Global warming - true or false?
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
I would agree that global climate change is real. The argument centers on why, not if. The issue will ALWAYS be that climate changes on its own without any help from us. Heck, in the 1880s, it was deemed that we were enduring a mini-ice age. Now a little less than 150 years later, the pendulum has swung the other way. We have many decades of observations suggesting short-term and longer-term climate swings even at a time when fossil fuels weren't so predominantly used. We have various core samples from arctic ice cores, tree ring studies, and various other ways of inferentially analyzing the past. Climate change has ALWAYS been real.
There are many reputable scientists including some Nobel Prize winners who do not agree with the situation being man-made. They point out that if you do the math with the proposed models, they matched reality for about half a year and have long since started deviating from reality in a really bad way. They predicted that we would ALREADY be at a point where we would have immediately life-threatening weather about four times the current level of weather issues. The problem is that I have not seen a good "smoking gun" (i.e. mechanistic) article. A lot of the articles are correlation but cannot rule out "chance correlation" because without a firm mechanism, it is hard to dig out the numbers. If you have a bad model, you don't have that firm mechanism, and that stymies the whole process. The correlation coefficients are less than 0.50 for a lot of articles and if you do the math, that is on the order of one chance in three of being right. (There are a couple of square roots in the statistics which is why 0.50 correlation is only 33% probability.) I remain skeptical on the subject.
Before anyone thinks I'm a total kook, remember that I have a Ph.D. and hold research articles to high standards - many of which are not met when it comes to causes of climate change. AND despite my skepticism on "mankind causing climate change," I have NO DOUBTS WHATSOEVER that Mankind is poisoning itself a little at the time. There are literally HUNDREDS of mechanistic articles that start with a pollutant and, step by chemical transformation step, end with a disease of the lungs or other parts of the respiratory system. There are pollutants that are liver poisons. Some ground-soil contamination gets into our food.
The only reason we can't tag those poisons to a source is because they are basic by-products of several more complex steps and are produced by many companies. Since we can't lay a particular set of molecules as having come from a particular company, we can't nail them for it. They are essentially protected by the "fog of business."
I am absolutely in favor of extreme cleanup of our environment; just not primarily due to any climate effects. So if we get rid of the nasty gases that are killing our children and it happens that in the process our climate improves, I would be mildly surprised but not at all disappointed.
There are many reputable scientists including some Nobel Prize winners who do not agree with the situation being man-made. They point out that if you do the math with the proposed models, they matched reality for about half a year and have long since started deviating from reality in a really bad way. They predicted that we would ALREADY be at a point where we would have immediately life-threatening weather about four times the current level of weather issues. The problem is that I have not seen a good "smoking gun" (i.e. mechanistic) article. A lot of the articles are correlation but cannot rule out "chance correlation" because without a firm mechanism, it is hard to dig out the numbers. If you have a bad model, you don't have that firm mechanism, and that stymies the whole process. The correlation coefficients are less than 0.50 for a lot of articles and if you do the math, that is on the order of one chance in three of being right. (There are a couple of square roots in the statistics which is why 0.50 correlation is only 33% probability.) I remain skeptical on the subject.
Before anyone thinks I'm a total kook, remember that I have a Ph.D. and hold research articles to high standards - many of which are not met when it comes to causes of climate change. AND despite my skepticism on "mankind causing climate change," I have NO DOUBTS WHATSOEVER that Mankind is poisoning itself a little at the time. There are literally HUNDREDS of mechanistic articles that start with a pollutant and, step by chemical transformation step, end with a disease of the lungs or other parts of the respiratory system. There are pollutants that are liver poisons. Some ground-soil contamination gets into our food.
The only reason we can't tag those poisons to a source is because they are basic by-products of several more complex steps and are produced by many companies. Since we can't lay a particular set of molecules as having come from a particular company, we can't nail them for it. They are essentially protected by the "fog of business."
