Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 Next
Comments 11401 to 11450:
-
TVC15 at 11:18 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
@669,
Forgot to mention that yes I've enjoyed Potholer54! Thanks for informing me about his videos.
-
TVC15 at 11:17 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
Hi Electric @669,
Yes a agree it's a pointless point but that denier keep trying to use it to prove CO2 is good for the planet which of course it's true, but only when the balance is not offset.
Most of this deniers tactics are what both you and David pointed out...they are sprinkled with some facts but the conclusion he draws from these facts is misleading which is what I try to point out to the bystanders reading his chest beating comments.
-
Eclectic at 10:53 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
@668 : let it slide, TVC15 .
In the end, it's rather futile to debate the origin of metabolic carbon ~ since the terrestrial carbon cycle moves C around continuously [not counting fossil carbon]. As David Kirtley says, its ultimate origin is from some distant stellar source, pre-dating our own sun.
If anything, one might say that lifeform C in evolutionary terms originated from lipids and/or carbonates/bicarbonates in the primordial ocean. And there can be other arguments too . . . all getting a bit Angels on a pinhead. But your denier friend wasn't entirely wrong in his point about carbon ~ though it certainly was a pointless point he made.
I hope you've had time to enjoy a few of the Potholer54 videos on climate science. He has five [FIVE] on the asinine antics of the eloquent Lord Monckton ~ quite amusing to see the "error-prone Viscount" [unquote] shoot himself in the foot repeatedly.
-
jphsd at 10:44 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Renewables are not going to replace fossil fuels any time soon. See below. The two changes we need to make to reach a sustainable future are to reduce the amount of energy we use and to use what we do generate much more efficiently (2/3rds of energy generation is lost as heat without doing any useful work!)
Moderator Response:'[PS] Fixed image. Please read comment policy for details of image. You must restrict image to max width of 450px using the "appearance" tab of the image inserter.
-
TVC15 at 10:23 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
David@667,
I don't follow how what I posted does not clarify?
In fact when I challenged the denier with what I posted here he stopped posting over and over the same manta that CO2 is a basic building block of life. No CO2 is not a basic building block of life.
Then he came back with the Carbon in carbon based life originated from CO2.
He stopped spreading his misinformation after I debunked both of his inaccurate statements.
-
David Kirtley at 10:02 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
Sorry, TVC15, that doesn't clarify it. Yes, ultimately all carbon on earth comes from stars. We both agree about this. But the origins of life are not relevant here. I don't know what chemical pathways led to the origin of life, or if this involved CO2 or not. But today, right now, my everyday existance depends on atmospheric CO2.
The question is: where did the carbon in my body come from? If you follow the trail it is clear that the carbon in my body came from the food I ate: plants and animals. Those animals get that carbon from the plants they eat. And all plants get that carbon from the CO2 floating in the air.
None of this is inaccurate or controversial. It's Biology 101. Yes, you can follow the trail back to the ultimate origin of the element carbon inside the nuclear furnaces of stars. But why? The question is about life on Earth now.
Your denier has stated some true facts about the carbon cycle and then tried to use this to draw an invalid conclusion about whether CO2 can be classified as a pollutant. Now you, by focusing on the ultimate origin of carbon in stars and now bringing in info about the origins of life, have totally missed the real misinformation that he is trying to push.
-
TVC15 at 09:59 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
LOL now the deniers are using this article to claim global warming is a hoax!
-
michael sweet at 08:39 AM on 26 March 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12
This is an interesting article by Bill McKibbins (founder of 350.org) that discusses how fast renewable energy will be adopted now that it is the cheapest energy. He says it might be fast enough to avoid the worst of climate change.
Encourage any effort to build out more renewable energy. Vote for politicians who support renewable energy.
-
TVC15 at 08:19 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
Hi David @ 663,
This denier loves to say that the Carbon in our bodies *orginated* from CO2. This is not accurate.
The building blocks of life come from elements and elements orginated from stars.
