth is…".

Third, explain the fallacy that the myth uses to distort the facts. This gives people the ability to reconcile the facts with the myth. A useful framework for identifying fallacies is the five characteristics of science denial (which includes a number of characteristics, particularly under logical fallacies).

Pulling this all together, if you debunk misinformation with an article, presentation or even in casual conversation, try to lead with a sticky fact. Before you mention the myth, warn people that you're about to mention a myth. Then explain the fallacy that the myth uses to distort the facts.

Putting into practice

Let me give an example of this debunking technique in action. Say someone says to you that global warming is a myth. Here's how you might respond:

97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This has been found in a number of studies, using independent methods. A 2009 survey conducted by the University of Illinois found that among actively publishing climate scientists, 97.4% agreed that human activity was increasing global temperatures. A 2010 study from Princeton University analysed public statements about and found that among scientists who had published peer-reviewed research about climate change, 97.5% agreed with the consensus.

I was part of a team that in 2013 found that among relevant climate papers published over 21 years, 97.1% affirmed human-caused global warming.

However, one myth argues that there is no scientific consensus on climate change, citing a petition of 31,000 dissenting scientists. This myth uses the technique of fake experts: 99.9% of those 31,000 scientists are not climate scientists. The qualification to be listed in the petition is a science degree, so that the list includes computer scientists, engineers and medical scientists, but very few with actual expertise in climate science.

And there you have it.

In our online course, Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, we debunk 50 of the most common myths about climate change. Each lecture adopts the Fact-Myth-Fallacy structure where we first explain the science, then introduce the myth then explain the fallacy that the uses.

In our sixth week on the psychology of debunking, we also stress the importance of an evidence-based approach to science communication itself. It would be most ironic, after all, if we were to ignore the science in our response to denial.

John Cook is Climate Communication Research Fellow at The University of Queensland.


Explore further

Inoculating against science denial

This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).The Conversation

Citation: A practical guide to countering science denial (2015, June 12) retrieved 20 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-06-countering-science-denial.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1940 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 12, 2015
Re: the statistics around Global Warming. When all else fails, hold a popularity contest with the judges all drawn from the same body of academics who agree with one another. Use "models" all based on chaos theory. Appeal to your "higher authority" and self-serving " expertise". Dismiss critics or challengers by name-calling, i.e. "denier." Galileo died under house arrest because he didn't pass "peer review". Giodarno Bruno was burned at the stake by his "peers." E = mc2 didn't get grudging acceptance until the first A bomb was detonated.

Jun 12, 2015
I agree with richard_f_cronin in his assertions. I'd be inclined to agree with Global Warmist if they asserted that humans contributed, not sole caused, to global warming. The models are not refined enough for me. The warming measuring thermometers are put near asphalt parking lots and on tar paper roofs and we wonder why data seems hotter. I have read this assertion. I have seen confirming photos. I have yet to read that Global Warmist have taken action to alleviate these biased measures.

Jun 12, 2015
If climate science were that sound and if it were not tied to socialist policies to control the lives of others, this article would not exist.

Jun 12, 2015
Re: the statistics around Global Warming. When all else fails, hold a popularity contest with the judges all drawn from the same body of academics who agree with one another. Use "models" all based on chaos theory. Appeal to your "higher authority" and self-serving " expertise". Dismiss critics or challengers by name-calling, i.e. "denier." Galileo died under house arrest because he didn't pass "peer review". Giodarno Bruno was burned at the stake by his "peers." E = mc2 didn't get grudging acceptance until the first A bomb was detonated.


......and doesn't it make perfect sense that VietVet would be the first to give this post a 1Star. I imagine the rest of his voting clique will show up before the end of the day. Anyway Rich, good post, I'd click the 5 Star on you, but I wouldn't want to spoil the flavor science haters like VV like to over run this website with.

Jun 12, 2015
Things are getting tougher and tougher for the Deniers. Their tricks and scams are being revealed, as well as their real impetus, . . political prejudice.

Jun 12, 2015
how brief is Man's existence to Earth's age you ask, lets give man the benefit of doubt and say he's been around for 200,000 years. Divide that into 4 billion and you end up with 1/2,000,000 the age of Earth. Mans existence is but a speck on Earths time line.


'Liberalism'/AGWism is a mental disorder. They hate their own species yet at the same time they believe their sub-species are sooo omnipotent, they can and must 'save the planet' for the humans they hate.

Jun 12, 2015
"Galileo died under house arrest because he didn't pass "peer review". Giodarno Bruno was burned at the stake by his "peers.""
-----------------------------------

Yes, they are victims of those with conservative views, once again abusing those who actually think differently, not following hateful dogma.

Jun 12, 2015
, it's not enough to just provide evidence that a suspect in a murder trial is innocent.


In the US court system, a suspect is ASSUMED to be innocent.
It is the function of the state to prove guilt BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT.
If AGWites want to use the trial analogy, humans must be presumed innocent of AGW and it is the function of the govt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
But this puts AGW 'scientists' in a position of being an advocate, not a dispassionate observer.


Jun 12, 2015
This is not the court system, Toots. It is science.

How much evidence did the conservatives need to mass-murder 200,000 Iraqi civilians who had done nothing to us?

We could REALLY use that $4,000,000,000,000 right now!

Jun 12, 2015
Among other things, "science" can prove itself by proving itself. By not allowing dangerous drugs onto the marketplace indicating its only purpose is to say things to marshal loyalty from dim witted pluralities to serve New World Order interests. By not making claims like that children should be exposed to allergens later rather than earlier, which resulted in peanut allergy cases skyrocketing at least 250 percent. By admitting the documented fact that at least 90 percent of all published papers are fraudulent. Where is the call to actually have the people have actual, irrefutable, tangible evidence of claims, rather than just having nameless, faceless "experts" order them what to believe? Note the criticism of using "scientists" whose background is not revealed to refute climate change, yet the same article invokes "scientists" whose background is not indicated agreeing with climate change!

Jun 12, 2015
Science through populism.

Someone has different data sets? Convince them that they're wrong! Better yet, get all your friends together to create a majority!

As can be seen by the most vociferous above, populism is a liberal tactic to gain supporters by satiating their hunger for approval.

Jun 12, 2015
Why do the conservatives who needed no evidence at all to mass-murder 200,000 civilians who had done nothing to us demand absolute proof to save the Earth?

Tell me, denglish. Why do you?

Jun 12, 2015
Why do the conservatives who needed no evidence at all to mass-murder 200,000 civilians who had done nothing to us demand absolute proof to save the Earth?

Tell me, denglish. Why do you?

I don't know why the conservatives needed no evidence.

Absolute proof is not needed. A reasonable doubt leads to an innocent verdict.

Are you saying that 200,000 non-combatants were murdered in Iraq? If you have proof, I think you better make some phone calls to the authorities and news channels. I'm sure they'd love to speak with you.

As an American, I'll tell you why I don't care how many muslims die with two numbers: 9, & 11.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Jun 12, 2015
This article is a concise, step by step how to guide to proselytize. Every religion needs an effective means to gain converts.

As with most religions, dogma has an elevated status and cannot be questioned our you risk being a blasphemer. This is the "consensus science" we find in the climate sect.


Jun 12, 2015
No, Dogbert, religion is based on wishful thinking and the pathetic need for an Imaginary Being. This is based not on stories from the Age of Ignorance, but findings of science.

Go back and ask Reverebnd Pat why all of the world's deadliest tornadoes are inflicted on the Bible Belt.

Jun 12, 2015
No, Dogbert, religion is based on wishful thinking and the pathetic need for an Imaginary Being. This is based not on stories from the Age of Ignorance, but findings of science.

Go back and ask Reverebnd Pat why all of the world's deadliest tornadoes are inflicted on the Bible Belt.

Emotion in motion.

Jun 12, 2015
No, gkam. Most religions are based on a privileged class seeking to increase their power and control. This template precisely fits the AGWites.

Jun 12, 2015
Sorry, doggie, I earned a Master of Science in this field, and you are probably arguing from political prejudice, which is another term for emotion.

Jun 12, 2015
Sorry, doggie, I earned a Master of Science in this field, and you are probably arguing from political prejudice, which is another term for emotion.

Oh boy, here we go again!

What is it with the AGW Alarmists needing to create false real life personas in order to create internet credibility?

Don't they see that this tactic, especially when coupled with their emotional outbursts, is transparent?

Jun 12, 2015
Not sure why people so certain that science=truth feel compelled to make others believe as they do.

Jun 12, 2015
97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.


The other 3% renders supplanting the term 'skepticism' with 'denialism', fraudulent and politically and emotionally motivated.

Jun 12, 2015
I have news for you denial IS part of science! Especially when the predictions of a theory fail miserably and raw data needs to be changed in order to "clean things up".

Jun 12, 2015
I have news for you denial IS part of science! Especially when the predictions of a theory fail miserably and raw data needs to be changed in order to "clean things up".

Head of Nail, meet Hammer.

Scientific theory and the predictions made need to face falsifiability without fear.

Once falsified, the owners have two choices: Back To The Drawing Board, or Intellectual Dishonesty.

I wonder what category the above article fits into?

Not sure why people so certain that science=truth feel compelled to make others believe as they do.

Power and profit.

Jun 12, 2015
gkam,
Sorry, doggie, I earned a Master of Science in this field...

Most preachers have a master's or greater in their field. Good to know you are proselytizing with training.

Jun 12, 2015
It is funny how the satellite temperature data was accepted as gospel right up until the point that it started to show a pause. Now all of a sudden this data is unreliable.

Jun 12, 2015
Sorry, doggie, I earned a Master of Science in this field, and you are probably arguing from political prejudice, which is another term for emotion.
Translation: 'I earned an MS is something akin to environmental admiration and so I am qualified to make up bullshit such as manure dust is a MAJOR constituent of pollution in the 'high atmosphere in the central valley.'

-You called this manure 'volatile solids', which are in fact 'those solids in water or other liquids that are lost on ignition of dry solids at 1020°F (550°C). It is a water quality measure...'

-You didnt know that animal products account for less than 1% of particulate pollution in the central valley.

-You invented an undefinable term 'high atmosphere'.

Your MS failed to inform you of these things and worse, convinced you that you had the authority to make them up.

Your alleged MS is worthless.

Your opinions on related items are worthless.

You shouldnt be posting here.

Jun 12, 2015
denglish seems to assume scientists work for money.

What did I tell you about his kind?

And BTW, my field included graduate-level ecoscience, thermodynamics of energy systems, environmental law, environmental economics, and others, not like those in religion, business, or any other soft coursework.

It is a Master of Science, not arts. What is yours in?


Jun 12, 2015
thermodynamics of energy systems
-And yet you chose to use BTU and calories redundantly, revealing that you dont know what these things ARE.

Do you have an explanation for this george that doesnt involve LYING or BULLSHITING?
Most preachers have a master's or greater in their field
This would be equivalent to gkams Masters in Environmental Infatuation.

Jun 12, 2015
What did I tell you about his kind?


Tell us more about your Master's Degree

Jun 12, 2015
"Tell us more about your Master's Degree"
----------------------------------------

I did. Now, you tell us about yours.

Then, I will tell you about my personal experience and you can tell me about yours.

Jun 12, 2015
Things are getting tougher and tougher for the Deniers. Their tricks and scams are being revealed, as well as their real impetus, . . political prejudice.

.......call it what you like, but I can solve Differential Equations & that transcends your flavor of politics.

Jun 12, 2015
"Tell us more about your Master's Degree"
----------------------------------------

I did. Now, you tell us about yours.

Then, I will tell you about my personal experience and you can tell me about yours.
And please include how it justifies you making up bullshit like fallout being the MAJOR cause of lung cancer when its not even on the list?

Youve already demonstrated that your personal experience is worse than useless.

Jun 12, 2015
".call it what you like, but I can solve Differential Equations & that transcends your flavor of politics."
--------------------------------------

Benni, I have no idea why you think that is something special, when most of here can do it. It looks more and more like you are a stand-in for a liberal, using you to destroy the credibility of conservatives.

If you can explain the mathematics behind the climate models, I will believe you.

Go ahead.

Jun 12, 2015
I did. Now, you tell us about yours.
Then, I will tell you about my personal experience and you can tell me about yours.

No. Any lies I make up about my real life will have no bearing on my internet credibility.

Now, tell us more about your Master's Degree, and how you learned that people that feel the need to create personas in anonymity are credible.

And please include how it justifies you making up bullshit

Anonymity really gives the alarmists a strong shield.