I am absolutely in favor of extreme cleanup of our environment; just not primarily due to any climate effects. So if we get rid of the nasty gases that are killing our children and it happens that in the process our climate improves, I would be mildly surprised but not at all disappointed.
Rather than think you are a total kook, I concur.
If I may be so bold, I would like to say the argument centres not so much on "if", but on "by how much". If you take the position of the climate change alarmists, they argue the science is "settled". They roll out the overused line that "97% of scientists agree that man made climate change is real." Consequently, the non-thinking general public assume that those who are climate change skeptics are bonkers, immoral and a danger to society. In fact that is why the climate change alarmists call them climate change "deniers", linking them to the holocaust. That is not science, that is virtue signalling and trying to shut down the argument.
What gets left out of their rhetoric is that the skeptics ALSO agree that man made climate change is real. The man in the street is completely unaware of this. The real argument is: how much of the climate change is caused by man? That is where the skeptics dispute the alarmists. The skeptics position is mostly that it has some but very little impact. In other words, negligible.
So, next time you hear someone troll out that 97% line, just inform them that the skeptics also believe that too and it is a mute point.
I have a numerous arguments on the matter, following a ton of research I did on it, after watching a YouTube video showing that in fact there is more to it than meets the eye.
Doc, perhaps you also saw the video below, showcasing the nobel laureate talking on the topic. I think it was this video that made me delve deeper into the topic.
If I may be so bold, I would like to say the argument centres not so much on "if", but on "by how much". If you take the position of the climate change alarmists, they argue the science is "settled". They roll out the overused line that "97% of scientists agree that man made climate change is real." Consequently, the non-thinking general public assume that those who are climate change skeptics are bonkers, immoral and a danger to society. In fact that is why the climate change alarmists call them climate change "deniers", linking them to the holocaust. That is not science, that is virtue signalling and trying to shut down the argument.
What gets left out of their rhetoric is that the skeptics ALSO agree that man made climate change is real. The man in the street is completely unaware of this. The real argument is: how much of the climate change is caused by man? That is where the skeptics dispute the alarmists. The skeptics position is mostly that it has some but very little impact. In other words, negligible.
So, next time you hear someone troll out that 97% line, just inform them that the skeptics also believe that too and it is a mute point.
I have a numerous arguments on the matter, following a ton of research I did on it, after watching a YouTube video showing that in fact there is more to it than meets the eye.
Doc, perhaps you also saw the video below, showcasing the nobel laureate talking on the topic. I think it was this video that made me delve deeper into the topic.
Last edited:
Had not seen this particular video but several others of a shorter nature echoed this gentleman's sentiments. It is all blown out of proportion. I hate to say that my scientific colleagues might do this, but some of them "follow the money." They write an article on global warming (or global climate change) because they get grant money for it. And of course, if they write articles against the "socially activist" political establishment, they don't get another grant. Al Gore's legacy is as a political climate changer.
The worst part of this is that "Big Al's" conjectures take attention away from the disease aspect of this problem, and THAT can be proved unequivocally. But kids getting sick from air pollution has become declasse' over the years.
The worst part of this is that "Big Al's" conjectures take attention away from the disease aspect of this problem, and THAT can be proved unequivocally. But kids getting sick from air pollution has become declasse' over the years.
I think the video is brilliant. I haven't checked the guys credentials yet, however I'm sure you wouldn't have posted it without doing that first. Incidentally, the only reason I mention this is that I recently saw another video where some guy proclaimed that global warming was caused by the decimation of the large herds of wild animals. The trampling of vegetation by these herds encouraged plant growth. The demise of these herds has triggered global warming. I was so enamored with the man, I nearly didn't check out his credentials! When I did, I found out that his idea was based on a lot of dubious, shall we say "assumptions"... His video was one of the "TED talks" it's a bit disconcerting to find out the chaps study is under a cloud!