Origin of Life’s Building Blocks in Carbon- and Nitrogen-Rich Surface Hydrothermal Vents
As I pointed out to this denier show me where CO2 is mentioned in this paper as being how carbon based life originated.
Origin of organic compounds on the primitive earth and in meteorites.I hope this helps to clarify.
-
David Kirtley at 07:17 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
TVC15 @663. I'm not following you. The elements originate in stars. The Earth was made of "star stuff." But I usually eat plants and animals, not rocks.
Plants take in CO2 from the atmosphere, photosyntesize, and build the stuff of plant tissue from that. Animals, including me, eat plants. Other animals, including me, eat animals which ate plants. We transform the plant/animal material into the stuff of our animal bodies. All that carbon origianlly came from the atmosphere.
-
scaddenp at 06:32 AM on 26 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
Actaully I agree that changes in Arctic are interesting - we have had a sequence of warm winters and cloudy summers which are certainly of scientific interest in understanding weather. Likewise the effects of flip in NAO on weather patterns are very important for future weather prediction. However, thinking that these represent a climatic change is wishful thinking.
-
TVC15 at 05:49 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
David Kirtley @662
I told the denier this:
I find it amusing as well that you don't understand that the Carbon found in carbon based life is not from CO2. You should know that Carbon is very abundant on Earth and of the 92 naturally occurring elements (except for elements 43 and 61), only six of these elements make up some 99% of all living tissue. Ever heard of CHNOPS?
You might want to look up where elements originate.
-
nigelj at 05:13 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Jef @6, what is it you are proposing? Are you saying people should just stop using all or most electricity? How realistic do you think such a proposal would be?
-
nigelj at 05:11 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Joe Z @2
"Large scale solar "farms" are often built over fields and forests- resulting in a loss of carbon sequestration and oxygen production and widlife habitat as shown in a video I did of one built close to my home-"
In America forests cover 33% of the land, which is 300 millon hectares of land. Its been calculated that if solar power provided all of Americas electricity it would cover approximately 2.5 million hectares of land so less than 1% of the land covered by forests. In reality America will use a mix of energy sources, so it will be something less than 0.25%.
I don't see that this small number is a significant or unacceptable loss of forests (or fields). We waste enormous quantities of food and timber each year. Reduce that by just a faction and it would compensate for land used for solar panels.
-
John Hartz at 04:47 AM on 26 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
Recommended supplemental reading:
Cold Water Currently Slowing Fastest Greenland Glacier by Carol Rasmussen, JPL/NASA, Mar 25, 2019
-
michael sweet at 03:12 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Nuclear and coal, and other "baseload" power sources have the opposite problem associated with renewables. They generate too much power at night so much of their capacity is wasted. Many people are not aware that most of the existing pumped hydro was built in the 60's and 70's as a method to store excess nuclear power at night for use during peak power during the day.
In France they shut down many of their nuclear plants on the weekend. Since the cost of nuclear facilities is so high, it is very expensive to shut down facilities for any reason.
When people ask about storage of renewable energy, it is interesting to ask about storage of excess baseload for use during peak power.
-
Daniel Bailey at 02:35 AM on 26 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
Just because you cherry-pick different dates to suit your purpose does not invalidate the statement:
"Data from NASA's GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower) have been losing mass since 2002. Both ice sheets have seen an acceleration of ice mass loss since 2009."
-
Molsen at 02:19 AM on 26 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
According to the NASA (GRACE) data, the average loss from 2009 to 2013 was 399 gigatonnes per year. From 2013 to 2017, the average loss per year was 190 gigatonnes per year.
The statement that there has been an acceleration of ice mass loss since 2009 is factually wrong. At the very least, there has been an interesting pause in that "acceleration" since 2013. It's kind of like minimum summer sea ice extent in the Arctic: it has kind of been going sideways (i.e., not declining) for the last 12 years or so. Again, interesting....
-
Daniel Bailey at 01:45 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
PDF here.