Jun 12, 2015
".call it what you like, but I can solve Differential Equations & that transcends your flavor of politics."
--------------------------------------

Benni, I have no idea why you think that is something special, when most of here can do it
But you have trouble with kWh. Eikka demonstrated you have no idea what it is.

And I see thermodynamics your buttbuddy is supporting you for posting lies? How come td? You think lying and making up facts is good for phys.org and science in general? Or do you have as little respect for them as george does?

Jun 12, 2015
If you can explain the mathematics behind the climate models, I will believe you.


Which ones? Yours?

Jun 12, 2015
denglish I have identified my real self many times here. I am here to discuss the issues, in many of which I have education and/or experience.

As Eleanor Roosevelt said:

"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."

Jun 12, 2015
Anonymity really gives the alarmists a strong shield
Everyone knows who george kamburoff is.
http://www.kamburoff.com/

-He thinks that posting his real name and addy gives him the right to make up facts and lie.

How does that work?

"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."

-And so as it is clear that you are here primarily to discuss yourself, you must have a very small mind indeed.

And it does show.

Jun 12, 2015
These comments have achieved a sig/noise of 3/41 ~ 7%. Is this a record ?

Jun 12, 2015
Nik, we have really small minds here to attack those who have already performed in life and have experience in these fields. If the small minds get their feelings hurt, they start the never-ending revenge, driven by unbridled emotion and enabled by poor character.

The issue gets lost.

Jun 12, 2015
Nik, we have really small minds here to attack those who have already performed in life and have experience in these fields. If the small minds get their feelings hurt, they start the never-ending revenge, driven by unbridled emotion and enabled by poor character.

The issue gets lost.
No sir I just hate liars, posturers, and bullshit artists. You are only one of many who have shown up here, somewhat more mundane than usual, due to a stunted intellect that never allowed itself to face its own limitations.

And your issue is always yourself.

Jun 12, 2015
I have identified my real self many times here. I am here to discuss the issues, in many of which I have education and/or experience.


Are you related to Brian Williams?

Tell us more about how great you are.

Ya know, you should have taken some advice from the Alarmist's Guide to Credibility Via Populism above:

There are several simple techniques to avoid the familiarity backfire effect. First, put the emphasis on the facts rather than the myth.

Jun 12, 2015
This article demonstrates a continued insistence amongst academics of refusing to engage scientific controversies in an honest manner.

To be clear, people will not wait for the universities to meaningfully engage controversies. They will build systems which educate the public, and as those systems gain in popularity, the universities will eventually either adopt them, or risk irrelevance.

I'd also add, once again actually, that this article completely fails to mention anything at all about the work of Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, who proposes that academics are just as susceptible to non-rational thinking as laypeople. He has delivered this lecture repeatedly at places such as Yale. If you look at the criteria he proposes for laypeople as a guide for when to question expert judgment, climate science and astrophysics in particular are both described by these standards as questionable science.

See https://plus.goog...posts/JV

fay
Jun 12, 2015
i am a "denier", but i dont deny science of AGW - i dont really care about it and i dont know anything about it except for an article here and there in popular media. I dont actually deny the agw - nor do i agree with the notion - i just think that the consequences of gw would be cheaper than the expensive and stupid measures taken by governments and thats why its better to not act (if by action we implicitly mean government action)

Jun 12, 2015
i just think that the consequences of gw would be cheaper than the expensive and stupid measures taken by governments ...better to not act (if by action ... government action)
@fay
thanks for being honest
5 stars

Well, that means that people would have to make a decision to change themselves... the problem with that is: given the choice, people are greedy and given the choice between immediate financial gain or continued financial success, and tightening the belt so that we can save our future... most people will simply be like denglish above

for the most part, people are lazy and tend to stick their heads in the sand with regard to future planning, etc
(how many people have reliable, logical, well planned IRA's? and EVERYONE gets old and to the point where work is not a possibility)

i've taken steps
but i'm the only one in my area

I follow the science & i dislike gov't and politics as well...
problem is: something MUST be done soon...

Jun 12, 2015
Wait, the one example of how to combat 'science denial' ... Just a tic, here. What is a science denier? Are they oddball folks that deny people are employed in the business of science? Are they people that have gone beyond solipsism and deny that the field of science exists? Are they people that deny experimentalism? Or are they people that disagree with the Copenhagen Interpretation in preference of other theories?

Putting aside that I'm not really quite certain what these nefarious creatures are, or what they're defined as, I'm quite certain they're bad. I suspect they may even eat toddlers, sacrifice goats to virgins, and hold black masses, naked under a blood moon. But the one example we're given for dealing with these certainly true, but certainly undefined, people?

Appeals to Authority. His own, in fact, given that he selectively chose his own paper about how many agreeable people agree with one another.

Jun 12, 2015
And it's worth noting here that whatever validity there may be in the idea that we need to go full on with markedroid tactics to sell the facts that won't sell themselves with the use of the SUCCES model, Mr. Cook is holding his own work up as credible science. From the abstract:

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming"

For people doing the math at home, that's apparently 97.1% of ** 32.6% **. The 'facts' that Cook is using to rebut 'myths' are even a myth, they're Not Even Wrong.

Jun 12, 2015
Hi Ghost. Good to hear from you again. You said:

And I see thermodynamics your buttbuddy is supporting you for posting lies? How come td? You think lying and making up facts is good for phys.org and science in general? Or do you have as little respect for them as george does?


Would you be so kind as to point out which lies I have told? I would be glad to discuss them with you. Just let me know how I have lied. Thanks in advance.

Jun 12, 2015
call it what you like, but I can solve Differential Equations & that transcends your flavor of politics.


Benni, I have no idea why you think that is something special, when most of here can do it
......but not anyone inside the voting circle of of this site's Star rankings.............eg: Stumpy, Ira, VietVet, you know all the usual suspects.

But you have trouble with kWh. Eikka demonstrated you have no idea what it is.
.....sounds more to me like a "born in 1923" memory problem.

And I see thermodynamics your buttbuddy is supporting you for posting lies?
Why does so much crude pottymouth talk come within the ranks of those of you who've never seen a Differential equation you could solve?

Why is it such a torturous read for your voting clique when I bring up Differential equations? Your voting clique is just driven into a near state apoplexy, it's the reason I had to put Stumpy on the Ignore, he can't contain himself when he reads it.


Jun 12, 2015
Benni, you ARE, . . you are a young liberal kid making the conservatives look stupid.

The exchange:

"And I see thermodynamics your buttbuddy is supporting you for posting lies?"

"Why does so much crude pottymouth talk come within the ranks of those of you who've never seen a Differential equation you could solve?"

The first adolescent post was not from thermo but some kid screaming across the playground. The second one, yours, is just plain silly.


Jun 12, 2015
Benni, you ARE, . . you are a young liberal kid making the conservatives look stupid.

The exchange:

"And I see thermodynamics your buttbuddy is supporting you for posting lies?"

"Why does so much crude pottymouth talk come within the ranks of those of you who've never seen a Differential equation you could solve?"

The first adolescent post was not from thermo but some kid screaming across the playground. The second one, yours, is just plain silly.
.........now, now, now just a minute here, all I'm doing is following the lead of the plethora of "oldsters" here. If you want to sling that manner of lingo around you should first consult your mentors within the realm of the subject matter of which you so poignantly speak.

Not to get away from the subject matter here, but how ya doin' on the nuclear stuff?

Jun 12, 2015
"For people doing the math at home, that's apparently 97.1% of ** 32.6% **. The 'facts' that Cook is using to rebut 'myths' are even a myth, they're Not Even Wrong."

Great point Jquip! They color the "Truth" and are PROUD of it. Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is a foreign concept to them.

Jun 12, 2015
"Not to get away from the subject matter here, but how ya doin' on the nuclear stuff? "
----------------------------------------

I haven't dealt with nuclear stuff since testing Safety Relief Valve operation for those kind of reactors they have at Fukushima (Mark I BWRs), and writing parts of the Industrial Hardening Manual to save American Industry from the effects of nuclear weapons.

All that ended in 1979. When did you last work in the field?

Jun 12, 2015
Benni: You seem to be confused as to why I give you ones. Let me try to make it clear. First, instead of providing mathematical arguments (which you claim to be able to do) you spout:
.......call it what you like, but I can solve Differential Equations & that transcends your flavor of politics.


I have pointed out to you before that diffeq is taught at the level of advanced undergraduates and then they move on to computer solutions. The reason? The reason is that only simple differential equations can be solved in closed form. Modern applications of differential equations are done through computer methods - which you don't seem to be aware of.

Second, you seem to rely on a zero-dimensional model (like waterdummy) and if you pay attention to Beer's law you must understand that you need AT LEAST a 1-D model. If you do the math you will better understand that with a radiative imbalance the earth has to heat.

Instead, you whine about GR PDEs to solve EFE.

Jun 12, 2015
Benni: You seem to be confused as to why I give you ones
I didn't know I was confused? Certainly not about MY math skills
you spout:call it what you like, but I can solve Differential Equations & that transcends your flavor of politics.
You betcha, and it ain't bragging if you can do it.

Modern applications of differential equations are done through computer methods - which you don't seem to be aware of.
Aw, Thermo. So that's how you get Stumpy off the hook for his lack of math skills?

If you do the math you will better understand that with a radiative imbalance the earth has to heat.
It's precisely because I can do the math. My courses in Thermodynamics give me a unique level of comprehension of Entropic processes whereby I know better than to fall for the simplistic arguments neophytes fall for, like listening to a sermon on "Radiative Imbalance".

Instead, you whine about GR PDEs. to solve EFE.
Yeah, Partials are even harder.

Jun 12, 2015
The choice to "believe" or "deny" a scientific conclusion about a major world issue has more to do with the given set of answers to the problem than to the science itself as well as how it is presented in the political arena.
Global Warming was introduced to the world by Al Gore, a major leftist political opportunist.
All solutions were long standing leftist ideas. Nuclear power was denied as a solution although it could be scientifically justified. The right predictably resisted of corse. The left, seeing this, exploited it. Rubbing it in, not trying to even discuss possible help from the right, which one would expect if the left actually believed the science. The right continues to deny global warming because of hatred for the left, not science.
Eventually all sides might believe because there will be no escape. I blame the left and articles like this one for the slow conversion. Their goal is to score political points. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Jun 12, 2015
how brief is Man's existence to Earth's age you ask, lets give man the benefit of doubt and say he's been around for 200,000 years. Divide that into 4 billion and you end up with 1/2,000,000 the age of Earth. Mans existence is but a speck on Earths time line.


@jyro - easy on the zeros - 4 billion divided by 200,000 is 20,000, rather than 2,000,000.

Jun 12, 2015
"Not to get away from the subject matter here, but how ya doin' on the nuclear stuff? "

I haven't dealt with nuclear stuff since testing Safety Relief Valve operation for those kind of reactors they have at Fukushima (Mark I BWRs), and writing parts of the Industrial Hardening Manual to save American Industry from the effects of nuclear weapons.

All that ended in 1979. When did you last work in the field?
..... Today.

Today, I spent most of the day in the Spectroscopy Lab going over some gamma ray spectrograms.


Jun 12, 2015
Benni says:
Today, I spent most of the day in the Spectroscopy Lab going over some gamma ray spectrograms.


Then you should be ashamed at not being able to do the radiation balance for the earth.

Benni says:
It's precisely because I can do the math. My courses in Thermodynamics give me a unique level of comprehension of Entropic processes whereby I know better than to fall for the simplistic arguments neophytes fall for, like listening to a sermon on "Radiative Imbalance".


Show me why a "radiative imbalance" is insufficient to show the earth is gaining enthalpy?

Jun 12, 2015
"The right continues to deny global warming because of hatred for the left, not science. "

58 I agree with everything you said but the above. If the Right agreed with the science they would be pushing for solutions also. They object because they are afraid of further collapsing the economy without a well proven reason as justification. Anything that increases the cost of electricity will harm people and the economy.

Jun 12, 2015
Show me why a "radiative imbalance" is insufficient to show the earth is gaining enthalpy?


1. Is "radiative imbalance" a postulate?
or
2.Is "radiative imbalance" an hypothesis?

Jun 12, 2015
Show me why a "radiative imbalance" is insufficient to show the earth is gaining enthalpy?


1. Is "radiative imbalance" a postulate?
or
2.Is "radiative imbalance" an hypothesis?


You did not answer my question. Answer mine first.

If there is a radiative imbalance does that mean the earth is gaining enthalpy?

Jun 12, 2015
If there is a radiative imbalance does that mean the earth is gaining enthalpy?


