Global Warning/Climate Change

[Bootstrap]

It's easy to copy charts from the Internet. But the problem is that we aren't scientists here and neither of us can answer even basic questions about these charts - for instance, what measurements does this chart reflect, how reliable are they considered by other scientists, have scientists reviewed and responded to this chart? I could do it with a few hour's thought if it is in a paper that describes it in depth, but these charts are presented with no context at all.

The whole reason for using scientific looking charts and scientific sounding language is that we want the authority and reassurance of science. But if that's what we want, we really need to look at scientific publications and see how scientists respond to what other scientists have shown, and when there is consensus, we need to take that consensus seriously. If that's not what we want, why bother trying to look and sound scientific?

[Robert]

Whether or not you believe in evolution, the world's major cities are mainly on the coastlines. When a few hurricanes wipe out Puerto Rico and damage a few American cities, we think of that as a significant tragedy, even if it does not wipe out all life as we know it. We don't say that this is no big deal because there have been other storms in history.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. If we ignore what scientists are telling us now, we will pay for it later. If we save money by ignoring it now, we pass that debt on to our children in the form of climate change. And it will cost them.

There are mny settlements that have been found in the oceans. During the most resent ice age, the coast lines were much further out, since much more water was locked up in ice. As the ice melted, most moved further in. This is a NATURAL process that has continually happened for eons.

Humans think we can beat this process, yet a tornado or hurricane hits and we realize how powerful the natural forces are and how little we can really affect them. Places like Puerto Rico Would have been totally under water during warmer times and would have much more land mass during colder times. All natural processes.

[video][/video]

[Bootstrap]

Whether or not you believe in evolution, the world's major cities are mainly on the coastlines. When a few hurricanes wipe out Puerto Rico and damage a few American cities, we think of that as a significant tragedy, even if it does not wipe out all life as we know it. We don't say that this is no big deal because there have been other storms in history.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. If we ignore what scientists are telling us now, we will pay for it later. If we save money by ignoring it now, we pass that debt on to our children in the form of climate change. And it will cost them.

There are mny settlements that have been found in the oceans. During the most resent ice age, the coast lines were much further out, since much more water was locked up in ice. As the ice melted, most moved further in. This is a NATURAL process that has continually happened for eons.

If we cause it, it's not natural. If we can prevent disasters, it's often cheaper than paying for them later.

And I notice that you still aren't using anything that a scientist would consider a reliable source of information. Looking at this scientifically is probably more work than anyone wants to go to, but if we don't do that, what value is there to discussing it at all? Why not just believe what scientists are telling us? Why does more emotion, more sensationalism, and more random graphics make us better informed than scientists?

The rest of the world is going on without us. Now that Syria and Nicaragua have joined the Paris Accord, the United States is alone. The rest of the world shakes its head and knows not to look to us for leadership. General Motors and Ford plan for the electric vehicle future.

[Robert]

Looking at this scientifically is probably more work than anyone wants to go to, but if we don't do that, what value is there to discussing it at all?

What is the benefit of discussing the weather that we seem to do every time we meet someone? We can not affect it. Mostly because it is a common experience that binds us together.

Why not just believe what scientists are telling us?

One, because scientific research is not about belief, but evidence and some speculation. Scientific theory is constantly being adjusted to match the data they find, It is seldom static. Two, scientists are human like the rest and can make mistakes or distort data for their own purposes. This is why their research has to be reproduceable to be validated. LENR is a good example of this. I LOVE following what they are doing, and am very hopeful, but know the data has to prove it out. I am not buying one because I just believe them. I am buying one when I see that it actually works.

Scientists are also telling us some things about gender that I find hard to accept. Should I just accept everything they spout, until a new set of theories come out that changes everything, then just believe that? Any theory should be able to stand up to layman questioning. If it can not, then I find it quite ... questionable.

Why does more emotion, more sensationalism, and more random graphics make us better informed than scientists?

Why can I not have an opinion and present some of my findings that challenge the status quo? What is wrong with that? I am setting no policy or controlling any moneys going into the research. I also watch things about Bigfoot, but seriously doubt the existence. I enjoy watching the fringe. If establishment theory can not stand up to the fringe, then it is not on very solid ground. I do not trust scientists any more than I trust politicians. I trust it even less when the two gets intermingled.