-
Daniel Bailey at 01:30 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
"I have never heard any one make those extreme statements in your "myths" section"
And yet I see those and more strewn every day.
Then you'll have no difficulty in citing those "real scientific derived questions". Pelase do so.
You can look at the math that others have done it them:
"building and running new renewable energy is now cheaper than just running existing coal and nuclear plants"
And
"the full-lifecycle costs of building and operating renewables-based projects have dropped below the operating costs alone of conventional generation technologies such as coal or nuclear"
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/
https://thinkprogress.org/solar-wind-keep-getting-cheaper-33c38350fb95/
-
jef12506 at 01:16 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Very strawman article. I have never heard any one make those extreme statements in your "myths" section. There are however real scientific derived questions as to the math surrounding so called "renewables" or "clean energy".
Bottom line everything we do involves releasing polution and the solution is never dilution. We simply need to stop.
-
JoeZ at 00:29 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Tom, here in Massachusetts, such lifecycle for solar and wind are apparently NOT considered. They probably are among some scientists- but not among the politicians who determine policy and write laws. Currently, solar is popular in this state but the total production of solar is still very small. State law will requre far more and much of this will be on solar "farms"- which as I note, have drawbacks that are NOT looked at here. I'm not aware that anyone has actually counted the loss of carbon sequestration and oxygen production of a solar farm. The one near my 'hood was once a gravel pit but half of it had grown back to forest. So, that forest had to be destroyed. Nobody counted the loss of carbon sequestration and they also didn't count the fact that all of that wood went a biomass plant. The irony is that forestry critics in Mass. hate biomass- yet their beloved solar farm sent a great deal of wood to a biomass plant.
Now, the fact is that forestry is renewable. But here in Mass. we've had and still have a war over biomass. Many critics really do want to lock up all the forests and they really don't respond to questions as to the consequences of that.
Let's face it- all these issues are extremely complicated. Nobody has all the answers. There is no magic bullet- though long term I think it will be fusion. Since this web site is about skepticism- it might be nice if those who really do think it's all about fossil fuels to just try to be a bit skeptical- the way lawyers are taught to argue either side of the case. It might be worth the mental exercise.
Moderator Response:[DB] Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself. Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Inflammatory snipped.
-
Tom Dayton at 00:02 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
JoeZ, lifecycle carbon footprint of solar and wind most certainly are considered, and they are drastically lower than the footprints of non-renewables.
-
David Kirtley at 22:16 PM on 25 March 2019Climate's changed before
TVC15 @652: Re. your denier's Gish Gallop list of 9 points: The tricky thing is that parts of these statements contain bits of truth. For example, point 9:
9. Did you know that ALL of the carbon atoms in your body (as you are an organic organism) was once CO2? That is the carbon cycle; CO2 is as important to life on earth as water and oxygen
This is true, but so what. He's using just enough sciencey stuff to show that he can be "trusted" and then he draws illogical conclusions. Here he concludes that since CO2 is such an important building block of all life on earth it can't possibly be a "pollutant". Water, as he points out, is also a fundamental necessity, but you can still drown in the stuff. Too much of it all at once can destroy your house. The dose makes the poison.Anyway, be careful of just labeling his statements as "False!" Instead, be mindful of where his misdirection lies and point out, for the sake of the lurkers in the conversation, his flawed logic. Acknowledge things he says which are correct (this will also show the lurkers that you are reasonable) but then show where he is trying to be misleading.
-
JoeZ at 22:11 PM on 25 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
"A particularly elegant solution is pumped hydro, which uses surplus wind energy to pump water uphill." Sounds good, but here in Massachusetts- there is a big battle going on over the only such pumped hydro facility. Those critics are against all fossil fuels, against pumped storage, want to stop all tree cutting, against nuclear- and though many are in favor of solar and wind- they will never respond to my critiques of large scale wind and solar "farms" (note my previous post here), they will not respond to my questions as to how will we get by without wood as a low carbon footprint raw material if they lock up all the forests- and amazingly, many who are even all of the above are even against wind and solar! In the local paper this morning I see an editorial by a guy who says we should all get off the grid, use outhouses, and pump water by hand. It doesn't seem to me that we can solve problems by being against every option. I recall that President Obama suggested we need to use all forms of energy, wisely of course.