Your question is incomplete. If you don't know why, I can understand that.

Jun 12, 2015
Radiative imbalance is definably a postulate by now and it is definitely caused by man's contribution to C02 levels. What they can't really tell is the size of the coefficient and it's sign. But come excessive heating, excessive cooling or even excessive change they will never give up on the need to reduce emissions unless a better plot can be hatched.

Jun 12, 2015
If there is a radiative imbalance does that mean the earth is gaining enthalpy?


Your question is incomplete. If you don't know why, I can understand that.


OK, if there is an imbalance with excess radiative transfer to the earth does that mean the earth is gaining enthalpy?

Does that make it so you can understand it?

Jun 13, 2015
Add another factor: herd instinct in virtually all scientists, not limited to climatologists, mostly academics, who depend on funding and eventual tenure.....all only achievable by total conformance to accepted establishment dogmas of opinion leaders based on biased data accumulated and published in dogmatic journals. Any deviation is punishable with excommunication from the fraternity, meaning professional suicide, essentially requiring living as "closet scientists", often waiting until retirement to step outside the establishment play pen. Under these sad circumstances you create biased data by herd instinct and imprinting, not only by climatologists, but other scientists believing in irrational speculations like the Big Bang and " accidental" no longer random, evolution. This life long industrial scientist doubts many of these speculations on climate change that may not be solely anthropogenic but in part theogenic as seen in numerous global heating and cooling cycles over time.

Jun 13, 2015
If the Right agreed with the science they would be pushing for solutions also. They object because they are afraid of further collapsing the economy without a well proven reason as justification.


That's not a valid reason to reject the core science of AGW though. That's where some on the political right goes off the rails. It IS valid to reject the notion of cataclysmic AGW pushed by the political left, as alarmism meets the political lefts agenda of emergency redistribution of weath and government control. That's where the far left goes off the rails, by only offering leftist solutions that would inevitably provoke a negative reaction from the more moderate and political right.

Even 3% of climatologists reject anthropogenic global warming, which is actually high considering it's their own field of study and source of funding,... and around 20% reject AGW if those in related sciences are included also. This means a greater % must reject the notion of cataclysmic-AGW.


Jun 13, 2015
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming"

For people doing the math at home, that's apparently 97.1% of ** 32.6% **.


Where did you get the quoted paragraph? Has it been deleted from the above article?

If so, I'm not sure why the childish name caller, would be that corrupt, as the 'abstracts [that] expressed no position on AGW' could simply be due to the fact that they're addressing a specific scientific point without explicitly stating 'anthropogenic'.

Jun 13, 2015
Say someone says to you that global warming is a myth. Here's how you might respond:

97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.


That is actually committing the complex question fallacy.

Because the question is about whether or not climate change is true, but the answer assumes that the question is about not only that, but about the specific extent to which humans are involved in it, so the answer is not simply "yes". It's actually a rhetorical trick to push an agenda, rather than simply correct a false belief. It answers more than is being asked.

Then it goes on to beg the question by asserting that 97% agrees, but again doesn't clarify to which degree they agree etc. etc. but that's a different problem.

If you're going to educate people, don't be hypocritical. It's not helping. If a person doesn't believe that a climate change is going on, don't immediately try to force-feed them the idea that humans are causing it.

Jun 13, 2015
Anthropogenic Comment Warming?

Jun 13, 2015
Geezus! I enjoy phys.org but why the F do I have to endure a bunch of flat earthers hanging around a science site. Kicking the same old can. Does it feel good being the ones who question something as powerful as the scientific method and it's institutions. You, the select few, the illuminated ones! It's funny how your illuminated scepticism for science doesn't question other scientific advice. Obesity linked to diabetes; reducing BMI lowers risk of developing type II diabetes, says science...Pah says conservative sceptics, '...pass the fries!'
'...what the hell do scientists know anyway, besides 90% of science is fraudulent anyhoo!'

Funny? you seem strangely silent on these topics. Yet, get told for the last hundred years that atmospheric pollution will lead to a greenhouse effect and that bad shit will happen as a consequence, you want to debate the point?

Jun 13, 2015
get told for the last hundred years that atmospheric pollution will lead to a greenhouse effect and that bad shit will happen as a consequence, you want to debate the point?


Simply being told so doesn't mean that the answer is completely true. When we accept that a climate change is happening, it doesn't automatically lead to accepting any particular outcome of it.

So the part where you claim "bad shit will happen" is still up for debate.

So yes, I want to debate the point, rather than believe some chicken-little political pundit who's trying to get the society to dance around his whistle on the point of terror and panic, because we can do much more harm to ourselves by running around "fixing" things that either don't need to be fixed or cannot be fixed by our means. Wearing a hair shirt never made anyone anything but itchy.

Jun 13, 2015
Well you first wanted to ignore it, 'that's one opinion.' you said. More work and evidence comes to hand and you say ' well it's still controversial. The science isn't settled'
Decades of work and incontrovertible evidence to say that atmospheric pollution is linked to detrimental climatic shifts ' Science is fraudulent, it's a conspiracy!' And other petulant excuses from the illuminated ones. You aggregate of timorous zealots can't just get on with updating your world view and do something productive like the thousands of intelligent minds that are featured here on this site.

Jun 13, 2015
Hang on "simply " being told? The collective work of hundreds of earth scientists, in all their various disciplines and the sheer bloody hard work describing the complexity of their findings, and you flippantly think you are being "told" ? What the hell do think scientific work is? A bunch of gossip around a Mah Jong table?

Jun 13, 2015
If there is a radiative imbalance does that mean the earth is gaining enthalpy?


Your question is incomplete. If you don't know why, I can understand that.
....it remains that you still don't know why your question is incomplete.

OK, if there is an imbalance with excess radiative transfer to the earth
What makes you think there is?

does that mean the earth is gaining enthalpy?
Again, what makes you think it is?

Does that make it so you can understand it?
What I understand is the failure on your part to comprehend how "enthalpy" is measured. I could just plainly tell you why, but it's more fun to watch you trip all over the place as you continue laboring with your endeavors in Funny Farm Science.

Jun 13, 2015
Manfred while you are on the subject of medical science, how about the "Truth" that high fat diets are responsible for heart attacks. For years doctors recommended high carb diets to lower cholesterol. This was accepted by science since a flawed study in I think the 50s. Well Atkins proved the study wrong and was called a charlatan. 97% of the scientists agreed with that false idea also.


Jun 13, 2015
The common consensus among people who drive the climate change agenda is that they're trying to save the world - that they're here to help you.

Most of them are simply trying to help themselves - to feel good about themselves for going along in a social movement, or to scam money off of others. Most of the rest don't really know what they're even talking about.

The remaining few who do know what they're talking about are ridiculed by the others because the answers and solutions they give expose the "concerned citizens" as unintrested hypocrits, the scammers as criminals, and the ignorant as idiots.

For example. I've met people who genuinely believe that energy is too cheap because if people couldn't afford to use it, then we wouldn't have to procude so much of it. Of course they framed it as "reducing energy waste" or "encouraging efficiency", without a hint of irony. When pointing out that what they're really talking about is universal poverty, you get shouted at.

Jun 13, 2015
So Manfred, that's your belief? Good to know your zealotry outweighs any reasonable cognitive flexibility. If you ask nicely there's a couple of little kids gangs you could join within this community. Now go play with the other kids and don't interrupt the grown ups.

Jun 13, 2015
Hang on "simply " being told? The collective work of hundreds of earth scientists...


Yes. I was referring to the idea that we should take whatever prediction of the day as absolute truth because it's made by scientists.

10-15 years ago the Mann hockey stick was explained as "90% caused by us" by the science commentators, so politicians all around the world got the public support to institute many reforms, such as the German Energiewende, which today are proving to be premature, immature, and extremely costly.

More recently, that change turned out to be more like 50% our fault because we needed to explain why it isnt doing that anymore, and the resulting predictions about future warming became less, and most of the overly-dramatic models got dumped as implausible.

So the picture of what is actually happening is changing constantly with new data, yet some people pretend as if there is this One Truth about climate change, and are not shy to tell you all about it.

Jun 13, 2015
The sad part is that most of these green save the planet causes start out as relatively good ideas like preserving the wilderness or the humane treatment of animals. They morph out of control as the power hungry take control and quickly turn the useful idiots around them into puppets.

Jun 13, 2015
denglish I have identified my real self many times here. I am here to discuss the issues, in many of which I have education and/or experience.

As Eleanor Roosevelt said:

"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."

Do you imagine she was talking about herself?

Jun 13, 2015
The mere idea that the "scientific consensus" represents a single opinion about what is happening with the climate is in itself a myth that is perpetuated by people who understand nothing of science - or want others not to.

It's the illusion we have when we take out the uncertainty bars out of all the graphs and reduce all the complexity of the question to a single point answer.

Yet this is what we get when we say "97% of scientists agree that...", because we're implying that there's a definite right answer like 1+2=3.

Jun 13, 2015
Or the truth that Heliobacter pylorii is the causative agent for gastric ulcers and not 'stress'.
It's not that science doesn't have it's controversies, it's scientists who ultimately seek the truth on a given subject. Sometimes it takes time for ideas to crystallise, a certain zeitgeist to ripen them, climate science is having it's day. Having a jeering mob from the sidelines who seem remarkably ignorant about the 'rules' of the game they are watching, is what has 'got my goat' as it were. Go and sit on forums about the controversial topic of the bacterial cause of multiple sclerosis, and make the same claims about science and scientists on there if being controversial and sceptical is what you are really about. Otherwise it's just threatened ideology about a changing future which is driving you.

Jun 13, 2015
t's scientists who ultimately seek the truth on a given subject.


But it's not the scientists who are doing the majority of the public discourse around the subject - on either side of the matter.

The "mythbusters" of science who are trying to help are themselves nothing but myth-perpetuators who are blissfully ignorant of their own fallacies.

Or the truth that Heliobacter pylorii is the causative agent for gastric ulcers and not 'stress'.


Correction: not "the" - "a" causative agent. Ulcers still have many causes.

Which is again pointing out that science is not reducible to simple answers, just as not all ulcers are treatable with antibiotics. Forgetting this leads to a form of religion.

Jun 13, 2015
Does it feel good being the ones who question something as powerful as the scientific method [....] It's funny how your illuminated [skepticism] for science


You're the problem with rational discussion, with your deliberate distortion that anyone here is skeptical of science itself. The strawman that one is questioning the entire 'scientific method' simply because they are skeptical about one particular hypothesis, predictions, or proposed solution , is the same corrupt and counter-productive mentally as the charlatans who call one a "denier" who is merely skeptical about an undefined aspect of it. Such blatant dishonesty alone warrants valid skepticism.

Jun 13, 2015
? What the hell do think scientific work is? A bunch of gossip around a Mah Jong table?

That's exactly what it is if it does not allow itself to be falsified, or defends itself via censorship.

Jun 13, 2015
Climate science and medical science have a lot in common. They are both distorted by powerful interests that have a vested interest in the outcomes of the research. Contrary to what some think on this board, researchers can be just as corrupt as bankers and politicians. It is very hard to be objective when the path of your career is determined by the outcome of your research.

Jun 13, 2015
I have pointed out the wisdom of the crowd effect as a good means for estimating an outcome by leveraging the effect of diffused knowledge. I want to point it out again, that the crowd is wise only if you don't pick and choose who gets to answer.

Like in having people guess how many jelly beans there are in a jar. The group mean/average answer is likely to be very accurate. But - if you arbitrarily toss out answers that are "obviously wrong", such as "two", then you'll paradoxically get the wrong answer in the end because there are other wrong answers that don't fall under your criteria and you've simply biased your result.

Appealing to the consensus in climate change is first reducing the complex question to a simple and false yes/no dichotomy, and then limiting who gets to make predictions about the subject by the most numerous answer. The result will then include false predictions in a particular direction, which skews the overall result.


Jun 13, 2015
It is very hard to be objective when the path of your career is determined by the outcome of your research.


Few would turn up with climate research that shows a negative result, when millions of lay-people will instantly call them a crank and a shill, and keep insinuating about their scientific integrity for turning out such a non PC paper. Scientists are human afterall.

So even if you had findings that contradict the established consensus, it's very likely that you wouldn't pursue or publish. You'd be more likely to believe yourself that the findings are simply wrong.

This effect happened with the measurement of the mass of electron. When you check the old books about what the mass was thought to be, it starts off very wrong and then slowly converges towards today's value, because people who got the right value early on simply thought it must be wrong because it was so different, and didn't publish their results.