My question to you is why are you so resistant to the possibility that they could be wrong about this? If you look at the long history of scientific theory and research, you will find they are mostly wrong in hind sight. This is why theories are constantly being updated or changed. New data and findings are constantly changing what we think we know. Some data prove things right, but all theories should have to stand up against challenge and data.

I find enjoyment in the challenge of established theory. If you do not, that is okay. I also enjoy annoying you (and my oldest daughter) about it.

[Bootstrap]

What is the benefit of discussing the weather that we seem to do every time we meet someone? We can not affect it. Mostly because it is a common experience that binds us together.

And it's something we all actually understand.

Why can I not have an opinion and present some of my findings that challenge the status quo? What is wrong with that?

There is certainly nothing wrong with doing that, but you don't have findings, you don't know how to do science, you don't publish anything, you are not part of the scientific process. You are acting like you have the same depth of knowledge as a scientist, and you present charts and links to papers that you don't even understand and can't answer basic questions about. So by all means, do that, but you may need to acquire some scientific training and do a lot of work first. Do the research, write papers that other scientists discuss, enter the debate.

My question to you is why are you so resistant to the possibility that they could be wrong about this?

I'm not. On the other hand, I can tell the difference between (1) careful research that has been evaluated by many other scientists and (2) random noise on the Internet.

I find enjoyment in the challenge of established theory. If you do not, that is okay. I also enjoy annoying you (and my oldest daughter) about it.

But you aren't actually doing the work needed to challenge the theory, and you don't have the background to do so. You can't answer basic questions about the things you post, and they often reach different conclusions than you imply they have reached.

Scientists are also telling us some things about gender that I find hard to accept. Should I just accept everything they spout, until a new set of theories come out that changes everything, then just believe that?

Certainly not. But most of the things you are talking about with gender really are not a matter of scientific evidence, it's a blurring of feelings and changes in societal views with soft science.

If we don't want to accept that kind of pseudo-science, let's not accept the kind of pseudo-science we see in this thread either.

[Bootstrap]

I enjoy watching the fringe. If establishment theory can not stand up to the fringe, then it is not on very solid ground.

That's not true. A belligerent fringe can reject whatever it wants to, and may not understand the basic issues involved. It is always convinced that it has won every argument.

Here's an analogy: There are many proofs that 2+2=5, and if you don't understand a fair amount of math, it's really hard to shoot them down. The fringe can walk away convinced it has won the argument simply because it does not understand math. But it has not actually contributed anything to our understanding of math.

[Robert]

And 2+2 = 22 at times. All depends on how you look at it.

[Wayne in Maine]

I would guess that the people who put that chart together don't believe that humans thrived during those high temperature periods.

Well, humans did not appear until the last 50,000 years or so, according the evolutionary theory..

Whether or not you believe in evolution, the world's major cities are mainly on the coastlines. When a few hurricanes wipe out Puerto Rico and damage a few American cities, we think of that as a significant tragedy, even if it does not wipe out all life as we know it. We don't say that this is no big deal because there have been other storms in history.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. If we ignore what scientists activists are telling us now, we will pay for it later. If we save money by ignoring it now, we pass that debt on to our children in the form of climate change. And it will cost them.

The oceans have been rising for hundreds of years. The oceans will continue to rise and cities will continue to be slowly inundated even if the contribution (the degree of which is not known) by western industry (China, India and other nations are exempt...) is reduced. So should scarce resources be spent on a miniscule reduction in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (which will likely have a miniscule impact on global temperatures and rate of rise of sea level) or should it be spent on mitigating the inevitable rise in the sea level and other development, especially when reducing CO2 concentrations will make the earth more arid and increase scarcity of food, especially in poorer nations?

BTW, there is not credible scientific evidence linking increased hurricane frequency or intensity with global warming.

[ohio jones]

The rest of the world is going on without us. Now that Syria and Nicaragua have joined the Paris Accord, the United States is alone. The rest of the world shakes its head and knows not to look to us for leadership. General Motors and Ford plan for the electric vehicle future.

I had feared that free enterprise was nearly extinct, but perhaps it still has some life left in America.

[Wayne in Maine]

That's the equation for CO2 forcing global warming (it works for very large values of 2)...