A few years back I looked up the percentage of carbon actually in the atmosphere, (Total CO2 = 0.04%) and the percentage increase, and I came to the conclusion that in my layman's opinion it seemed illogical that such a small change in the amount of carbon could cause such a Severe effect. It was possible it was playing a Small Part, and possibly it was a trigger for other more damaging effects, but it just didn't make sense to me.
The other thing that was immediately obvious was that we have around 200 countries in the world, all producing various amounts of carbon dioxide, and if anyone country was ever successful at reducing it's carbon production to 80%, then that would be such an insignificant effect on the world . In other words can you imagine getting all 200 countries to make substantial reductions in their carbon output. Again that just did not make sense.
Tyres is another thing I looked at, think about it, a vehicle gets through probably one or two sets of tyres a year, that's several millimetres of rubber atomised into carbon powder. To me it seemed much more likely that something like that was having more of an effect than the actual CO2 itself.
However it is self-evident that the world is getting warmer. When I was a boy, I played in a massive snow drifts! I've never seen anything like that since. Mind you, I don't know what came before my birth. Maybe the 62/63 winter I remember was just an insignificant blip, but it remains significant in my mind.
I do recall that in the 1970s scientists were worried that we were going into an ice age. I even considered immigrating to a warmer climate! When I discovered that the UK was actually getting warmer due to global warming I was pleased, I think that warming up 1 or 2 degrees will make the UK and much more pleasant place to live.
It doesn't alter the fact that burning all this carbon and bunging it into the atmosphere isn't such a good idea, to my mind it is so much better to generate the electric with Solar panels. And look, what will happen? The technology will trickle down to the third world, enabling them to produce energy efficiently and cheaply. If for no other reason that is just a good idea.
The other thing that occurred to me if you put loads of solar panels in something like the Sahara Desert, now you will have vast areas of shade under the panels, you also have all this power freely available which could be used to desalinate sea water or even extract water from the air. Have you seen the "Seawater Greenhouse"
Note:-
To qualify that what I mean by "free power", you are always going to have periods when the solar energy cannot be used. So instead of wasting it you would apply it to the creation of fresh water for the crops.
One thing I am very sure of though is that technology well find a solution. Technology will and can be and will be responsible for bringing the third world up to a decent level. And what I mean by that is a level where the minds of these people can be utilised to the further advancement of the human race.
And this is an example of what I mean about technology boosting a Third World Country, this guy Iqbal Quadir single handedly boosted the GDP of his home country Bangladesh.
Iqbal Quadir: The power of the mobile phone to end poverty
This is one of the best Ted Talks I have ever seen.
A few years back I looked up the percentage of carbon actually in the atmosphere, (Total CO2 = 0.04%) and the percentage increase, and I came to the conclusion that in my layman's opinion it seemed illogical that such a small change in the amount of carbon could cause such a Severe effect. It was possible it was playing a Small Part, and possibly it was a trigger for other more damaging effects, but it just didn't make sense to me.
The other thing that was immediately obvious was that we have around 200 countries in the world, all producing various amounts of carbon dioxide, and if anyone country was ever successful at reducing it's carbon production to 80%, then that would be such an insignificant effect on the world . In other words can you imagine getting all 200 countries to make substantial reductions in their carbon output. Again that just did not make sense.
Tyres is another thing I looked at, think about it, a vehicle gets through probably one or two sets of tyres a year, that's several millimetres of rubber atomised into carbon powder. To me it seemed much more likely that something like that was having more of an effect than the actual CO2 itself.
However it is self-evident that the world is getting warmer. When I was a boy, I played in a massive snow drifts! I've never seen anything like that since. Mind you, I don't know what came before my birth. Maybe the 62/63 winter I remember was just an insignificant blip, but it remains significant in my mind.
I do recall that in the 1970s scientists were worried that we were going into an ice age. I even considered immigrating to a warmer climate! When I discovered that the UK was actually getting warmer due to global warming I was pleased, I think that warming up 1 or 2 degrees will make the UK and much more pleasant place to live.