-
JoeZ at 22:04 PM on 25 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Large scale solar "farms" are often built over fields and forests- resulting in a loss of carbon sequestration and oxygen production and widlife habitat as shown in a video I did of one built close to my home- which doesn't mean I'm a NIMBY because I don't like them anywhere: https://vimeo.com/260469370. Also not counted is the cost to dispose of the at least somewhat toxic panels when the "farm" is terminated. Also not counted is the carbon emissions to ship the panels across the planet from China (how about toxins emitted to make the panels in China), then to truck them to the site from some port- and huge carbon emissions needed to build them- at least this one as you'll notice all the huge machines that were needed. So, maybe there still a good thing- but not counting such externalities is NOT smart.
-
Cedders at 19:36 PM on 25 March 2019Models are unreliable
It's been suggested that 'models are unreliable' is a particularly pernicious myth. The models have been useful, and are getting even better, but some make the false claim that models have deviated demonstrably from reality.
Those who are misinformed or content to be misinformed often make up unsourced past 'predictions', perhaps because they are reacting against journalists' sometimes sensationalist ways of describing individual studies. Eg in the last few days in response to a climate article: "By 2016, New York will be under a foot of flood-water because of all the melting ice caps, melting glaciers and so on", which is clearly not a direct quotation despite being in quotation marks and impossible to trace as a statement.
If they're schooled in climate confusion, they might refer to Peter Wadhams's projections of sea ice, or the chat with James Hansen; on social media you often find images of local press cuttings, taken out of context and with pink highlighter taken from Tony Heller's blogs. (There's also the argument, which that because models can't reliably predict short-term weather patterns, how can predictions be made for decades in advance, how the range of weather is affected by changes in the Earth's energy balance.)
This article includes links to CarbonBrief's series on modelling, but I don't see a link to Zeke Haufather's comparison of historical models against later trends:
LINK(The late Wally Broecker's simple 1975 model was nearly spot on. Then there's the 1979 Charney Report.)
Also, I found this a useful resource:
LINKIt's not just that 'Models successfully reproduce temperatures', but also patterns of warming.
Putting these together in one image (not sure if it will come out):
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed image. Please read comment policy for details of image. You must restrict image to max width of 450px using the "appearance" tab of the image inserter.
[DB] Shortened URLs
-
Eclectic at 17:43 PM on 25 March 2019There is no consensus
Foundusually @779 : Quite evidently you have no understanding of the scientific consensus, and have not managed to read the award-winning Cook et al 2013 paper (where your question is answered).
Please educate yourself.
-
foundusually at 14:57 PM on 25 March 2019There is no consensus
How many of those identified by Cook through his unscientific interpretaion have been approached to confirm their views on anthropogenic climate change? I suspect that would sink his dodgy statistics once and for all.
Moderator Response:[JH] Inflammatory sloganeering striked through. Inflammatory tone and sloganeering are both prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
scaddenp at 14:08 PM on 25 March 2019There's no empirical evidence
More links to issues with Michaels.
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Patrick_Michaels.htm
LINKModerator Response:[DB] Shortened URL
-
nigelj at 11:55 AM on 25 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Australia appears to be making considerable progress with solar power wind power, and pumped hydro. Pumped hydro shemes planned and under construction here.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:51 AM on 25 March 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #12
Trevor_S,
There is often a pattern to major social changes. When the change will be a correction based on improving awareness and understanding that contradicts already developed popular and profitable attitudes and activities a significant resistance to correction can develop. The result is the regional perception of continued success, continued increased perceptions of status. But the required correction just becomes more significant and urgent as the improving awareness and understanding inevitably gains power.