Jun 13, 2015
What is a science denier?
Jquip
it is someone who has a strong fundamentalist style belief in something, be it religion, conspiracy or any other delusion, and refuses to acknowledge the reality around them, especially that which is defined clearly understood, explained and validated through the scientific method, experimentation, measurement and more

People who also cherry-pick data for self bias or personal delusions: people who accept the laws of physics apply to everything *except* this science (like climate science), or people who follow creationist dogma, like jvk, and try to modify the data to justify their religion

It varies in specifics, but the basics are clear: scientific illiteracy and a tenancy to accept pseudoscience, religion, conspiracy, faith or delusions over actual science

to be cont'd

Jun 13, 2015
@Jquip cont'd
Appeals to Authority. His own, in fact, given that he selectively chose his own paper
that's not really the point

The point is more this:
There is a serious problem with scientific literacy in the general public today, especially where fundamentalist religions tend to spread their brand of pseudoscience

the article is more a selection of psychological ways to deal with the fanatical anti-science, anti-fact people who refuse to accept the validated studies which demonstrate something that we DO know

Perhaps he would have been better off showing a different paper, but people tend to grab what they are most familiar with first

point is, regardless of your belief in his paper, the statistics show that we know quite a lot about climate science - far more than the "deniers" give credit to, especially the ones who forget about the laws of physics


Jun 13, 2015
most of here can do it
but not anyone inside the voting circle of of this site's Star rankings...eg: Stumpy, Ira, VietVet, ...all the usual suspects
@benniTROLL
funny thing: i can PROVE you don't know math, but you can't PROVE i don't know DE's!

i can show that you do NOT know how to do differential equations with your own posts!
here:
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

you didn't know the terminology OR how to do the equations!LOL

but that's not all... apparently you can't do BASIC math, either, as you demonstrated here:
http://phys.org/n...als.html

you said
the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way.
which "wobble cycle, benni?
I can PROVE you are a lying TROLL like rc, cd, jvk etc!
all you can do is TROLL post opinion

LOL

Jun 13, 2015
I have pointed out the wisdom of the crowd effect as a good means for estimating an outcome by leveraging the effect of diffused knowledge. I want to point it out again, that the crowd is wise only if you don't pick and choose who gets to answer.


I've referred to it as the 'collective genius of mankind',.... who are presently ignoring the AGW-Alarmists.

Now, It doesn't work to substantiate or to improve scientific theory,... in fact history has demonstrated the exact opposite i.e. religions and myths,... but it does work for the element of judgement.

Jun 13, 2015
@anyone
someone ought to re-post my above to benni from themselves ...so that he can refute it...

he intentionally ignores my posts because he doesn't like admission of failure, as though ignoring it will make it all go away and somehow prove he is the "nuclear engineer" or the "Electrical engineer" he has claimed to be

One last point, too!
My daughter just graduated as an Electrical Engineer... they learn a great deal about coding, programming and computers in general...

Benni has demonstrated that he is incompetent with a computer, stating that you cannot message or e-mail the admin of an internet site if the private message function between users of the site is removed or non-operational

(apparently he has never used, or even seen, the contact button at the bottom of EVERY PO page)

LOL
he sure likes to tell people everyone else is stupid (Dunning-Kruger)
but can't seem to explain the basic OOPSIES he posted!

LMFAO

Jun 13, 2015
Hi td :)
Would you be so kind as to point out which lies I have told? I would be glad to discuss them with you. Just let me know how I have lied. Thanks in advance
Read my post again. I accused you of supporting and encouraging a liar and a bullshit artist.

Perhaps you read gkams posts as carefully as you read mine. Perhaps you don't bother to check what he says as long as he apes what your Scooby gang is selling at the moment.

Perhaps integrity is secondary to the will of the pack.

Jun 13, 2015
So the part where you claim "bad shit will happen" is still up for debate
@Eikka
uhm... no
bad sh*t will happen is not the debate... the debate is "when" that bad sh*t will happen...

uncontrolled warming that is not somehow mitigated will definitely cause "bad sh*t" to happen, and that is something scientists are very aware of
The debate and argument stems mostly around "what to do about it"
Yes, there are fanatics on all sides:
the "fatalists" depicting the Earth will die tomorrow (and promoting a worst case scenario without proper caveat's and error bars describing the situation, like gore
and the deniers saying "the science isn't real", from cantdrive, deng, Mr166 and ubavontuba... some even stupidly stating the earth is cooling!

the anti-science crowd is driven by their fear (of change, unknown) and the refusal to accept reality, so they cling to politics, religion, conspiracy, delusions and unsubstantiated conjecture to justify it to themselves

Jun 13, 2015
Hi again td :)
I haven't dealt with nuclear stuff since testing Safety Relief Valve operation for those kind of reactors they have at Fukushima (Mark I BWRs), and writing parts of the Industrial Hardening Manual to save American Industry from the effects of nuclear weapons
IOW gkam is no authority on nuclear 'stuff'. He just likes to brag about filling out validation forms and being a proofreader.

This is the kind of self-centered lowlife you welcome on your team.

Jun 13, 2015
Perhaps integrity is secondary to the will of the pack.
@otto
perhaps you should review the voting and what is actually being supported and by whom before you start breaking out your soap-box and blanket accusations, hydrino-boy

you are starting to sound like Benni and RealityCheck...


Jun 13, 2015
That's exactly what it is if it does not allow itself to be falsified, or defends itself via censorship.
@deng
so asking you to actually provide valid reputable science to validate your claims (instead of blogs, opinion and unsubstantiated conjecture) is censorship now?

WOW

it is not about censorship when actual science is involved
in fact, even Soon and Monckton got published -

of course, they also were instantly destroyed because of faulty science, bad data/math/etc, outright fallacious comments and so much more,
...which was proven in a refute which was published in a reputable peer reviewed journal with an impact in climate science, NOT a Chinese start-up wanting names and attention and sheer quantity regardless of content

they published biased pseudoscience bought and paid for and it was proven
they deserve to be censored for that
No one is whining about censoring Andrew Wakefield when he did exactly the same thing... so why attack climate science?

Jun 13, 2015
Alarmists are sensing they're losing.

Jun 13, 2015
perhaps you should review the voting and what is actually being supported and by whom before you start breaking out your soap-box and blanket accusations, hydrino-boy
and perhaps if you weren't so insecure you would compose your posts a little less like e e cummings poetry?

You have something to say or not? Why don't you just say it?

Blanket accusations - gkam thinks that H2 explosions in Fukushima could cause dirty molten Pu puddles to throw IMAGINARY vessel parts 130km, without making a crater.

Conventional nukes can't throw material farther than a few km at best.

Gkam continues to claim this is true because he read it on the site of an anti radiation pill salesman.

The only blanket being thrown is the daily postings of bullshit such as this. You've seen the list. All debunked, all denied.

Gkam says he designed, implemented, and operated an electronic spy network for macnamara while a 20yo noncom.

And you want to support his right to do so.

Jun 13, 2015
perhaps if you weren't so insecure ...poetry?
@otto
not about insecurity, hydrino boy
the poetic constructs in my posts are the influence of my wife and some other local poets i know and regularly visit
...Why don't you just say it?
i have
And you want to support his right to do so
just like i support your own right to free speech

that doesn't mean i agree with you, nor does it mean i support you, nor does it mean you are correct

I've tried to get gkam to provide validation and proof/links for his claims and forget about the self-promotion
he chose to ignore that advice - HIS CHOICE
so what

I simply don't vote on the stuff with no evidence

UNLESS it is pseudoscience like:
cd, deng, jvk,zeph, rc or your past insistence on hydrino's and it's perpetual motion physics

the funniest thing is how you concentrate on one and refuse to address the trolls like the ones i mentioned above

so it is no "public service", despite your claims

Jun 13, 2015
The way to counter the Deniers and cranks is to ask them about their education and experience in the field.

Many get really nasty. Usually that happens when a self-deluded boy realizes he went from a Wanna-be to a Never-was.

Jun 13, 2015
Conventional nukes can't throw material farther than a few km at best.
@otto
if we are talking something like a 57 chevy or heavy large particles, true

perhaps he meant smaller particulates or clouds of radioactive dust/etc?

there are other hazards of nuclear meltdowns
for instance:
http://www.cherno...orch.pdf

https://en.wikipe..._results

Read the first paragraph of the Wiki link

i was in Germany (Bavaria) at the time Chernobyl melted down and we weren't allowed out barefoot, had to be covered, had to import milk, meats, veggies and other stuff and more...

so an explosion is not the only concern of a meltdown
there are fires and radioactive clouds, particulates and more... things that are heavily dependent upon weather, winds and such


Jun 13, 2015
ask them about their education and experience in the field
@gkam
NO, it isnt
that argument is called : appeal to authority (also known as a logical fallacy)

unless you can PROVE they're not educated, like what we've done with Benni or Alche - it's he said/she said

authority arguments are irrelevant due to the anonymity of the internet
RULE-37 - there are no [insert claim here] on the internet

the best way to counter any denier is to provide an argument that is validated by facts and give links and references to empirical evidence usually in the form of studies published in reputable peer reviewed journals which have been validated

even in a courtroom, in order to be accepted as an authority on any subject you must first prove yourself (validate your claims), and that requires answering questions that are validated by empirical evidence and studies, as i note above

otherwise the argument is simply appeal to authority and can be argued from simple conjecture

Jun 13, 2015
The way to counter the Deniers and cranks is to ask them about their education and experience in the field.

Education and experience does not imply intelligence. Your existence confirms this.

Jun 13, 2015


Climate science and medical science have a lot in common. They are both distorted by powerful interests that have a vested interest in the outcomes of the research. Contrary to what some think on this board, researchers can be just as corrupt as bankers and politicians. It is very hard to be objective when the path of your career is determined by the outcome of your research.


What you describe is a is caused by the similarities of the subjects of research.
It is impossible to conduct controlled experiments with humans (except for the NAZIs) and with climate.

Jun 13, 2015
Okay, test me. I can prove my assertions.

It is not appeal to authority or whatever you want to assume. Test the knowledge of the Deniers or critics. Do not fall for the trick of directing attention to the claimant who can prove himself. It is only an attempt to dodge the issue, and obvious at that.

I prove my sources, but some kids cannot let anything go, once they have invested ego in it.


Jun 13, 2015
So the part where you claim "bad shit will happen" is still up for debate
@Eikka
uhm... no
bad sh*t will happen is not the debate... the debate is "when" that bad sh*t will happen...

uncontrolled warming that is not somehow mitigated will definitely cause "bad sh*t" to happen, and that is something scientists are very aware of

That's true, but it is not a foregone conclusion that climate change will not also cause good things to happen as well. The "bad things" scenario presumes that humanity will not migrate and adapt,.. which historical evidence proves is a fallacy.

Jun 13, 2015
The debate and argument stems mostly around "what to do about it"

Correct. What is it you would like to see "done"?
Yes, there are fanatics on all sides:...the "fatalists" depicting the Earth will die tomorrow (and promoting a worst case scenario without proper caveat's and error bars describing the situation, like gore and the deniers saying "the science isn't real", from cantdrive, deng, Mr166 and ubavontuba... some even stupidly stating the earth is cooling!

We have common ground here, I suspect there may be more.

In 2008 a major network, ABC news put together a documentary predicting New York city would be underwater on account of global warming by June 2015, now.

The deniers are not the problem. The charlatans who seek to use AGW to promote their agenda are.