It doesn't alter the fact that burning all this carbon and bunging it into the atmosphere isn't such a good idea, to my mind it is so much better to generate the electric with Solar panels. And look, what will happen? The technology will trickle down to the third world, enabling them to produce energy efficiently and cheaply. If for no other reason that is just a good idea.
The other thing that occurred to me if you put loads of solar panels in something like the Sahara Desert, now you will have vast areas of shade under the panels, you also have all this power freely available which could be used to desalinate sea water or even extract water from the air. Have you seen the "Seawater Greenhouse"
Note:-
To qualify that what I mean by "free power", you are always going to have periods when the solar energy cannot be used. So instead of wasting it you would apply it to the creation of fresh water for the crops.
One thing I am very sure of though is that technology well find a solution. Technology will and can be and will be responsible for bringing the third world up to a decent level. And what I mean by that is a level where the minds of these people can be utilised to the further advancement of the human race.
And this is an example of what I mean about technology boosting a Third World Country, this guy Iqbal Quadir single handedly boosted the GDP of his home country Bangladesh.
Iqbal Quadir: The power of the mobile phone to end poverty
This is one of the best Ted Talks I have ever seen.
Last edited:
I believe global warming is real. I am not convinced the "science" behind the why is accurate or reliable given the admissions that the data has been horribly misprepresented. E.G. Taking temperature readings from a point 750 miles south of the represented area was considered acceptable because no sensor existed in the actual area.
Watching the NASA video showing the ice cycles at the poles was more convincing that the changes are drastic.
I am not convinced of the cause or the proposed solutions but I do support being a good steward of the environment. I believed we don't inherit this world from our parents as much as we borrow it from our children.
Watching the NASA video showing the ice cycles at the poles was more convincing that the changes are drastic.
I am not convinced of the cause or the proposed solutions but I do support being a good steward of the environment. I believed we don't inherit this world from our parents as much as we borrow it from our children.
Further research I have found online suggests that we are approaching the exact OPPOSITE of global warming. We are approaching a "Grand Solar Minimum" that will cause the ice caps to thicken considerably. We might see 0.5 Celcius decreases in average Earth temperatures. As it is, the temperature increases from the IPCC model are continually diverging from reality. Temperatures are staying level or going DOWN while the IPCC predictions are going up. In science, this is called "disproving a theory."
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/winter-is-coming-super-grand-solar-minimum.html
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08...major-cooling-and-scientists-are-ignoring-it/
https://www.livescience.com/61716-sun-cooling-global-warming.html
http://blog.heartland.org/2018/12/global-warming-or-global-cooling-which-crisis-is-upon-us/
- pay particular attention to the temperature cycle graphs.
http://treeoflifecenterus.com/cycles-of-global-cooling-and-warming-what-is-going-on/ - includes a quote worthy of consideration:
"every projection of the Gore AGW has been consistently disproven and inaccurate." (AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming i.e. man-made).
In essence, the "global warming" crowd has totally IGNORED solar cycles and other long-term cycles that are about 90% accurate in their general prediction ability.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/winter-is-coming-super-grand-solar-minimum.html
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08...major-cooling-and-scientists-are-ignoring-it/
https://www.livescience.com/61716-sun-cooling-global-warming.html
http://blog.heartland.org/2018/12/global-warming-or-global-cooling-which-crisis-is-upon-us/
http://treeoflifecenterus.com/cycles-of-global-cooling-and-warming-what-is-going-on/ - includes a quote worthy of consideration:
"every projection of the Gore AGW has been consistently disproven and inaccurate." (AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming i.e. man-made).
In essence, the "global warming" crowd has totally IGNORED solar cycles and other long-term cycles that are about 90% accurate in their general prediction ability.
