Jump to content
IGNORED

Climate Change and Conservatism


ChessPlayer

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  29
  • Topic Count:  593
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  55,768
  • Content Per Day:  7.55
  • Reputation:   27,531
  • Days Won:  270
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Offline

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I'd be interested in seeing supporting evidence.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/19/spectacular-cheating-on-the-noaa-report-card/

https://polarbearscience.com/2014/12/19/challenging-noaas-arctic-report-card-2014-on-polar-bears/

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/noaa-cheating-just-as-bad-as-giss-cheating/

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/noaa-caught-red-handed-manipulating-data-to-make-global-warming-seem-worse

 

You really just have to look.      I would suggest that you use duckduckgo.com for a search engine to look stuff up like this.   Their algorithms are not as slanted as Google.....  yet.

 

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  46
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  944
  • Content Per Day:  0.22
  • Reputation:   170
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/05/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/20/1980

Thank you @ChessPlayer for tearing into question how facts based climate change denialism really is. Keep up your good work.

Unfortunately, fellow poster @one.opinion seems to have given up? :rain:

Hi OtherOne,

we were having a nice debate already on climate change lately. Let's see if your sources hold water now:

Your first source by a certain Steven Goddart.

Steven Goddard writes:

NOAA has reached new levels of fraud in their 2014 Arctic report card, with nearly every single talking point the exact opposite of reality.

What’s new in 2014?

Rising air and sea temperatures continue to trigger changes in the Arctic. The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of anywhere else on Earth.

Nonsense. The Arctic hasn’t warmed for a decade.

ScreenHunter_5311 Dec. 19 06.57

North of 80N, the melt season was the coldest on record, with below normal temperature [...] [and then he changes to a different subject, added mine].

Look Other One, his graph has no sourcing. It's ridiculous. Even if it were to be true, he still fails to adress the question of why the depicted rise of temperature anomaly would disprove a rise in temperature as claimed by the NOAA.

Because of these two flaws, I won't carry on reading this particular source. I won't even look at your third source, also by this guy.

Second source:

6 hours ago, other one said:

According to that soucre, the mentioned NOAA report card was misleading in one point (I didn't read the rest). Your source says that...

"The two estimates are not statistically different, [...]

That’s certainly not the impression anyone would get from the “Report Card” statement quoted above."

Here, they are talking about alleged estimates in the "statement quoted above". However this statement was not about estimates.

The NOAA statement reads like this (as cited by your source): A decline in survival of female polar bears of all age classes, from 1194 to 806, between 1987 and 2011 in western Hudson Bay was due to earlier sea ice break-up in the spring and later freeze-up in the autumn.”

No estimates. It's about real numbers.

 

Your last source cites a certain Mr. Bates, but they don't provide the evidence for why that Mr. Bates is to be right and the NOAA wrong.

So please, your sources did nothing to back up your allegations of the NOAA purportedly having cheated.

 

Best regards,

Thomas

 

 

 

Edited by thomas t
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  53
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   30
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/15/2019
  • Status:  Offline

Thanks to everyone for responding to my inquiries. I find that it is rather pointless to start a discussion unless I have a decent understanding of what position people are coming from. Let me jump into a few of the points mentioned.  

On 10/3/2019 at 6:52 AM, ARGOSY said:

I'm not a scientist and am not qualified to read scientific studies. Neither will I trust a media article that just states that scientists say this or that. After all scientists say most extant species exist due to evolution even though the fossil evidence shows no great indication of evolution. Nearly every phyla appeared fully formed in the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian without fossil precursor. A thinking man would say that points to a creation event, not evolution. So why can't scientists think for themselves. If the evidence is that phyla appeared, surely that is what the evidence is showing? If scientists can get that so dramatically wrong, they can get everything wrong. 

I don't begrudge anyone that hasn't read studies on the subject. I have only read maybe two dozen on this subject in any serious detail. I think the question then becomes does one trust the evidence one has read in combination with the consensus of subject matter experts or not. I'm not entirely sure what evolution has to do with the subject of anthropogenic climate change. Although I am sure that there are some evolutionary biologists interested in climate change I personally have not read many papers from evolutionary biologists regarding it. I see no real connection here. Claiming all scientists must be wrong due to you believing evolutionary biologists are wrong is rather throwing the baby out with the bath water. 

On 10/3/2019 at 6:52 AM, ARGOSY said:

If the media wishes to present evidence and get us on board, they should present graphs that are easy to read, convincing, and easily convincing that the causes are man made. 

