Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Trakar]

And here I thought you didn't remember my blistering attacks on the fossil fuel cabal, as well as those who try to defraud the public.

That last part, "on the fossil fuel cabal, as well as those who try to defraud the public," is more than a bit redundant,...don't you think?

 

[DC]

conspiracy theorists, woo peddlers and science deniers are all alike. they just ignore questions they dislike the answers to......
very telling, expecially to lurkers.

 

[r-j]

That last part, "on the fossil fuel cabal, as well as those who try to defraud the public," is more than a bit redundant,...don't you think?

Perhaps, but they are not always the same people. You don't actually remember what I said, that much is clear. Do you have any scientific issues you want to discuss?

 

[r-j]

There is a separate forum for the discussion of global conspiracy theories, I'm surprised this has not already been moved to that location.

I've seen many instances in this topic where people claim the fossil fuel cabal is orchestrating a global conspiracy theory. None of those posts have ever been moved, much less considered off topic.

Myself I tend to believe there actually are vast conspiracies, some of them not even hidden at all, to defraud, to deceive, and to make damn sure the profits keep flowing in, and the fuel flowing out.

Certainly no government that taxes fuels wants to see any decrease in revenues.

 

[macdoc]

Do you have any scientific issues you want to discuss?

'
Do you? ....I've not seen one iota beyond incessant blather from you and a consistent refusal to answer questions put directly to you. You have a lot of gall calling for a science discussion...

 

[r-j]

The Climate Solution: Got Cows?

With climate activists, here’s what my surprising experience has been: they can’t hear it. The obsession with chasing green and profitable technofixes and/or reducing emissions drowns out other thinking – they smile, say it sounds interesting, look quizzical and change the subject, e.g., what about Lackner’s proposed carbon eating machines?[viii] It’s as if we can’t imagine that nature could ever be so clever without human invention. I must say, though, that as climate disruption accelerates, activists and others are slowly opening to the possibilities of soil sequestration of carbon.

Many years ago some aged but wise scientists proposed a simple solution, and one that would profit the US. He wants the US to plant trees, to harvest the CO2, especially the huge increase from China and Indonesia, thereby taking the CO2 other countries are creating and making money from it. As well as cleaning the air, producing a valuable commodity, creating jobs and actually doing something about things right now.

And this was before the studies showing some trees are growing four times faster now, from the increased CO2 levels, as well as the increasing rainfall and snow. When the article says "they smile, say it sounds interesting, look quizzical and change the subject", that is such an apt description. If it doesn't involve huge profits for some wild scheme to "technically harvest or sequester', or the completely insane "stop using fuels", the activists can't even imagine it.

You can hear them cry, "But, that won't stop fossil fuel use!", every time anything is brought up that doesn't involve stopping or drastically decreasing fossil fuel use.

Cows and grasslands? That's crazy talk.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Retallack, Gregory. "Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling". The University of Chicago. The Journal of Geology.

Soussana, Jean-François, K Klumpp, T Tallec Mitigating livestock greenhouse gas balance through carbon sequestration in grasslands
INRA UR0874, Grassland Ecosystem Research, Clermont-Ferrand, France

Teague, W R; S. L. Dowhowera, S.A. Bakera, N. Haileb, P.B. DeLaunea, D.M. Conovera (2011). "Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie". Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 141, Issues 3–4, May 2011, Pages 310–322 (3–4): 310

RESTORING THE CLIMATE THROUGH CAPTURE
AND STORAGE OF SOIL CARBON THROUGH
HOLISTIC PLANNED GRAZING

 

[r-j]

What is AGW r-j...??.
that was the question you asked

No, you are making things up once again. That isn't even close to what occurred. I started off by saying it isn't the science that I am skeptical of. Then pursued a scientific definition of what you mean when you say "AGW"

You have to state clearly, in a scientific manner, what you mean by AGW. And what would disprove the theory you are talking about. Otherwise that is meaningless.

Like that statement you just made. I am skeptical of what you claim.

AGW is very well defined.

What is the theory, what are the predictions. How can anyone tell the difference between natural global warming and AGW.

You refuse to say what you are talking about. Or what evidence would change your mind.

It's very simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGW
Which of those articles are you talking about when you use "AGW"?

To save some effort, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming does not contain either AGW or "anthropogenic global warming" in the article.

What do you mean when you use "AGW"?

I predict that in the next hundred responses, there will be zero discussion of the "theory of AGW", or AGW, or what ever it is.

And that was certainly an accurate prediction.

and DC and I answered.....obviously too condensed for your limited understanding of the field.

What we got was some word salad, that in no way is a scientific theory, not even a hypothesis.

it means, that increase of greenhosue gasses do to human activity will cause warming as it increases the greenhouse effect. this global warming is causing climatic changes.

But at least now we know what DC/macdoc means when they use "AGW". As for how to tell if it's human caused or natural, nothing was ever presented. Instead we see

the predictions are. the already released greenhosue gasses will further warm up the planet.
increasing the greenhouse gasses even further will lead to even more warming.

When pressed macdoc at least admitted his idea of AGW is impossible to disprove, you would have to violate the laws of physics.

\Now we want your own words....

I doubt that very much.

 

[DC]

No, you are making things up once again. That isn't even close to what occurred. I started off by saying it isn't the science that I am skeptical of. Then pursued a scientific definition of what you mean when you say "AGW"

And that was certainly an accurate prediction.
What we got was some word salad, that in no way is a scientific theory, not even a hypothesis. But at least now we know what DC/macdoc means when they use "AGW". As for how to tell if it's human caused or natural, nothing was ever presented. Instead we see
When pressed macdoc at least admitted his idea of AGW is impossible to disprove, you would have to violate the laws of physics.