Regions with leadership that is significantly resisting the corrections of their understandably harmful and ultimately unsustainable pursuits are setting themselves up for more significant disappointment. It may appear as though they will never lose. But the harder they fight to resist being corrected, the bigger and more rapid the correction occurs.
I live in Alberta, Canada. The resistance to correction is massive here. And the anger of disappointment regarding correction of the over-development in the wrong direction that has occurred through the past 30 years is very apparent. To an outside observer, someone not immersed in the desire to benefit from the global burning of fossil fuels, so is the inevitable reality that the correction will happen and be more dramatic the more that people in Alberta temporarily regionally win their fight against it happening.
The trend of improving awareness and understanding regarding climate science and the required corrections of developed popular and profitable activities is very obvious. The speed and magnitude of the correction in any region is a function of how aggressively the winners in the region try to resist the correction. The longer it is delayed the more disappointing the correction becomes for those resisting the correction.
-
scaddenp at 11:35 AM on 25 March 2019There's no empirical evidence
"daring to imply that some who work in academia and governement may also have selfish reasons for their expressed opinions"
Firstly, I generally find this to be an argument by those wishing to cast doubt on science when they have cant find other any other good cause. Secondly, given what I know of how science is funded in USA (at least the NSF), then I find it pretty difficult to see how these selfish reasons work in that framework. As for selfish reasons of government, that is getting into conspiracy theory territory, especially given the antipathy to AGW of current and former governments.
Real skepticism about climate science has to provide evidence. That is what skepticism is about and that is what this site is about. Real skepticism backed by real data is very welcome.
-
nigelj at 11:01 AM on 25 March 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12
Why does the media give these people oxygen? Caleb Rossiter knows nothing about climate change. His qualifications are:
M.A., mathematics, American University (2004). [1]
Ph.D., policy analysis, Cornell University (1983). [1]
M.S., Education, Cortland State (N.Y.) University (1976). [1]
B.S., Human Development and Family Studies, Cornell University (1973).[1]One or two quotes:
"He also proclaimed that carbon-based fuels improve life expectancy in developing countries by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, acting as a “fertilizer,” and ensuring electricity generation, concluding:“I come not to bury your carbon but to praise it.” [8]
Woeful, just woeful. (In response to Rossiter's op-ed, the Institute for Policy Studies terminated his Associate Fellowship, telling him in an email..)
An article for The College Fix recounted the story of how Rossiter once flunked a student who had submitted a paper affirming the role of human activity in climate change:
“I had to raise her grade because she certainly had cited the evidence they had given, but I just couldn’t give her much of a grade because she should have been able to see – as most people should be able to see – that the computer models were just guessing and sort of notional, and just kind of playing around to get a good fit, but didn’t have much scientific basis.” [10]"
I don't usually use the term, but this is pure ignorance.
-
scaddenp at 11:00 AM on 25 March 2019There's no empirical evidence
Firstly, let me apologise for the insult, which it was. I still find the statement extraordinary but my response was over the line.
Your comment about logging might be true but utterly irrelevant. What the science does is study what has been done, good or bad, and then log what its effect on climate parameters are. My point is that climatalogical effects from human land-use activity was accounted for and plainly visible in the reports.
In my experience of working in science in for 40 year, is that scientists are most skeptical people I know. On this site, we dont swear by some predicate on global warming, we swear by whereever the evidence takes it. Much of my working life has been in coal then oil, and I can assure that evidence disproving a risk from CO2 emissions would be most welcome. My government has effectively cancelled funding of fossil fuels and so my colleagues and I have been reassigned.
What we do scoff at is garbage pulmagated by disinformation which distort or malign science for generally political and/or ideological goals. For more detail on what Michaels has said, Try here. Remember too that the IPCC only summarizes what the published science has stated. If you think it has got it wrong, then where is your evidence for that? If it doesnt come from an area where you have specialist domain knowledge, then it had better be peer-reviewed. Science commentary from institutions created to push a political ideology has to be especially suspect. As I wrote here, liberatians in particular seem have a problem with climate mitigation solutions. The correct response however isnt "I cant see a solution that is compatiable with my ideology, ergo problem cant exist".