Jun 13, 2015
The "bad things" scenario presumes that humanity will not migrate and adapt,.. which historical evidence proves is a fallacy.
@nou
actually, this is a logical fallacy
the adaptation which occurred in the past was over much longer time frames

you are assuming that the extremely rapid warming is equivalent to the historical adaptation to climate and environment over long time spans
but it is not a foregone conclusion that climate change will not also cause good things to happen
i'm not saying that good will not happen at all
in fact, we've seen signs of good things happening, like Rains in drought affected Africa

the problem is: the evidence and data show that this is a localized and possibly temporary situation

http://phys.org/n...ems.html

http://www.scienc...214/1223

but temporary good now may well be sacrificing overall ability to feed ourselves


Jun 13, 2015
Correct. What is it you would like to see "done"?
Same as i have always promoted:
follow the science and try to make the most effective decisions based upon the evidence

don't follow the political or money argument, and stay the h*ll away from fundamentalist religions at all costs...
The deniers are not the problem. The charlatans who seek to use AGW to promote their agenda are
i disagree and agree...
the charlatans ARE a huge threat and they have only their own personal benefit in mind

however, the deniers support those idiots with their refusal to become literate and educated
refusing to become scientifically literate for a delusion/political/religious/reason is simply stupid

the charlatans would have NO power of the deniers would follow the science and the evidence

just like any con-job
the power is in education
don't fall for the trap of "trust me" - always validate the claims - follow the evidence

the scientific method

Jun 13, 2015
So the part where you claim "bad shit will happen" is still up for debate

@Eikka
uhm... no
bad sh*t will happen is not the debate... the debate is "when" that bad sh*t will happen.....

uncontrolled warming that is not somehow mitigated will definitely cause "bad sh*t" to happen, and that is something scientists are very aware of
.....if you think that is Settled Science then you need to read the link I inserted below concerning the Sahel area in Africa, yeah, more CO2 begets more rainfall:

http://http://www.nature...664.html]http://www.nature...664.html[/url]

http://www.nature...664.html

Jun 13, 2015
Many of the solutions presented in renewable energy are not solutions at all in their present form. Wind appears to kill too many birds and is intermittent. I say appears because who knows the real truth as to numbers, kinds and what is an acceptable number of bats and birds killed before there are real ecological consequences that are worse than Co2 levels. Photovoltaic seem to have great promise but not until we have a way to store it 24/7. Until then we cannot have reliable power with an intermittent source providing a meaningful amount.
Bio fuels, other than utilizing our waste stream, robs too many nutrients from the soil.


Jun 13, 2015
The "bad things" scenario presumes that humanity will not migrate and adapt,.. which historical evidence proves is a fallacy.

@nou
actually, this is a logical fallacy,... the adaptation which occurred in the past was over much longer time frames,... you are assuming that the extremely rapid warming is equivalent to the historical adaptation to climate and environment over long time spans

A few tenths of a degree increase in global temperature per decade is not 'extremely rapid' wrt the advancement of the human condition and society. In fact, had no one even discovered the correlation between global temp and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, humanity would likely not even notice their adaptation and migration as a specific singular 'event'.

At present there is nothing perceptible to adapt to except theory.

Jun 13, 2015
follow the evidence


https://wattsupwi...0065.jpg

@deng
so asking you to actually provide valid reputable science to validate your claims (instead of blogs, opinion and unsubstantiated conjecture) is censorship now?


Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

and perhaps if you weren't so insecure you would compose your posts a little less like e e cummings poetry?

Love it.

the poetic constructs in my posts are the influence of my wife and some other local poets i know and regularly visit

Golden! Ohh man, this is pure comedy.

Jun 13, 2015
https://wattsupwi...0065.jpg
@deng
wow, like i said
a blog is not equivalent to a validated study published in a reputable peer reviewed journal
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation
and thank you for continuing to demonstrate it

i provide empirical evidence in validated studies from reputable peer reviewed journals
you think blogs and conjecture are equivalent to them
perfect example of dishonesty period, actually... that you think opinion trumps fact!
LOL

A few tenths of a degree per decade is not 'extremely rapid' wrt the advancement of the human condition and society
@nou
we did not evolve in rapid climate change, so you can't state with any real authority that it is not dangerous

What is to say it will not affect us, especially as it threatens food production

http://journals.p....1002167

don't forget prior mass extinction re: climate change

Jun 13, 2015
A few tenths of a degree per decade is not 'extremely rapid' wrt the advancement of the human condition and society

@nou
we did not evolve in rapid climate change, so you can't state with any real authority that it is not dangerous

I made no reference to evolution. We are speaking short term,... i.e. how fast has human society advanced in the last few hundred years.

Jun 13, 2015
@deng
wow, like i said

Was your poetic influence valuable when you were writing papers for your MIT degree?

What about those other universities? Did they appreciate scholarly papers written in poetic form?

Anyway, compiled data gathered from reputable sources, presented in an easy to read format (regardless of where that data is stored) is plenty of evidence to show that there is not enough proof of AGW to justify the moral chaos and economic ruin being propagated by the AGW bureaucrats.

Therefore, I present you with:

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.


Jun 13, 2015
"Was your poetic influence valuable when you were writing papers for your MIT degree?"
----------------------------------------

How many times does he have to tell you he is taking on-line classes from MIT? How many? He even gave you the URL.

And this one:
" If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.", not understanding he is judging your conclusions and statements, not you.

This is just blatant dishonesty in place and service of argument, having no alternative.

Jun 13, 2015
What is it you would like to see "done"?

Same as i have always promoted:
follow the science and try to make the most effective decisions based upon the evidence


Who? Individuals or government? What exactly?

If individuals,.. they are not going to "follow the science" en masse and even if they did, as those who presently state their acceptance of AGW, will on account of their nature, pursue their own individual and immediate self interest, and continue to seek the cheapest energy source despise it being CO2 based. This is the case at present.

Jun 13, 2015
Was your poetic influence valuable when you were writing papers for your MIT degree?
@deng
trolling
baiting
reported

why don't you PROVE i claimed a degree from MIT
ROTFLMFAO
compiled data gathered from reputable sources, presented in an easy to read format (regardless of where that data is stored) is plenty of evidence to show that there is not enough proof of AGW
and again, this is proof of your intellectual dishonesty as well as dishonesty period

an article does not necessarily represent the findings of a study 100%, and typically uses hyperbole or language to draw attention to get people to buy/read the article

validated studies are about measured/observed/etc findings demonstrated repeatedly, not someone's interpretation of someone else's work
IOW- you are saying jvk's interpretations of science is as valid as any study

this is, literally, the definition of intellectual dishonesty as well as argument from ignorance

Jun 13, 2015
Who? Individuals or government?
@nou
scientists produce science, not governments
governments report on it and attempt to interpret it to their own ends (and i despise politics, but you know that already)

I also do not follow individuals unless i can validate their claims, but each claim must be validated before i will accept it, PERIOD

regardless of the individual

it is interesting that you would up-vote deng and his argument which is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty...

but then again, i expected no less from you and your philosophical leanings

I prefer EVIDENCE, not speculation
that is why you, deng and others and i will never be able to see eye-to-eye

conjecture is NOT equivalent to evidence
speculation is NOT empirical evidence
I made
you cannot assume that we will be able to adapt rapidly enough without evidence
Technology is NOT always adaptation

Again... until you can provide EVIDENCE, not conjecture, we are at an impasse

Jun 13, 2015
@deng
trolling
baiting
reported

Nice poem.

why don't you PROVE i claimed a degree from MIT
ROTFLMFAO

You are very emotional. Why is that?

an article

Now that we know you don't click on the links I provide (that lead to graphs built from data both sides are claiming), I present you with:

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

From GISS scientists:

A key application of the sea level trend concerns the potential destruction of the marine West Antarctic ice sheet. It can be argued that the ice sheet is not close to disintegration, because it survived the Altithermal ( ~ 5000 years ago) when the global mean temperature was perhaps 1 deg C warmer than today.

http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf

Give us another poem.


Jun 13, 2015
Nice poem
@dung
thanks
i wrote that one special for all the trolls like you
You are very emotional. Why is that?
you are intellectually dishonest, a blatant liar and scientifically illiterate. why is that?
Now that we know you don't click on the links I provide
not to blogs or pseudoscience, like WUWT
i don't do that for anyone, and i don't use them with you, either
so again, you are only proving you are intellectually dishonest
i DID open the GISS link - we will deal with those implications when i can get my other studies in line
Just because you can link a 1982 study doesn't mean we don't have better info today... that is the common fallacy used to sucker folk like you on the WUWT site into believing their con
It can be argued that the ice sheet is not close to disintegration, because it survived the Altithermal
and yet we see differently today...
and that is evidence from now- not 1982

at least this argument has some science, not WUWT

Jun 13, 2015
"Was your poetic influence valuable when you were writing papers for your MIT degree?"
----------------------------------------

How many times does he have to tell you he is taking on-line classes from MIT? How many? He even gave you the URL.

And this one:
" If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.", not understanding he is judging your conclusions and statements, not you.

This is just blatant dishonesty in place and service of argument, having no alternative.

Why are you so emotional?

Whether you admit it or not, his claim to MIT and the other universities was another attempt to create a real-world persona in order to gain internet credibility.

Just like your attempt, it failed.

btw, I saw your website. I'm willing to bet it doesn't garner much business.

Jun 13, 2015
My previous post was purely factual, but yet you troll rated it a 1. Are you Denying that the continued increase in CO2 based energy is not economically driven?

What is it you would like to see "done"?

follow the science and try to make the most effective decisions based upon the evidence

Who? Individuals or government? What exactly?

@nou
scientists produce science, not governments
governments report on it and attempt to interpret it to their own ends (and i despise politics, but you know that already)

I also do not follow individuals unless i can validate their claims, but each claim must be validated before i will accept it, PERIOD


Let's try again. I'm asking you, an AGW-enthusiasts who is concerned about it, what it is you expect to be done about it.

Do you expect government to solve the problem or individuals, and how exactly?


Jun 13, 2015
@d ctd
http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf
Give us another poem
also, since the 1980s, CO2 and H2O emission rates from fossil fuel consumption have increased by more than 75% while the uncertainties in the estimates of the other big factors that contribute to sea-level rise have been reduced and are now more closely reconciled with the improving observations of sea-level rise [29 December 2014 by Andy Skuce]

is there something specific you want to say about that gornitz et al paper?

what is your point?

Jun 13, 2015
you are intellectually dishonest

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

not to blogs or pseudoscience, like WUWT

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

when i can get my other studies in line

Poetry, or your MIT PhD?

used to sucker folk like you

Populism. Darn. I guess I'm not popular. Ok, here's my money. Do I get to eat insects now?

and yet we see differently today...

Read all about it:

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

is there something specific you want to say about that gornitz et al paper?

Yes. The Earth goes through cycles. Blaming it on humans, and then taking their money and their livelihood for it, is criminal.

Jun 13, 2015
...blah blah cry to gain internet credibility
@dung
no it wasn't
it isn't anything i've not shared before nor is it anything that i don't continue to share so that people like you can learn about science

you troll rated it a 1
@Nou
nope
you are trying to push philo over science and intentionally being inflammatory... you already know the answers to those questions (previously asked and answered)
an AGW-enthusiasts
i am not an AGW "enthusiast"
I follow the science
there has been NO validated evidence refuting the AGW science i've read
what it is you expect to be done about it
this is political and not relevant to the topic, nor to anything else, really
I am doing what i think i should do: reduced waste, water/other conservation, small living space, self-sufficient lifestyle, minimal need for finances ...

like i said: irrelevant

i don't follow or argue politics
if you want to do that, go argue with rygg, he loves it
dung does too!

Jun 13, 2015
A few tenths of a degree per decade is not 'extremely rapid' wrt the advancement of the human condition and society

we did not evolve in rapid climate change, so you can't state with any real authority that it is not dangerous

I made no reference to evolution. We are speaking short term,... i.e. how fast has human society advanced in the last few hundred years.

you cannot assume that we will be able to adapt rapidly enough without evidence


It is not my conjecture that AGW is cataclysmic for humanity such that adaptation and migration are not feasible reactions. If it is yours, shouldn't you be the one providing evidence to that effect?

My evidence was already stated, that it will be 'only' a few degress per century global increase (according to moderate climatologist estimates), while that is a loooong time wrt advancement in human condition (Historical fact).

Jun 13, 2015
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
@dung
that is why i use science instead of politics, religion and emotionally charged rhetoric
Poetry, or your MIT PhD?
trolling/baiting again
i was referring to actually reading studies
you know- reputable scientific publications with validated empirical evidence?

interesting - shows you are politically, emotionally and otherwise motivated to produce your intentional dishonesty
here's my money
i don't take IOU's
Do I get to eat insects now?
if that is what you want
Earth goes through cycles
so which cycle are you blaming? ENSO? PDO? 11yr Solar cycle? Singers 1500yr cycle? multidecadal?
Blaming it on humans, and then taking their money and their livelihood for it, is criminal
but we can PROVE humans are involved
Starting here

http://www.scienc...abstract

to be continued

Jun 13, 2015
@d ctd
Earth goes through cycles...Blaming it on humans
http://www.bgc.mp...IJMS.pdf

A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years, so we CAN say humans are involved...Human carbon dioxide emissions can be calculated from international/US energy stats
http://www.eia.go.../annual/

plus other helpful sources

http://www.ncdc.n...419.html

http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

Plus we have data on the physics of CO2 etc

https://agwobserv...perties/

we also tend to validate our findings

http://www.nature...5a0.html

(Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

shall i continue to give you evidence of human AGW?

i got plenty more studies to share

Jun 13, 2015
but we can PROVE humans are involved


By George, I've got it! Why didn't I think of this earlier?