I doubt that very much.

do you really think other people do not see your dishonesty? do you really think that is a good way for a debate?
no wonder people laugh about deniers.

 

[DC]

Debating AGW deniers on the topic of AGW is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

 

[lomiller]

I don't need any evidence to maintain my position. As an Agnostic Atheist has no obligation to prove while there is no God, a person who does not believe in AGW has no obligation to prove that the cause of Global Warming is Anthropogenic: the burden of proof is on those who claim knowledge that man-made Global Warming is a fact.

Getting into this a little late, but this tweaked my interest.

Skepticism is not a licence to ignore the facts. If you have no evidence to support your position and the other side brings evidence to the table either you supply evidence of your own or you lose the debate. A skeptic in this place concedes the argument, a denier (aka not a skeptic) continues to hold true to their position without any evidence to support its validity.


The correct analogy for your stance here is that of the 911 truther.
Truther
The evidence says a fire cause by the plane crash caused the WTC to collapse.
Truther has no evidence supporting any alternative hypothesis
Truther disregards this and questions the accepted answer for the WTC collapse.

You
The scientific literature says the world is warming due to human influence.
You have no evidence for any alternative
You disregard the above and hold to your position.

 

[macdoc]

When pressed macdoc at least admitted his idea of AGW is impossible to disprove,

You are lying and will be reported if you don't withdraw it.Either show the post you refer to or correct the claim. This is scurrilous.

AGW can be over turned at any time by a combination of showing the alternative physics explanation and the observations to support it.

 

[r-j]

Skepticism is not a licence to ignore the facts.

anthropogenic global warming. it means, that increase of greenhouse gases due to human activity have caused observable warming as it increases the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Global warming is causing climatic changes.

Disproof would consist of an overturn of the physics governing C02 absorption of LW radiation.

If it were a joke, I could understand it. But this belief that "AGW" is a fact and you can't disprove it, it's so unscientific.

 

[r-j]

The scientific literature says the world is warming due to human influence.

Now we are back to the crucial point once more.

anthropogenic global warming. it means, that increase of greenhouse gases due to human activity have caused observable warming as it increases the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Global warming is causing climatic changes.

Do you agree with that definition of AGW? And that it is impossible to disprove?

What I predicted wouldn't be discussed, was HOW we can know what the human influence is. As well as how we can know the theory is true.

So far it's at the level of "it's getting warmer and CO2 causes warming so it's a fact", at least from the quite vocal (and very insulting) small group that has posted two hundred times in the last 24 hours.

 

[DC]

how would one disprove gravity? wthout overturning physics? how would one disprove CO2 molecules do vibrate when excited by LWR without overturning physics?

and what you ask for has been provided to you several times, would you actually read the stuff others link to, you would know that.

where is your problem?

CO2 levels are rising, we are burning fossil fuels, burning fossil fuels releases CO2 to the atmosphere, Idotope ratios confirm that the increase is indeed do to burning fossil fuels. declining oxygen levels confirm that CO2 is rising.
we know that a CO2 molecule is absorbing and reradiating IR radiation. this is causing our planet to warm up, the warming leads to climate changes.

this are observed facts. those facts are able to explain the late 20th century warming. no alternative explenation can do that.
if you think any alternative explenation can explain it, present it.

do you have an alternative explenation?

will you, r-j, for once answer questions posed to you? or are you playing the same old games the woo peddlers, creationists and conspiracy theorists play?

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
anthropogenic global warming. it means, that increase of greenhouse gases due to human activity have caused observable warming as it increases the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Global warming is causing climatic changes.

Do you agree with that definition of AGW?

Yes

And that it is impossible to disprove?

NO!!!!!

Quit adding ***** that is not there......

was HOW we can know what the human influence is

because of the isotope tracing of fossil carbon

- STOP WITH THE IDIOTIC BAITING !!!!!

 

[Trakar]

I've seen many instances in this topic where people claim the fossil fuel cabal is orchestrating a global conspiracy theory. None of those posts have ever been moved, much less considered off topic.

Myself I tend to believe there actually are vast conspiracies, some of them not even hidden at all, to defraud, to deceive, and to make damn sure the profits keep flowing in, and the fuel flowing out.

Certainly no government that taxes fuels wants to see any decrease in revenues.

I have never heard of a global conspiracy by "fossil fuel cabals" to do anything, but were such assertions demonstrable, they would, indeed, be fodder for the conspiracy forum, not the "global warming" thread. There probably are individual climate scientists that have demonstrated instances of type II errors and behavior, but this isn't what I objected to; I have seen zero compelling evidentiary support for any assertion that there is a global conspiracy among climate science and scientific bodies in general to promote grossly inaccurate and false science data and deduction regarding climate science, the causes of the current episode of climate change or the consequences of failing to ameliorate the effects of unconstrained carbon emissions.

 

[Trakar]

Perhaps, but they are not always the same people. You don't actually remember what I said, that much is clear. Do you have any scientific issues you want to discuss?

Do you have any legitimate concerns that you wish to discuss, canards are not considered legitimate concerns.

 

[macdoc]

will you, r-j, for once answer questions posed to you? or are you playing the same old games the woo peddlers, creationists and conspiracy theorists play?

this is not the only thread
- nuclear or vaccines it's the same trolling of unmitigated crap that should never be allowed in a science forum.

Man would he have been blown out the door elsewhere for that kind of pattern of disruptive and inflammatory behavior.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Debating AGW deniers on the topic of AGW is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

More like playing chess with the Lernaean Hydra.