In part, I agree with you here. Scientists are not exactly amazing at communication, especially with those outside their technical field of expertise. I mean I could talk about DESI and MALDI mass spectrometry techniques until the cows come home but it's not exactly a great conversation starter outside of my field of chemistry. So yes, I would say that the evidence has been presented badly. However, I would also say this is somewhat the fault of the 24 hr news cycle as well which always wants to balance out a scientist with a climate change denier when talking about these issues on TV. A better way for the public to understand the consensus on this issue would be to have 97 climatologists on one side of the studio and 3 climatologists on the other. Could communication be better? Certainly. 

On 10/3/2019 at 6:52 AM, ARGOSY said:

Even so, plants do better with higher co2, and we eat plants. Co2 levels haven't reached peak health yet for humans, the co2 worry is premature, we are better off with higher co2 due to the improved nourishment from eating better plants. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

The earth has regularly been through climate change, including melted ice caps. This has been historically natural, not man-influenced. We must be very careful when interfering in that natural process. 

Ok so let's talk about the higher CO2 levels. First let us note that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas but it does get a lot of attention due to it being a byproduct of every organic carbon chain combustion reaction. Now CO2 is used by plants in photosynthesis. However, as that news article mentions (and the study mentions in more detail), scientists know that this has diminishing returns at higher concentrations of CO2. This is due to plants needing things other than just CO2 to survive. 

And yes, the earth does go through historical non-anthropogenic climate change. We even know about this from fairly recent accounts of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. And I agree that we must be careful when talking about toying with natural phenomenon. However, both of these periods occurred before the mass introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere via industrialization. Since then, global climate change has dramatically changed from following any natural pattern and the overwhelming scientific consensus indicates that this latest phase of warming is anthropogenic. 

On 10/3/2019 at 6:52 AM, ARGOSY said:

I do agree that plastics should be reduced, coal burning reduced, exhaust fumes reduced, and cattle farming reduced. International agreements which gradually improve these over time would be a good thing, as long as they do not challenge national sovereignity. Of course population reduction will naturally reduce all those problems, it's the higher populations that are obviously the highest polluters. 

I actually agree with some of what you say towards the back end of your post. Certainly a population boom has contributed to changes in the climate. This is largely possible due to industrialization and continues to explode the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. China currently has the highest CO2 output in the world and India will almost certainly eclipse the US as number two shortly. And I'm completely in agreement with you that we should work towards improve our renewable status in the world. I am somewhat confused on whole national sovereignty issue. Which agreements do you feel that countries have entered that have given up national sovereignty? 

On 10/3/2019 at 7:32 AM, other one said:

It' been quite some time since this 72 year old was in statistics classes in college, but the main thing I learned in those classes was that if you choose the right data and present it in the best light in whatever you are proposing, you can prove just about anything you care to make an endeavor to do.  That is what they did with the famous hockey stick graph that showed man caused a huge jump in temperature....    it was the method they used to normalize the data.    We caught NOAA fudging their ocean temperatures by picking and choosing which data to use.

I was here when the climate change was supposed to be another Ice Age....   that was back in the 70' as I remember and there was all kinds of data to prove that also.

I agree that there are certain ways to make data look a certain way if you have no ethics and can do so with the statistics available. This also assumes no peer review process or at the very least a very lazy peer reviewer. In all of these cases, you are rather begging the question as to why scientists would do this, why nothing is caught in peer review and what proof do you have that this is happening.

They certainly aren't getting paid off to do it. I mean a simple look at education funding in the US can tell you that.   

I think someone else has addressed the false claims about NOAA fudging ocean temperature data. If not, please direct me to the study you are referring to and I try to make things clearer. 

Regarding the Ice Age in the 70s, there were a few isolated reports that there was meant to be a mini Ice Age in our future. This was in part due to a book based loosely in the science of the day called the Cooling by Lowell Ponte and some other popular science articles from that time. Let me be clear, these were in no way compare to the thousands upon thousands of papers published by scientists regarding anthropogenic climate change. It's interesting how people will support a few popular science articles and books from the 70s but deny scientific consensus today. This seems slightly hypocritical.

I won't really go into addressing some wild conspiracies about a plot to form a world government as it really doesn't have anything to do with the science and once again is rather begging the question.    

Edited by George
Removed some questionable language. :)
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

4 hours ago, ChessPlayer said:

Thanks to everyone for responding to my inquiries. I find that it is rather pointless to start a discussion unless I have a decent understanding of what position people are coming from. Let me jump into a few of the points mentioned.  

