• Announcements

    • Cap'n Refsmmat

      SFN Upgraded   07/22/17

      SFN has been upgraded to IPB version 4. View the announcement for more details, or to report any problems you're experiencing.
Memammal

Trump, NASA & Climate Science

57 posts in this topic

Popular arguments against climate change are all based in fallacies and ignorance.

 

One popular argument that the earth is simply too big and vast for the metric tons of CO2 we put is the to air daily to impact anything because nature has a process. The argument totally ignores limits. it is like saying dams are designed to hold bacck water and even have various protection for overflow and thus no amount of water could ever be too great for a dam.

 

Another popular argument is that because some theories or individual science teams have updated, changed, or had inaccurate theories that all science cannot be trusted. As if 100% is the common standard in life we use. There has been far more plane crashes over the last few decades than inaccurate peer reviewed climate studies yet those who contend science cannot be trusted aren't arguing planes aren't safe. The argument is a petty one that attempts to exploit the fact that nothing is perfect in order to claim perhaps everything is wrong. Even the best student misses a question on a test, best athlete loses a game, and etc. certianty into the 90th percentile is good as it gets.

 

The dumbest popular argument is that making changes to how we consumer energy with hurt the economy and therefor is too expensive. Total nonsense. Never mind that businesses and people across the world use wind and solar on their buildings and homes to cut energy cost; technology has been the largest economic driver in the history of the planet. Replacing horses with cars, trains with planes, radio antenna with satelites, wells with plants, and etc didn't hurt the economy. It is true that many people who dug wells and made horse shoes needed to find new careers but ultimately new technology creates more opportunity. It has be demostrated over and over.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slow your roll, Timmy. You're the one who introduced the idea of consensus, and then incorrectly asserted there wasn't one. Don't go moving the goalposts after I clearly showed your claim to be remedially false.

Evidently we disagree about the meaning of the word consensus; in my eyes you call 3% 0%. If you correct that word by "great majority", we can all agree.

 

 

 

What part of C02 dissolved in seawater creating carbonic acid don't you understand?

That view hasn't changed significantly. The main damage from these pollutants is on land and freshwater lakes.

 

Locally,SO2 and NOx pollution swamps the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Unlike CO2 , these pollutants would soon return to preindustrial levels in the atmosphere if the polluting industries were shut down.

 

[..]

That appears to be the beginning of a scientific argument; good! Any article that demonstrates that what rangerx observed is due to CO2 would be appreciated - but it's worth to be a topic by itself, in the physics section.

 

Why is it you see no excuse for not promoting solar, you understand that this guy in the video is wrong about solar cells, and you side with the professors at your university on these points, yet you still think he's right about AGW being a hoax? How can you be a critical thinker and still be swayed by this kind of appeal?!

 

Why is it that you pretend that I think that AGW is a hoax?? Don't put words in mouth OK?

 

Quote from Giaever.

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned."

 

So half a day (maybe) searching Google appears to be the sum total of his knowledge of climate change.

 

He did find a graph that I had not found in a full week of research. Me thinks that that guy plays down the amount of research that he spent on it in total.

 

One dubious executive decision, one giant backward leap for climate science: Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’

 

Getting back to the topic at hand, I had not yet read the linked article in the OP - does this mean that we will be robbed of the GISTEMP charts that I have been following over the last year?? :(

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/news/20170615/

 

I don't understand why Trump would want to do that. Indeed, very dubious!

[..] I do think politicized science is a problem - when the answer you get to a scientific question depends on the political leaning of the administration, there's a problem.

 

Yes, I totally agree.

Edited by Tim88
-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That appears to be the beginning of a scientific argument; good! Any article that demonstrates that what rangerx observed is due to CO2 would be appreciated.

I thought it best in my previous post to indicate nothing I said was inconsistent with rangerx's posts.

 

Your omission of "Note: this is consistent with the previous post" in your quote of me so that you could claim I disagreed with rangerx is an unscientific but very effective way of ensuring that you won't be taken seriously.

 

I won't waste my time with any of your future posts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidently we disagree about the meaning of the word consensus; in my eyes you call 3% 0%.

I suppose if you keep making up your own meanings of words and choose to use them in nonstandard ways you'll disagree with people quite often and quite unnecessarily. I never claimed 100% agreement, and if you feel otherwise you should check either your eyes or comprehension or both.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/consensus

consensus

[kuh n-sen-suh s]

noun, plural consensuses.

 

1. majority of opinion:

2.general agreement or concord; harmony.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

emphasis mine:

[..] so that you could claim I disagreed with rangerx is an unscientific but very effective way of ensuring that you won't be taken seriously.

I won't waste my time with any of your future posts.

 

As that is utter nonsense, I'm glad that you won't. I could not see (and I still can't see) how anyone with a minimal reading ability could think that you disagreed with rangerx. I generally don't cite superfluous statements.
In contrast, I will continue to take attention of your posts, as I appreciate scientific comments.


 

There you have it: you used def.1, and I used def.2.

Peace.


It is just plain silly. Why would anyone get paid to find an effect that is generally assumed to happen? Instead of bemoaning that the majority of scientific findings are in agreement with each other, you could take a look at those studies and figure out whether you could actually criticize the substances. That, however, requires that one obtains some level of expertise. The other interpretation is that the findings are so obvious and non-controversial that no one actually came up with an alternative. And believe, if someone actually manage to get strong evidence that everyone else was wrong, that one would be a star over night (with emphasis on strong evidence). The real strength of the evidence is not only the pure number of studies, but the diversity of findings that point to the same conclusion.

 

Also, yes people have thought about ways to slow global warming. Carbon sequestration is a big thing and some even proposed climate engineering using e.g. sulfate aerosols. However, to date the former are insufficient to offset current production and for the latter risk estimates are difficult. So no, to date there is still no good alternative that does not include curtailing at least part of CO2 production.

 

As the second part of your post seems to be a comment of one of my posts, I wonder if the first part also was meant to comment one of my posts. If so, then it is based on a misunderstanding (sorry if I wasn't clear). I see no reason to think that NASA is being paid to find an effect that is generally assumed to happen! What NASA is doing is to investigate what is happening. Which brings us back again to the topic, it is important that the climate studies (temperature, acid rain, ozon layer etc) continue.

Edited by Tim88
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you have it: you used def.1, and I used def.2.

General agreement [math]\ne[/math] Total Agreement and [math]\ne[/math] 100% agreement. Even by definition 2 to which you've just actively claimed you ascribe, your point is remedially false.

 

Either way, I showed your claim to be untrue... at least according to how most people use the word "consensus."

 

If you have to twist and torture and bend the meanings of words for your point to be accurate, you should consider instead changing the point you're making.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidently we disagree about the meaning of the word consensus; in my eyes you call 3% 0%. If you correct that word by "great majority", we can all agree.

 

 

 

That what the definition says, regardless of whether you use definition #1 or #2.

 

It simply doesn't work to ask that there be unanimous agreement. Even with such well-tested science like relativity, you have credentialed people who have said it's wrong. And yet I think you have to say that relativity being correct is the consensus of the physics community. One does not need to expend effort justifying its use in solving other problems.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now