Doc, the overhyped projections discredit the organisations for anyone with a rational mind. It amounts to "spin". It is the politicisation of the science that leads to a cult-like evangelism. Apparently the Russian model was the most accurate, regarding projections.
What I would like to know is what the projections were for the IPCC model in 2000, and how they compare to now. From memory, they provide an upper/lower boundary and an average projection. Yet, if I recall correctly, the actual results were lower than the lower projection boundary. Not sure if anyone has the data for how far they are out...?
What I would like to know is what the projections were for the IPCC model in 2000, and how they compare to now. From memory, they provide an upper/lower boundary and an average projection. Yet, if I recall correctly, the actual results were lower than the lower projection boundary. Not sure if anyone has the data for how far they are out...?
Last edited:
There was a group called "Ecademy" which was set up by Thomas and Penny Power. There was always one or two threads running and people getting hot under the collar. I even had a guy threaten me quite seriously because he was against bottled water. He had set up a business to sell empty reusable bottles and encourage people not to use bottled water.
I pointed out that Coca-Cola is basically 99% water with sugar, food colouring and caffeine in it.
No one was criticising the distribution of Coca-Cola as beening damaging to the environment, although basically it was exactly the same thing as bottled water, and sold in much vaster quantities!
I pointed out that I actually encouraged my children to drink bottled water in preference to them drinking Coca-Cola!
My benefit was it was cheaper, and the kids benefited because its a lot healthier. They all drink loads of bottled water to this day!
Anyway what I am saying, it is a common thread for people to get on a "thread" and somehow become something else.
I didn't know what it was until I heard Jordan Peterson talking about ideologies. This is very new to me and I'm experimenting with it, and I'm seeing it everywhere, so I may be getting it a bit wrong. If you see me doing anything a miss let me know!
Dr Jordan B Peterson was with an interviewer and he appeared to be very rude! Basically he told her that she wasn't thinking and he didn't really want to talk with her anymore. Further he said if she decided to start thinking then he would like to talk to her and continue the conversation. He had identified that she was representing an ideology, in other words all her answers, and questions and thrusts were based on a structured way of thinking. She already knew and already had the answers.
That's when I realised my disquiet, my tendency to avoid getting involved in any of these practically "flame war" threads, I knew you couldn't win, but I never knew why. I wondered if I was less intelligent than others, less well read, I just couldn't work out why I couldn't make traction and stand my ground. The idea of an ideology as described by Jordan, made me realise it, these people were no better than me, they just had a massive great steamroller of an ideology behind them, no thinking required.
You see, "me thinking" me seeing Coca-Cola as an equivalent to bottled water completely derailed their ideology. They didn't know what to do so they got angry with me.
And that's Jordan's point, and I can see that is now, and will be, my point, and I always had it really, I like to think. I don't like anything or anyone telling me how to think. Even if I'm not that good at it, not that well read, I think it's a lot better if you think it through yourself.
So now I have started writing in threads, well just one thread so far! I'm trying to promote the idea that people should actually listen, talk, discuss rationalized, basically behave as normal human being should. I don't think it's going very well, I have a lot to learn about it, and I may well be flogging a dead horse. But at least it's my horse, and I think I might get some traction, I just have to build my own ideology! Probably the "JBP" ideology!
(Needs a better name)
I pointed out that Coca-Cola is basically 99% water with sugar, food colouring and caffeine in it.
No one was criticising the distribution of Coca-Cola as beening damaging to the environment, although basically it was exactly the same thing as bottled water, and sold in much vaster quantities!
I pointed out that I actually encouraged my children to drink bottled water in preference to them drinking Coca-Cola!
My benefit was it was cheaper, and the kids benefited because its a lot healthier. They all drink loads of bottled water to this day!
Anyway what I am saying, it is a common thread for people to get on a "thread" and somehow become something else.