I don't begrudge anyone that hasn't read studies on the subject. I have only read maybe two dozen on this subject in any serious detail. I think the question then becomes does one trust the evidence one has read in combination with the consensus of subject matter experts or not. I'm not entirely sure what evolution has to do with the subject of anthropogenic climate change. Although I am sure that there are some evolutionary biologists interested in climate change I personally have not read many papers from evolutionary biologists regarding it. I see no real connection here. Claiming all scientists must be wrong due to you believing evolutionary biologists are wrong is rather throwing the baby out with the bath water. 

In part, I agree with you here. Scientists are not exactly amazing at communication, especially with those outside their technical field of expertise. I mean I could talk about DESI and MALDI mass spectrometry techniques until the cows come home but it's not exactly a great conversation starter outside of my field of chemistry. So yes, I would say that the evidence has been presented badly. However, I would also say this is somewhat the fault of the 24 hr news cycle as well which always wants to balance out a scientist with a climate change denier when talking about these issues on TV. A better way for the public to understand the consensus on this issue would be to have 97 climatologists on one side of the studio and 3 climatologists on the other. Could communication be better? Certainly. 

Ok so let's talk about the higher CO2 levels. First let us note that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas but it does get a lot of attention due to it being a byproduct of every organic carbon chain combustion reaction. Now CO2 is used by plants in photosynthesis. However, as that news article mentions (and the study mentions in more detail), scientists know that this has diminishing returns at higher concentrations of CO2. This is due to plants needing things other than just CO2 to survive. 

And yes, the earth does go through historical non-anthropogenic climate change. We even know about this from fairly recent accounts of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. And I agree that we must be careful when talking about toying with natural phenomenon. However, both of these periods occurred before the mass introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere via industrialization. Since then, global climate change has dramatically changed from following any natural pattern and the overwhelming scientific consensus indicates that this latest phase of warming is anthropogenic. 

I actually agree with some of what you say towards the back end of your post. Certainly a population boom has contributed to changes in the climate. This is largely possible due to industrialization and continues to explode the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. China currently has the highest CO2 output in the world and India will almost certainly eclipse the US as number two shortly. And I'm completely in agreement with you that we should work towards improve our renewable status in the world. I am somewhat confused on whole national sovereignty issue. Which agreements do you feel that countries have entered that have given up national sovereignty? 

As Twain supposedly said, "there are lies damned lies and statistics." I agree that there are certain ways to make data look a certain way if you have no ethics and can do so with the statistics available. This also assumes no peer review process or at the very least a very lazy peer reviewer. In all of these cases, you are rather begging the question as to why scientists would do this, why nothing is caught in peer review and what proof do you have that this is happening.

They certainly aren't getting paid off to do it. I mean a simple look at education funding in the US can tell you that.   

I think someone else has addressed the false claims about NOAA fudging ocean temperature data. If not, please direct me to the study you are referring to and I try to make things clearer. 

Regarding the Ice Age in the 70s, there were a few isolated reports that there was meant to be a mini Ice Age in our future. This was in part due to a book based loosely in the science of the day called the Cooling by Lowell Ponte and some other popular science articles from that time. Let me be clear, these were in no way compare to the thousands upon thousands of papers published by scientists regarding anthropogenic climate change. It's interesting how people will support a few popular science articles and books from the 70s but deny scientific consensus today. This seems slightly hypocritical.

I won't really go into addressing some wild conspiracies about a plot to form a world government as it really doesn't have anything to do with the science and once again is rather begging the question.    

My point about evolution is that you are chatting to a community that knows that scientific consensus can be wrong if scientists  are biased . I often read the evidence presented for evolution, and am impressed with the ability to gather data, but not with the interpretation of that data. 

Then you appeal to scientific consensus regarding climate change, when I know how wrong the interpretation can be if one has a bias. 

I do not support any interference in the natural cycles of earth, and recently there has been a lot of media coverage that mankind contributes a lot more co2 than volcanoes, I would like to see the actual source data so I can interpret it myself, instead of relying on scientists' interpretation which can be wrong.

Sure we may receive short term benefits as plant life flourishes, apparently earth's pollen count is at an all time high. But one doesn't want mankind to interfere in the process of making the earth a healthier place, natural processes are better. 

Regarding international agreements, I'm not referring to any specific agreement, just the trend to allow international bodies to enforce laws on countries is a worrying trend that should be avoided at all costs. History has proven that when a few people have a lot of power they tend to abuse it, and so power has to be continuously decentralized in order for nations to band together when they see a globalization threat (eg Hitler). Any laws passed on anything that appears to threaten independent  countries having complete sovereignty in all decisions will always be viewed with suspicion. Especially since the climate fearmongers are among the liberal left who support the destruction of borders. The two concepts are pretty scary when presented by the same political party, the likelihood of some megalomaniac running the world increases with any attempt to centralize power. 