Anyway
compiled data gathered from reputable sources
presented
in an easy to read format
regardless of where that data is stored
is
plenty of evidence
to show
that there is not enough proof of AGW
to justify the moral chaos
and economic ruin
being
propagated
by the AGW bureaucrats.

but we can PROVE humans are involved
Starting here

http://www.scienc...abstract

You should have read the abstract closer. Perhaps referencing online courses as something more credible behind the shield of anonymity didn't help after all. Ah well...you get what you pay for:

the relation between pCO2 and climate remains poorly constrained.

In other words, blaming it on AGW is not justified.

Did you like my poem?

Jun 13, 2015
you are trying to push philo over science and intentionally being inflammatory... you already know the answers to those questions (previously asked and answered)

I have not made reference to philosophy in this thread. If I knew your position wrt the questions I have asked, I would not have asked them. I'm just curious what it is you think will solve climate change.

an AGW-enthusiasts

i am not an AGW "enthusiast"
I follow the science

That's all I meant by 'AGW-enthusiasts', ....one who follows and promotes AGW. No insult intended.

what it is you expect to be done about it ?

this is political and not relevant to the topic, nor to anything else, really

It is only a political question if your answer makes reference to politics. Right, so you're making changes in your life to make yourself feel better, but other than that, are disinterested in global solutions to climate change? No? Then what do you expect should be done?

Jun 13, 2015
Okay, test me. I can prove my assertions.

It is not appeal to authority or whatever you want to assume. Test the knowledge of the Deniers or critics. Do not fall for the trick of directing attention to the claimant who can prove himself. It is only an attempt to dodge the issue, and obvious at that.


.....and this cuts both ways, but all you've shown is such myopic tunnel vision that you're unable to assess such claims of moral high ground from any precipice other than the one you imagine you're standing on.

Jun 13, 2015
...AGW is cataclysmic ...are not feasible...
@Nou
and i only state that there is a probability of cataclysm that rises the more we ignore the problem and fail to deal with it -that's it

This is basic logic, however, i am sure i can find a study that shows that ignoring problems are not the solution
Is that what you want?
it will be 'only' a few degress per century global increase... loooong time wrt advancement ...
1- assumption that there will be no increase in temperature speed is logically inconsistent given that our "historical facts" show a rapid increase in the last 100yrs and a major factor in said increase [Lacis et al] is not being controlled

2- use specifics in time: just because we are technologically advanced doesn't meant we are sufficiently advanced to deal with cataclysm should we suddenly fail to be able to raise crops/food (an issue which may be near based upon the study i linked above- Mora, Caldwell et al)

Jun 13, 2015
you are [....] intentionally being inflammatory....


How, by asking you a question which evidently you can't answer? How exactly was I inflammatory asking for solutions to AGW?


Jun 13, 2015
compiled data gathered from reputable sources
presented
in an easy to read format
@dung
there is no substitute for the SOURCE
interpretations of science don't mean accurate interpretation
Articles are NOT equivalent to studies, IOW- you are still being dishonest
You should have read the abstract closer
you should continue to read all the data and see how it applies to everything... there are a lot of studies which support the overall conclusion
you should also pay attention to dates etc...like your claim
...read the abstract closer...blaming it on AGW is not justified
this was published in October 8 2009, whereas later in at least OCT 2010 [Lacis et al- ScienceMag] validates the CO2/WV cycle and how it's feedback mechanism forces warming and why CO2 is the temp control knob

the other studies support this too
shall i continue to feed you the studies which support CO2 and AGW?

Did you like my poem?
no
i don't like liars.

Jun 13, 2015
you are [....] intentionally being inflammatory....


How, by asking you a question which evidently you can't answer? How exactly was I inflammatory asking for solutions to AGW?
.........because you dared to doubt him.

Jun 13, 2015
asking ... you can't answer?
@Nou
by asking a question you know i will NOT answer
i don't DO politics, nor do i follow the political arguments WRT what to do... and you HAVE asked me that in the past, and i refused to argue the politics and personal conjecture then
so there goes your argument of "If I knew I would not have asked "
No insult intended
none taken
i just differentiate between AGW enthusiasts and people who simply follow the science

It is only a political question ...
and global solutions to climate change are political

the only thing i can state that i know will help is reducing CO2 output... something which i know people like Thermo are working on (for Coal plants)
I expect changes to be made- what those are should be environmentally friendly, but i know people (esp. US) are lazy
So EDUCATION is also a must - especially for people like deng above

back later
Town run

Jun 13, 2015
A few tenths of a degree per decade is not 'extremely rapid' wrt the advancement of the human condition and society

we did not evolve in rapid climate change, so you can't state with any real authority that it is not dangerous

I made no reference to evolution. We are speaking short term,... i.e. how fast has human society advanced in the last few hundred years.

you cannot assume that we will be able to adapt rapidly enough without evidence

It is not my conjecture that AGW is cataclysmic for humanity such that adaptation and migration are not feasible reactions. If it is yours, [provide] evidence

i only state that there is a probability of cataclysm that rises the more we ignore the problem and fail to deal with it -that's it

Adaptation and migration are real-time natural reactions to tangible climate change which will occur as an (factual) inevitability, so the "if we ignore it" is fallacious to begin with.

Jun 13, 2015
it will be 'only' a few degress per century global increase... loooong time wrt advancement ...

1- assumption that there will be no increase in temperature speed ....

Yes, you're correct; I did not mean literally per century, "indefinitely", but rather only for the next century and in relation to the 'speed' of technological advancement and adaptation.

2- use specifics in time: just because we are technologically advanced doesn't meant we are sufficiently advanced to deal with cataclysm should we suddenly fail to be able to raise crops/food

Don't use specifics in location wrt Global average warming: just because crop problems occur in one location, local climate, does not mean that other locations don't become better.

There is no scientific basis for any such "global suddenly" in global climate change. We will become technologically more and more advanced as challenges face us, as is our history.

Jun 13, 2015
How many times does he have to tell you he is taking on-line classes from MIT? How many? He even gave you the URL.


...........so, let me get try to get this straight: I have had six years of Engineering School Education in Nuclear & Electrical Engineering, but, because El Stumpo just started taking on-line courses from MIT, he is already smarter than I am? Right? What say you again are those courses he's taking?

Jun 13, 2015
It is interesting that Benni just refused to answer a simple question about the change in the enthalpy of the earth when there is an imbalance in the radiant heat transfer due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I guess it doesn't fit the limited number of differential equations he can solve.

Jun 13, 2015
what it is you expect to be done about it ?


this is political and not relevant to the topic, nor to anything else, really


It is only a political question if your answer makes reference to politics.


and global solutions to climate change are political


Yes, and? I don't think global solutions will work, as the "global community" can't even accomplish a relative easy task of defeating ISIS nor preventing genocide in modern times. Do you agree?

the only thing i can state that i know will help is reducing CO2 output.....

Yes, via technological advancement, i.e AGW is a technological problem, not a political one, nor a government regulation one. See, common ground.
I expect changes to be made- what those are should be environmentally friendly, but i know people (esp. US) are lazy

Not lazy, it's just that there are economic forces and natural egoism at play,.. good things not bad.

Jun 13, 2015
It is interesting that Benni just refused to answer a simple question about the change in the enthalpy of the earth when there is an imbalance in the radiant heat transfer due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I guess it doesn't fit the limited number of differential equations he can solve.


....because you didn't understand the contradiction placed within the context of your question. It's so very obvious to this engineer who has taken courses in Thermodynamics that being the neophyte you are, you don't even know how "enthalpy" is measured, which if you did you would have understood why I came back to you with: "Your question is incomplete".

Tell you what mr "T', to respond to your question I need more information. To bring you along a bit further I'll give you a partial hint of the additional information you need to supply with your question, then we'll see if you're worthy of your sign-on handle. It's a common phrase starting with the letter "c".

Jun 13, 2015
"Yes, and? I don't think global solutions will work, as the "global community" can't even accomplish a relative easy task of defeating ISIS nor preventing genocide in modern times. Do you agree?"

Well I think that you would agree that the US is the biggest player in the global community. The US FUNDED AND CREATED ISIS in order to defeat Assad. WHY WOULD THE US EVER WANT TO DEFEAT ISIS?

Jun 13, 2015
The US FUNDED AND CREATED ISIS in order to defeat Assad. WHY WOULD THE US EVER WANT TO DEFEAT ISIS?


Your sense of history must resemble a plate of spaghetti.

They funded and trained rebels in Syria, whom some later joined ISIS. That inevitable domino history does not mean the USA Created and Funded the terrorist group ISIS.

If the USA "created" and "funded" ISIS itself why would they then threaten the USA in return? Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Jun 13, 2015
That where you and I differ. You think that the problems in the ME are due to incompetence and I think that everything is going right according to plan. Mission Accomplished!!!!! There is only 1 3/4 years left to accomplish the goals. They have to rush.

Jun 13, 2015
That where you and I differ. You think that the problems in the ME are due to incompetence and I think that everything is going right according to plan.


I have confidence in the military as a force, but not 'government planning'. Conspiracy theories are like horror movies, if you're not a teenage girl or utterly clueless, they are impossible to get your money's worth. (no offence intended)

Jun 13, 2015
Benni said:
Tell you what mr "T', to respond to your question I need more information. To bring you along a bit further I'll give you a partial hint of the additional information you need to supply with your question, then we'll see if you're worthy of your sign-on handle. It's a common phrase starting with the letter "c".


You do not need any more information to answer the question. If you have some mistake in mind that you think I have made then just blurt it out. I have made mistakes in the past and will in the future. However, you do not seem to be able to figure this one out. I assume that you would use standard thermodynamic assumptions (LTE, existing boundary conditions, and one or two defined control volumes). So, let me know what you think is wrong.

Jun 13, 2015
@otto
if we are talking something like a 57 chevy or heavy large particles, true

perhaps he meant smaller particulates or clouds of radioactive dust/etc?
So I guess you missed this thread.
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

-Real nukes cant throw macroscopic PARTS, including 'small particulates' (?) further than a few km, let alone 130km. And they make huge craters.

-Gkam read an article by his favorite jap expat who used the word 'parts' when in the article he obviously meant 'dust'. Dust is carried by wind.

Gkam the phony engr didnt read the article, only the title. He then concocted this bullshit theory of H2-initiated Pu fission to explain it.

And he continues to insist its true despite the evidence.

You really want to encourage such bullshit here?

Jun 13, 2015
No offense taken, I am just sad for my country and the direction in which it is being led. It is the military's job to follow instructions so there is not much help there.

Jun 13, 2015
@otto
if we are talking something like a 57 chevy or heavy large particles, true

perhaps he meant smaller particulates or clouds of radioactive dust/etc?
So I guess you missed this thread.
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

-Real nukes cant throw macroscopic PARTS, including 'small particulates' (?) further than a few km, let alone 130km. And they make huge craters.

-Gkam read an article by his favorite jap expat who used the word 'parts' when in the article he obviously meant 'dust'. Dust is carried by wind.

Gkam the phony engr didnt read the article, only the title. He then concocted this bullshit theory of H2-initiated Pu fission to explain it.

And he continues to insist its true despite the evidence.

You really want to encourage such bullshit here?


Ghost, he is not making those claims here. This is a different thread.

Jun 13, 2015
Ghost, he is not making those claims here. This is a different thread
Uh huh. So as long as he doesnt post verifiable bullshit HERE, its ok for you to go into other threads where he DOES, and downrate posters who object to this?

But I DID flag crap of his in THIS thread, which you encouraged by downrating me when I objected to it...
Sorry, doggie, I earned a Master of Science in this field, and you are probably arguing from political prejudice, which is another term for emotion
BTW this is not 'appeal to authority' as gkam is not an authority on anything. Its using spurious claims about a level of acumen which he thinks allows him to pretend to know what he clearly doesnt.

Stop encouraging this. It makes you all look very ignorant.

Jun 13, 2015
Benni said:
Tell you what mr "T', to respond to your question I need more information. To bring you along a bit further I'll give you a partial hint of the additional information you need to supply with your question, then we'll see if you're worthy of your sign-on handle. It's a common phrase starting with the letter "c".


You do not need any more information to answer the question. If you have some mistake in mind that you think I have made then just blurt it out. I have made mistakes in the past and will in the future. However, you do not seem to be able to figure this one out. I assume that you would use standard thermodynamic assumptions (LTE, existing boundary conditions, and one or two defined control volumes). So, let me know what you think is wrong.
.......learning to think is hard isn't it mr."T"? You see, if you had any knowledge of Thermodynamics you would have instantly recognized the phrase I alluded to.....I know, ask El Stumpo.