-
JoeZ at 10:30 AM on 25 March 2019There's no empirical evidence
Good forest mgt. is NOT deforestation. Deforestation is the destruction of the forest for some other purpose, like a huge solar farm- which causes that landscape to no longer sequester carbon nor produce oxygen. Without good forest mgt. which means some timber cutting based on proper silviculture- you can't live in wood houses with wood furniture and with paper products. And there are "environmentalists" in Massachusetts (who strongly influence others around the USA) who really do want to stop all forest mgt. since they can't grasp the consequences and they can't grasp that good forest mgt. will NOT have to result in less carbon stored in forests. Most forests are in poor condition from past bad logging practices. The way to improve them so they can do a better job of carbon sequestering and oxygen production is through silviculture. Look it up. As for peer reviews papers- I've been a professional forester since Nixon was in the White House so they have nothing on me. I find it ironic that this site is supposed to be about having a skeptical attitude but I find that those who swear by the idea that humans are the cause of global warming, while enjoying criticizing anyone who doesn't believe that, have no sense of skepticism of the the IPCC. I'd suggest a true skeptic will be skeptical of just about everyone including scientists, all religeons, all governments, all organizations. I certainly am. So, I'm not a "deniar" but I don't think the IPCC has all the answers either. As for Patrick Michaels, all I see so far is that he is a lobbyist- I see little commentary on what he has actually said. Since he was once the national president of the associaton of state climatologists- I find it odd that some people consider him not to be qualified to offer his thoughts. Instead, you use an "ad hominem" with your "This is an astonishing statement and does not give me confidence about your discernment skills." Personal insults aren't convincing.
Moderator Response:[TD] I gave you two links to specific factual rebuttals to Michaels’s claims. Your ignoring of them while repeating your claims qualifies as sloganeering, which is prohibited on this site.
-
Postkey at 08:17 AM on 25 March 2019There's no empirical evidence
Thanks.
-
scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 25 March 2019Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
The myth has been stated in various forms by deniers. Usually when something they thought would be inconsistant with theory (like more snow) turns out to be a prediction or understanding that model skill is not a test for underlying theory. Some examples from the usual suspects:
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/chimera-global-warmingModerator Response:[DB] Shortened URLs
-
TVC15 at 06:26 AM on 25 March 2019Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Thanks Tom @ 84.!
-
scaddenp at 06:13 AM on 25 March 2019There's no empirical evidence
Oh and glance at that same IPCC report would show you that scientists do indeed consider effects of deforestation etc. It is discussed in forcing as "landuse change", when you can find the peer-reviewed papers that quantify the effects.
-
TVC15 at 06:11 AM on 25 March 2019Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Hi Skeptical Science,
I enjoy reading the myth rebuttals however this myth page is not like the other myth pages where the myth is debunked with what science says. Is there another theard where this myth is debunked like the other myths?
-
scaddenp at 06:08 AM on 25 March 2019There's no empirical evidence
" I sense that few people have more qualifications to discuss the subject than Dr. Michaels."
This is an astonishing statement and does not give me confidence about your discernment skills. What informs this opinion? Michaels is disinformer who has done no climate science at all. His career has been paid work to try and support the idea that tobacco smoke isnt harmful and climate isnt a problem. Science asks open-ended questions. Michaels is only doing motivated reasoning - ie starting with a conclusion and trying to manipulate the public to believe it. If you are looking for how to find truth, then perhaps brush up on some critical thinking skills.
As to idea that CO2 isnt from humans. 3 main lines of evidence. 1/ we know how much we have emitted. 2/ Burning carbon reduces oxygen and observed oxygen drops fit. 3/ changing isotopic signature in atmosphere is consistant with fossil origin.
All this in the summary of peer-reviewed science, known the IPCC WG1 report. Try reading that instead of misinformers.