So present the evidence succinctly, giving clear simple explanations of the source data and equipment used, and with absolutely no threat of passing international laws, and you may make some inroads. Imagery of the annual ice cap melt along with "scientists say" will definitely not work.

The skepticism is probably largely due to most of us being aware of scientists' clear warnings of rising sea levels the last 30 years and yet when we walk along the beach, the sea levels are the same. The credibility of "scientists say" has been ruined. And this credibility will be further ruined when we enter a new era of improving plant nutrition.

 

 

Edited by ARGOSY
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  29
  • Topic Count:  593
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  55,768
  • Content Per Day:  7.55
  • Reputation:   27,531
  • Days Won:  270
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Offline

8 hours ago, ChessPlayer said:

I won't really go into addressing some wild conspiracies about a plot to form a world government as it really doesn't have anything to do with the science and once again is rather begging the question

I'm sorry you haven't spend as much time looking into global politics and the occult as you have science, and with this statement you make here, I think we really do have little in common to  talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  46
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  944
  • Content Per Day:  0.22
  • Reputation:   170
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/05/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/20/1980

On 9/30/2019 at 6:04 AM, Adstar said:

Yeah Child abusers calling other people Child abusers, How sickening..

Hi Adstar,

provide the evidence, please.

Normally, at this point, your colleagues start to tell me "google this and that!". However, this is not the evidence. 

What I am expecting now is some sort of video showing some dark offender putting a knife at a children's throat who subsequently vows to become an activist.

Before we come to talk about actual scientific data in depth, it might be helpful to address these sorts of accusations that nobody seems to have a problem with?

I am not a child offender, by the way.

Actually, 16 year old girls speaking their minds is quite a common occurence. Even in our kid's group at church we have them and I'm not to suspect child abuse as a reason.

Regards,

Thomas

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  29
  • Topic Count:  593
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  55,768
  • Content Per Day:  7.55
  • Reputation:   27,531
  • Days Won:  270
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Offline

the climate is going to change with or without us.....    Adapt or die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members *
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  83
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  341
  • Content Per Day:  0.18
  • Reputation:   117
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2019
  • Status:  Offline

as a christian i feel that our concern should not be on finite things but eternal truths.  the world will end and a new better world will be established one day by him who lives forever

  • Well Said! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  75
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,399
  • Content Per Day:  0.43
  • Reputation:   1,307
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  09/01/2002
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hi Adstar,

provide the evidence, please.

Normally, at this point, your colleagues start to tell me "google this and that!". However, this is not the evidence. 

What I am expecting now is some sort of video showing some dark offender putting a knife at a children's throat who subsequently vows to become an activist.

Before we come to talk about actual scientific data in depth, it might be helpful to address these sorts of accusations that nobody seems to have a problem with?

I am not a child offender, by the way.

Actually, 16 year old girls speaking their minds is quite a common occurence. Even in our kid's group at church we have them and I'm not to suspect child abuse as a reason.

Regards,

Thomas

 

 

And you believe that telling a kid that the world only has ten years to prevent an irreversable global ecological disaster is NOT Child abuse? 

If you want to hear Greta Thurnberg say this very thing enter the following into the Utube search feature::

Quote

What the IPCC & Greta Thurnberg mean when saying we have just 10 years to avoid Climate Catastrophe

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  22
  • Topic Count:  194
  • Topics Per Day:  0.12
  • Content Count:  11,053
  • Content Per Day:  6.70
  • Reputation:   9,009
  • Days Won:  36
  • Joined:  09/12/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/09/1956

In ten years, if the Lord tarries, we will look back and see that prediction as untrue.

I have made it a point to keep my eye on the sciences for many years and the 'consensus' is often wrong. Peer reviewed and all.

A couple of points:

1. Climate changes continually

2. Weather is not the same as climate

3. The two biggest contributors to weather and climate are solar activity and ocean currents and we don't have a handle on either.

4. The USA has done more to change our emissions than any other nation and continue to do so.

5. Axis variability may turn out to be a major cause potential (we just don't know)

6. Man-made climate change is not settled science

7. Man made climate change has both a financial and political aspect to it.

8. God made the earth and its entire biosphere to be one very large and effective filtering mechanism

9. Our present activity changes the balance no more than a large artifact changes the earth wobble.

10. Young people are being taught to live in fear and this has affected their health...look around.

 

  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Well Said! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...