Jun 13, 2015
99.99% of all science is wrong. Look at the history

Jun 13, 2015
99.99% of all science is wrong. Look at the history


Ironically you wouldn't have been able to post that had that been true.

Science is not "wrong" per se. If it can be verified it is accurate or less accurate in it's particular realm of application. For example general relativity did not render Newtonian theory "wrong",... in fact it is still used.

Jun 13, 2015
Don't use specifics in location wrt Global average warming: just because crop problems occur in one location, local climate, does not mean that other locations don't become better
@Nou
Yes, i understood that, but (apologies) i also assumed you read the study i linked:
Areas in Russia, China, and Canada are projected to gain suitable plant growing days, but the rest of the world will experience losses. Notably, tropical areas could lose up to 200 suitable plant growing days per year. These changes will impact most of the world's terrestrial ecosystems, potentially triggering climate feedbacks. Human populations will also be affected, with up to ~2,100 million of the poorest people in the world (~30% of the world's population) highly vulnerable to changes in the supply of plant-related goods and services. These impacts will be spatially variable, indicating regions where adaptations will be necessary.
to be cont'd

Jun 13, 2015
Benni blurted:
.......learning to think is hard isn't it mr."T"? You see, if you had any knowledge of Thermodynamics you would have instantly recognized the phrase I alluded to.....I know, ask El Stumpo.


In other words, you cannot answer the question. You remind me a lot of WaterDummy who pretends he has magical information that he won't share with others of lesser intelligence. Of course, he is just wrong. I know you wouldn't pull the same trick - would you?

Jun 13, 2015
@CapStumpy, Again, your above quote assumes no migration nor adaption, which is a fallacy on its face. Those problems are not going to occur next Tuesday at 3:30pm. We're threatened by a 3mph runaway train.

Jun 13, 2015
@nou cont'd
There is no scientific basis for any such "global suddenly" in global climate change

you had better clarify this statement
We will become technologically more and more advanced as challenges face us, as is our history
this assumption based upon?

historically, humans technological advancement, though great, has not always been due to any specific challenges except perhaps war

Our current weapons and nuclear energy are a great example of this

Modern technology has advanced incredibly rapidly in the past 200 years, true, but a great amount of that was not due to challenges ...but (more recently) was a direct result of our fears during the cold war (war again) and our fear of being conquered - once we made it and the Soviet Union faltered... and the wall dropped... we've almost stripped NASA bare

(although somewhat based upon opinion, Dr. Tyson has presented data on this to Congress)

Jun 13, 2015
@CapStumpy, Again, your above quote assumes no migration nor adaption, which is a fallacy on its face.


Nou: I'm jumping in because I have a question on this. We can assume migration and adaption (which is covered by the IPCC) but who gets to migrate? When Bangladesh starts flooding worse, do you think India is going to let them migrate in?

What about the animals that have no migration corridors open anymore (humans have built roads across them).

This reminds me of the old days in the conversations about the ozone layer when people against the concept said that we could always were long sleeves, hats, and sun glasses - but what do plants and animals do. I remember political cartoons of animals in hats and sun glasses.

So, do you agree that the earth is keeping more of the IR?

Jun 13, 2015
let me get try to get this straight: I have had six years of Engineering School Education in Nuclear & Electrical Engineering, but, because El Stumpo just started taking on-line courses from MIT, he is already smarter than I am?
@benniTROLL
well... if the shoe fits...
all that education you claim, benni... and you can't even prove you are semi-competent at basic math! and that is proven above!

it's not MY fault that i've been able to demonstrate you are a liar, benni!

you are the one making claims about your mathematical prowess etc and being proven wrong by your OWN words and posts!

BRB guys/Nou

Jun 13, 2015
.... it does say ....."....indicating regions where adaptations will be necessary",... only after saying...... "with up to ~2,100 million of the poorest people in the world highly vulnerable to changes in the supply of plant-related goods and services",.... as if first the latter happens AND THEN the former happens,... rather than that the latter is mitigated by the former.

Jun 13, 2015
@ thermodynamics,.... has any of what you have cited been mitigated through global central planning in past history? Indeed, who then tells india to let them migrate in,... and who saves animals from their natural fate?

Yes, I have no reason to doubt that climatologists have at least a core understanding of the correlation between rise in global temperatures and rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and it's accumulation effect.

Jun 13, 2015
So, do you agree that the earth is keeping more of the IR?


.........first you need to know how to measure/calculate ENTHALPY, you don't. The reason you don't is because El Stumpo hasn't gotten that far along in his MIT online studies to assist you.

Jun 13, 2015
@Captain Stumpy:

"It varies in specifics, but the basics are clear: scientific illiteracy and a tenancy to accept pseudoscience, religion, conspiracy, faith or delusions over actual science"

By the definition you've given here, then we must conclude that Mr. Cook is a 'science denier.' And following his recommendations and practices, we should combat his myths by using the mechanisms of marketing, religion, and pseudoscience cranks to sell the point.

"Perhaps he would have been better off showing a different paper, but people tend to grab what they are most familiar with first"

Mr. Cook has led by example on his exhortation to engage in dubious psychological ploys by utilizing and making an utterly false claim about science. If that is what he is most familiar with, so be it. Then all we're left with is an "If you can't beat them, join them" argument. Reducing scientific literacy to equality with 'science denial.'

Jun 13, 2015
There is no scientific basis for any such "global suddenly" in global climate change


you had better clarify this statement


You cited a local climate event wrt "suddenly". Global warming concerns increase in Global temperatures to the tune of tenths of a degree per decade (at present), so clearly you can not validly cite local events "suddenly" occuring on account of GW, despite that such events would theoretically get worse or better over long periods of time.

We will become technologically more and more advanced as challenges face us, as is our history
this assumption based upon?


The entirety of human history.

Jun 13, 2015
So, do you agree that the earth is keeping more of the IR?


.........first you need to know how to measure/calculate ENTHALPY, you don't. The reason you don't is because El Stumpo hasn't gotten that far along in his MIT online studies to assist you.


You must be WaterDummy's sock puppet to make a claim like this. You can't answer a simple question so, thanks for playing.

Jun 13, 2015
you should continue to read all the data and see how it applies to everything


there is no substitute for the SOURCE
interpretations of science don't mean accurate interpretation


this was published in October 8 2009,


Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

shall i continue to feed you the studies which support CO2 and AGW?


no
i don't like liars.


Tell us more about your MIT degrees and how you're a fire captain; put it in poem form.

Jun 13, 2015
@ thermodynamics,.... has any of what you have cited been mitigated through global central planning in past history? Indeed, who then tells india to let them migrate in,... and who saves animals from their natural fate?

Yes, I have no reason to doubt that climatologists have at least a core understanding of the correlation between rise in global temperatures and rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and it's accumulation effect.


One example is the ban of CFCs.

Jun 13, 2015
So, do you agree that the earth is keeping more of the IR?


.........first you need to know how to measure/calculate ENTHALPY, you don't. The reason you don't is because El Stumpo hasn't gotten that far along in his MIT online studies to assist you.


You must be WaterDummy's sock puppet to make a claim like this. You can't answer a simple question so, thanks for playing.


..................and I keep asking you to give me the rest of the information & you don't do it. So how do you expect to get an answer to your "simple question"?

Your problem is that you are so steeped in the shenanigans of political gamesmanship that you inherently treat math/science as a tool of convenience/inconvenience with no consequence of the utter silliness your shallow depth of knowledge of the subject material.

Jun 13, 2015
Benni says:
..................and I keep asking you to give me the rest of the information & you don't do it. So how do you expect to get an answer to your "simple question"?


I gave you enough information to answer the question. If you need more, tell me what you need and I will pass that on to you. If you want to play 20 questions try someone else.

Jun 13, 2015
One of the interesting studies in this thread is the power that populism holds over the AGW Alarmists.

They continually vote down people that refuse to be taxed, terrorized and crippled, and vote up their kin. The free thinkers seem to not really care who votes how.

I for one, welcome my insect eating masters.

Jun 13, 2015
Which would include condemning people for using pejorative - while at the same time as using pejorative - correct? So having been caught yourself being 'intellectually dishonest' - you are quite the hypocrite correct - and don't have any of that internet cred that you keep pushing others for.


Welcome back! Tell us about your Master's in Community Counseling again? Please?

Or do you have another false real-life persona waiting in the wings? C'mon, share! It gives you internet cred! All your AGW alarmist buddies are doin' it, it'll make you feel good!

Jun 13, 2015
The free thinkers seem to not really care who votes how.
All of us know science isn't up for a vote, but by way of encouragement, like applause maybe, I think I gave out a couple fat-fingered 4's by accident -- sorry.

Jun 13, 2015
Benni says:........and I keep asking you to give me the rest of the information & you don't do it. So how do you expect to get an answer to your "simple question"?


I gave you enough information to answer the question. If you need more, tell me what you need and I will pass that on to you. If you want to play 20 questions try someone else.


You prattle on with the same line of obfuscation and you do it because you have so little comprehension of the subject material in Thermodynamics along with the fact you asked me an inherently contradictory question. You would never have asked the question in the manner you did if you knew anything at all about ENTHALPY. Because you asked an inherently contradictory question, I probed your comprehension of the subject & you are all bent out of shape at me for your own failure to comprehend the science.

Jun 13, 2015
Which has nothing to do with your dishonesty as well demonstrated on this board. Hypocrite much nice distraction


@Greeno:

You are the poster child for for hypocrisy when you told me a couple weeks back that you get all your electricity from wind energy. Remember it? Yeah, but after probing you with a few questions for which your responses carried hugely suspicious tones, I asked you how far from your house you installed your wind turbine. Remember that? And remember across the entire course of exchanges we were having that you had been leading me on in the belief you were getting your wind energy off the grid from some wind turbine?

Sure, you remember all those above exchanges.........then it turns out you were still connected 100% to the grid with some caveat about a request you placed with the power company to service you only with power that comes from some Wind Farm. And of course you know the Power company complied , and now you declare yourself "green".


Jun 13, 2015
Benni, I continue my assessment which paints you as a liberal making fun of conservatives with your silly remarks. Why would you want to assume 100% wind power means his own turbine? Because you want to do so, for argument? He is doing something, and you are not.

Jun 14, 2015
You cited a local climate event wrt "suddenly". Global warming concerns increase in Global temperatures to the tune of tenths of a degree per decade (at present), so clearly you can not validly cite local events "suddenly" occurring on account of GW,
You most certainly can, and the correct term is "abrupt". One such relevant event is melting permafrost – scientists referred to it as "a sleeping giant" and "a ticking time bomb" in 2009 ( http://www.nature....24.html ) when it was stated that we'll know more about it in 2-3 years. Sure enough, in 2013 we learned 7 facts you need to know about the Arctic methane timebomb

Jun 14, 2015
VINDOC betrays his immense ignorance
99.99% of all science is wrong. Look at the history
Science, as discipline, is relatively new @ ~500yrs or so & is surviving well.

ie. Human thought exercised with immense increases in communication precision via printed text along with transport improvements over increasingly wider routes enabled the intelligent to avoid mere propaganda by sharing definitively applicable philosophies commensurate with the powerful view we have a shared reality ie Evidence !

Science thus Evolved ;-)

VINDOC comes across as anti-science why ? He is either a religious nut - easily influenced by an old book that claims a personal deity 'did it" OR he's a paid flunky trying to obfuscate progress or immensely dimwittedly stupid as he ignores widespread Evidence re Science's benefits, ie A dick !

VINDOC desperately needs an education in methods
https://en.wikipe...c_method

VINDOC should apologize or show whats better ?

Jun 14, 2015
Feldagast claims
And yet the models are still inaccurate as ever, I thought NY was supposed to be under water in 2015
Feldagast you seem immensely confused between politicians & scientists and appear so easily led by propaganda.

Feldagast prove your claims that ANY acceptable model predicted NY "under water" & by how much ?

Thats the amazing thing about an education Feldagast, you become immune to propaganda and thus cannot be led like a robotic dog to follow some idea without exercising critical thinking in conjunction with your education in Science which must be firmly founded upon Physics ?

Feldagast community college for you, the sooner the better or grow up & go away please...