Additional question. if you found a source of information was duping you, would you continue to read from that source because you like their conclusions, or would you reject and look for more trustworthy sources?
Humans are terribly prone to motivated reasoning and very intelligent people are extremely good at doing it. That is the reason why science values peer-review so much. It easy to fool yourself. Your peers, especially those who dont like your conclusions, are more likely to spot your problems. If your sources dont quote peer-reviewed research, then maybe you should ask why. (And watch out, because certain websites quote peer-reviewed research but say that its conclusions are diametrically opposite to what the paper really says, safe in knowledge that their audience of pseudo-skeptics are not going to check).
-
Postkey at 05:28 AM on 25 March 2019There's no empirical evidence
'"Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals," the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.
They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth's surface had reached a "five-sigma" level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.'
https://www.voanews.com/a/scientists-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard/4803955.htmlModerator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please learn how to do this yourself using the link button in the comment editor.
-
Tom Dayton at 05:25 AM on 25 March 2019Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
TVC15: See this postfor just one list of falsifiable claims of AGW.
-
Tom Dayton at 05:23 AM on 25 March 2019Climate's changed before
TVC15, please comment in the threads of the posts you are commenting about. I will respond to your comment there.
-
TVC15 at 04:41 AM on 25 March 2019Climate's changed before
I searched this site and came across this page.
Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
However it's not like the other myth pages as it does not explain the myth.
-
Tom Dayton at 04:37 AM on 25 March 2019There's no empirical evidence
JoeZ, I already linked you to detailed, point by point factual rebuttals of Michaels’s claims. Regarding percent of warming caused by humans, enter “attribution” in the Search field at the top left of this page. Among the results you will find this one. For a recent summary see chapter 3 of the CSSR’s report.
Moderator Response:[PS] The links you provided were for Moore not Michaels.
-
JoeZ at 04:19 AM on 25 March 2019There's no empirical evidence
I know people criticize Micahaels as a lobbyist - but that doesn't automatically make him a fraud. Maybe some people choose to be lobbyists for the firms they happen to agree with. All scientists must be looked at skeptically. Some are simply not very good scientists- some are sold out. Some who work for academia and government also may have a selfish interest to support their employer. So, what counts is what Michaels says. But, getting back to my question- I'd love to see a solid argument as to what percent of the GW problem is due to human causes, especially carbon emissions. Now, a subject seld raised regarding GW- is that humans have alterned much of the Earth. Vast areas once natural grasslands and forests have been destroyed- land that once sequestered carbon and produced oxygen. I should think that destruction must be a contributor to GW. And, if it's true that carbon emissions is the dominant cause of GW- in addition to cutting way back on fossil fuel burning then we should also all convert to vegetarianism, right? And mass transportation. I have no problem with those requirements. But, as a "professional forester"- I'm now hearing some environmentalists saying we must lock up all the forests so they can sequester the maximum carbon- forgetting that wood products are highly desirable, don't need fossil fuel to grow, and that any replacement for wood as a faw material will require the likes of cement and steel and plastic which all have higher carbon footprints. So, in conclusion, it seems to be that we really haven't proven definitively that its humanity causing the problem and if it is the case that we need to lock up forests. There are bad ideas on both sides of this debate- which I think, as a life long skeptic, is a good way to watch this important debate.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
-
TVC15 at 04:05 AM on 25 March 2019Climate's changed before
Thanks MA Rodger and Electric,
I've been watching Global Weirding with Katharine Hayhoe on YouTube.
I've never heard of Potholer54 I will indeed check him out!
MA Rodger and Electric I appreciate all the new things I'm learning from you both!
-
John Hartz at 03:08 AM on 25 March 2019There's no empirical evidence
JoeZ @370: You opine:
I sense that few people have more qualifications to discuss the subject than Dr. Michaels.
Wrong! There are hundreds of legitimate climate scientist throughout the world who are eminently more qualified than Patrick Michaels to speak on the topic.
Please read DeSmog's profile of Michaels:
Prev 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 Next