Jun 14, 2015
So I guess you missed this thread
@Otto
yep
cant throw macroscopic PARTS
parts can also mean particulates (small particles) and more often than not it is (as you state) wind that carries this (as i also noted)
You really want to encourage...
I've tried to encourage argument from evidence, not authority

but you are also encouraging far worse by ignoring the worst trolls like zeph, jvk, deng, cantdrive, rc, benni etc

Read the links i gave for Benni & tell me you think she is an actual "nuclear" and "electrical Engineer' as she has claimed...(search for "apparently you can't do BASIC math" above)

Blatantly false claims, bad math, can't comprehend basic terminology like ODE, but tells everyone else we're stupid and can't do them... then continues to berate everyone as stupid, but has YET to prove a single ODE, Math, simple terms or engineer claim!

but you leave the retired old bat alone!

WHY?

Jun 14, 2015
Again, your above quote assumes no migration nor adaption, which is a fallacy on its face
@Nou
not assuming either.(See Thermo's post)
the study states [paraphrased] that even with localized temporary beneficial climate change, it is still likely to create a worldwide problem which will not be beneficial for migration or adaption
this makes either migration or adaption difficult
We're threatened by a 3mph runaway train
but again, you are assuming the train will remain at 3mph
the historical evidence has demonstrated that it can jump to much faster speed with our own influence
(trends indicate it is very possible that the temp will increase even more rapidly that we think, and has the potential, like a train, to surprise us, despite it's large size and noise)

it has the potential to rise faster than we thought

http://www.scienc...632.full

Jun 14, 2015
Tell us more about...
@dung
but i've not even gotten to some of the better studies yet, like the (Roberts et al 2015) study which shows changes in the rate of warming can occur naturally, but are uncommon ... or

http://www.scienc...632.full

so, you ask SPECIFICALLY for evidence, and when it is given, you call it "intellectual dishonesty" because you cant read, don't understand it, cant see how your old outdated data that has been refuted by modern data is not relevant ...

and then, to top it off, you STILL HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supporting your position so you simply start throwing out TROLL posts! LOL

because you can't understand science, you are going to TROLL like Uba, AntiG and shooty!

thanks for pointing that out and showing us all your true reason for posting here: Obfuscation, lies, and trolling against the science

you are the definition of DISHONEST
there is no intellectual anything in your posts

Jun 14, 2015
You most certainly can, and the correct term is "abrupt". One such relevant event is melting permafrost
@Protoplasmix
Thanks for the help !
I really should read ahead more so that i don't post something already covered by people ... like your post and Thermo's...

@NOU
they both make valid points

Tell us more about your MIT degrees and how you're a fire captain; put it in poem form
@Dung
so, you have no science to contribute to the discussion so you revert to spreading lies to attempt to distract from your intentional stupidity?

Why not tell us WHY the studies i linked are wrong?
Demonstrate that the studies don't prove AGW!
show everyone how intelligent you are... because obviously you can't read or even quote properly, as demonstrated above

tell you what... tell everyone here why you are really posting obfuscation and trying to undermine science with your political dogma... getting paid a lot to do that?

say hi to the koch's for me


Jun 14, 2015
You cited a local climate event wrt "suddenly". Global warming concerns increase in Global temperatures to the tune of tenths of a degree per decade (at present), so clearly you can not validly cite local events "suddenly" occurring on account of GW, despite that such events would theoretically get worse or better over long periods of time.
You most certainly can, and the correct term is "abrupt". One such relevant event is melting permafrost – scientists referred to it as "a sleeping giant" and "a ticking time bomb"


From your own link that seems far from established as scientific fact, certainly debatable ,... "the mechanisms for release operate on time scales of centuries and longer." - Prof David Archer,... and " the scenario is "nearly impossible." - USGS Gas Hydrates Project.


Jun 14, 2015
We're threatened by a 3mph runaway train

but again, you are assuming the train will remain at 3mph

It is the alarmist's conjecture that makes the assumption that the train will continue to increase speed, because they invoke the fallacy that there will be no technological advances,..... which is a fallacy and not an accurate portrayal of our modern history.

Jun 14, 2015
Proponents of AGW provide science, arguments, statistics and facts.

Deniers of AGW provide conspiracy theories, political scaremongering, ad-hominems, dispute statistics and cherry-pick facts.

Do we really need to look further than that to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to which side in this argument has the upper hand?

It basically just boils down to this: https://s-media-c...2d37.jpg

Jun 14, 2015
One of the interesting studies in this thread is the power that populism holds over the AGW Alarmists.

They continually vote down people that refuse to be taxed, terrorized and crippled, and vote up their kin. The free thinkers seem to not really care who votes how.

I for one, welcome my insect eating masters.


Interesting that you fail to see the irony in your own remarks: the traditional tactics of populism have all been used, in extreme amounts, by AGW-denialists: conspiracy theorizing, relativism, anti-intellectualism, scaremongering, ad-hominems, etc. etc.

Jun 14, 2015
"Proponents of AGW provide science, arguments, statistics and facts."

So when a proponent makes a claim like NYC will be underwater by 2015 is that science, argument. statistics or fact? The same goes for polar bears, hurricanes, crime, rape and the myriad of other hyperboles that have been offered to the public.

Jun 14, 2015
"Proponents of AGW provide science, arguments, statistics and facts."

So when a proponent makes a claim like NYC will be underwater by 2015 is that science, argument. statistics or fact? The same goes for polar bears, hurricanes, crime, rape and the myriad of other hyperboles that have been offered to the public.


Thank you for supporting my argument regarding cherry-picking and adding the additional point of the strawman-fallacy.

Jun 14, 2015
Benni, I continue my assessment which paints you as a liberal making fun of conservatives with your silly remarks. Why would you want to assume 100% wind power means his own turbine? Because you want to do so, for argument?


...........it's all about the context geekam, it's all about the context & that's where Greeno was being disingenuous.

Paint me anywhere on the political landscape your heart desires. Look, I don't fault you for at least being substantially honest within the context of most of your postings, but that doesn't necessarily make you accurate in your conclusions. Comprenez vous?

He is doing something, and you are not.
Really? You know that? You've located me in StreetViews or SkyViews or something? Now you're not even trying to be honest, you're just trying to find a way to remain in the good graces of the Stumpy/Ira/VV/MM, Thermo, etc, voting clique, none of whom have ever seen a Differential Equation they could solve.


Jun 14, 2015
"Proponents of AGW provide science, arguments, statistics and facts."

So when a proponent makes a claim like NYC will be underwater by 2015 is that science, argument. statistics or fact? The same goes for polar bears, hurricanes, crime, rape and the myriad of other hyperboles that have been offered to the public.


And don't forget the claim that GW causes terrorists.

Jun 14, 2015
trends indicate it is very possible that the temp will increase even more rapidly that we think

Here's what its actually done. Look at the last 18 years (far right of the graph):
https://en.wikipe...maly.svg

so, you have no science to contribute

Not to you. You don't even look at what is presented. I'll do it for the readers though.

you can't read or even quote properly, as demonstrated above

LOL. You didn't see what I did there.

It basically just boils down to this:

CO2 emissions due to human activity rose gradually from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, reaching ~1 billion tonnes per year (expressed as carbon) by 1945, and then accelerated to ~9 billion tonnes per year by 2007. Since ~1945 when CO2 emissions accelerated, Earth experienced ~22 years of warming, and ~40 years of either cooling or absence of warming.


Jun 14, 2015
Proponents of AGW provide science, arguments, statistics and facts.

Deniers of AGW provide conspiracy theories, political scaremongering, ad-hominems, dispute statistics and cherry-pick facts.

Do we really need to look further than that to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to which side in this argument has the upper hand?


..........sure, as in fictitious statements straight from the Funny Farm Science crowd on this site about "enthalpy".

It's an absolute delight to see the Funny Farm Science crowd conjure up distortions about "enthalpy", and then get caught because I know they wouldn't even recognize the equation for "enthalpy" if it were abruptly placed in front of their eyeballs. But almost everyone of your voting clique fall for such bilge precisely because your problem in education is the same as for the claims you cast against others.


Jun 14, 2015
https://s-media-c...2d37.jpg


No one is arguing that the Earth's climate isn't changing.

If AGW studies are real, then explain this:

http://www.drroys...2013.png

Surely you would take each claim on it's merits.

Why? The AGW bureaucrats have exploited the poor predictions to sow terror, then economiv ruin, and slush-fund taxes. There is not enough AGW evidence to support the moral and economic chaos that the AGW bureaucrats are creating, and have already created.

Jun 14, 2015
to distract from your intentional stupidity?

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

Demonstrate that the studies don't prove AGW!


http://www.drroys...2013.png

you are the definition of DISHONEST
there is no intellectual anything in your posts

Emotional much?

Jun 14, 2015
Deniers of AGW provide conspiracy theories, political scaremongering, ad-hominems, dispute statistics and cherry-pick facts.


Interesting that you fail to see the irony in your own remarks; by addressing people who are skeptical as "deniers", you are using an ad-hominem.

You are cherry-picking facts by calling out "deniers" as if they are the cause of lack progress mitigating AGW,... while that cause is due to economic realities and lack of fiscally efficient scalable solutions.

Further you cited as "cherry-picking" as citing the claims made by major news network,... despite the power of that mass media.

Every item of what you listed above is what AGW-enthusiasts do routinely,... political scaremongering (alarmist propaganda), .... conspiracy theories (it's "deniers fault" and big evil oil industry),... ignoring economic reality is to cherry-pick facts as well, etc.

Jun 14, 2015
to distract from your intentional stupidity?

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.


Why don't you ever call your fellow anti-AGWites like Benni out on that? Don't answer the question, it's rhetorical.

Jun 14, 2015
Deniers of AGW provide conspiracy theories, political scaremongering, ad-hominems, dispute statistics and cherry-pick facts.


Interesting that you fail to see the irony in your own remarks; by addressing people who are skeptical as "deniers", you are using an ad-hominem.


No, I call people who are real skeptics, i.e. people who critique methods and conclusions in a reasoned and scientific way, skeptics. I call people who resort to conspiracy theories, strawman fallacies, political scaremongering and the like deniers because they are not skeptical - they are not open to scientific debate, they are not willing to play by scientific ground rules, and most of all, they do not provide conditions under which, if met, would convince them - they simply deny.

Jun 14, 2015
"Surely you would take each claim on it's merits. Could you please link us to this claim that you talk about - so that we can do exactly that."

Onions I could extend you that courtesy but what is the point, you will just conveniently forget any inconvenient points the second time around just like you did the first time around, the polar bears are dying the polar bears are dying.

Jun 14, 2015
they are not willing to play by scientific ground rules

How about when theory does not meet observation, the theory is questionable?

political scaremongering

How about the institution of punitive laws based on questionable theories and the fear created by those theories to justify the laws?

they do not provide conditions under which, if met, would convince them

That's not true. It is very hard to overcome observation, which is the foundation of skeptic argument.

Why don't you ever call your fellow anti-AGWites like Benni out on that?

I see what he does, and I do not agree with it. However, that's not my battle.

Jun 14, 2015
As an American, I'll tell you why I don't care how many muslims die with two numbers: 9, & 11.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


I just tried that, and the bitter, acrid smoke it produced tasted and smelled exactly like the stuff the Taliban, ISIS, members of Westboro Baptist Church, or other assorted and sundry groups of fanatics are smoking.
That said, I think the world would be FAR better off without Islam. Or Christianity. Or ANY transcendental pyramid-scheme created and administered by mortal humans to further decidedly-mundane political goals.

Jun 14, 2015
So I wonder whether the waste heat generated by modern technological civilization is something significant enough to factor into climate models?

For humans to think that they can impact climate is flat-out arrogant. It is akin to the thought that the earth is the center of the universe.

I just tried that

I know, right? Its shame that we have to sink to the level of fanaticism in order to defend ourselves.

Jun 14, 2015
Why? The AGW bureaucrats have exploited the poor predictions to sow terror, then economiv ruin, and slush-fund taxes. There is not enough AGW evidence to support the moral and economic chaos that the AGW bureaucrats are creating, and have already created.


......,also, the reason "Why" being that there are so many bureaucrats twisting scientific terminology to suit their own self-serving agendas. The perfect example being the exchange of Comments I've been having with Thermodynamics who is now discovering it is not fun to be caught in the jaws of the vise of someone who's "been there, done that" when it comes to ENTHALPY.

Bureaucrats with Thermo's mindset are simply the standard by which lowest common denominators are set for measurement. They use terminologies in front of unsophisticated audiences anticipating their gullibility gives them the greater moral standing above those who can see through their blatant dishonesty, eg, Al Gore & carbon trading.