I didn't know what it was until I heard Jordan Peterson talking about ideologies. This is very new to me and I'm experimenting with it, and I'm seeing it everywhere, so I may be getting it a bit wrong. If you see me doing anything a miss let me know!
Dr Jordan B Peterson was with an interviewer and he appeared to be very rude! Basically he told her that she wasn't thinking and he didn't really want to talk with her anymore. Further he said if she decided to start thinking then he would like to talk to her and continue the conversation. He had identified that she was representing an ideology, in other words all her answers, and questions and thrusts were based on a structured way of thinking. She already knew and already had the answers.
That's when I realised my disquiet, my tendency to avoid getting involved in any of these practically "flame war" threads, I knew you couldn't win, but I never knew why. I wondered if I was less intelligent than others, less well read, I just couldn't work out why I couldn't make traction and stand my ground. The idea of an ideology as described by Jordan, made me realise it, these people were no better than me, they just had a massive great steamroller of an ideology behind them, no thinking required.
You see, "me thinking" me seeing Coca-Cola as an equivalent to bottled water completely derailed their ideology. They didn't know what to do so they got angry with me.
And that's Jordan's point, and I can see that is now, and will be, my point, and I always had it really, I like to think. I don't like anything or anyone telling me how to think. Even if I'm not that good at it, not that well read, I think it's a lot better if you think it through yourself.
So now I have started writing in threads, well just one thread so far! I'm trying to promote the idea that people should actually listen, talk, discuss rationalized, basically behave as normal human being should. I don't think it's going very well, I have a lot to learn about it, and I may well be flogging a dead horse. But at least it's my horse, and I think I might get some traction, I just have to build my own ideology! Probably the "JBP" ideology!
(Needs a better name)
Good point Uncle, about the Coke. It is indeed like bottled water. Perhaps in future we will get a six pack of concentrate Coke sachets!
Show me a critic of bottled water (for environmental reasons) and I will show you a hypocrite. Are they driving, or cycling to work? Probably the former. Do they have the most fuel efficient car out there? Unlikely. Have they moved next door to where they work? Not a chance. Have they chosen work that requires you to work from home? Nah.
I have an argument I like to pull out of my pocket from time to time. My argument is that if I buy a Hummer, rather than say a low economy car, I will reduce global warming rather than contribute to it. "How ridiculous!", I can hear the angry skeptics! "They do 20mpg while a Nissan Pulsar does 78mpg." "Yes, that may all be true", I retort, "but I will be taking that Hummer away from a high mileage driver and putting it in the hands of a low mileage driver, i.e. me." This infuriates them! You have to factor in the entire ecosystem, not your isolated self. It is a bit like Al Gore's film, "Inconvenient Truth." Prothletising about reducing your carbon footprint, while travelling the world in private jets to convey his message.
Regarding Jordan Peterson being rude, I think he is probably at the end of his tether with trigger replies based on mainstream thinking. I started a thread about this, talking about the ready-made lexicon, pre-formed arguments and channeled thinking. The thread can be found here:
I think, therefore I can't think: https://themindtavern.com/community/threads/i-think-therefore-i-cant-think.302/#post-2537
He gets interviewed so frequently, he probably just sees the same old pattern repeating itself, and drives him bonkers. No one is thinking. People are just regurgitating. That is why we have places like The Mind Tavern, where we can explore difficult topics and different opinions.
Show me a critic of bottled water (for environmental reasons) and I will show you a hypocrite. Are they driving, or cycling to work? Probably the former. Do they have the most fuel efficient car out there? Unlikely. Have they moved next door to where they work? Not a chance. Have they chosen work that requires you to work from home? Nah.
I have an argument I like to pull out of my pocket from time to time. My argument is that if I buy a Hummer, rather than say a low economy car, I will reduce global warming rather than contribute to it. "How ridiculous!", I can hear the angry skeptics! "They do 20mpg while a Nissan Pulsar does 78mpg." "Yes, that may all be true", I retort, "but I will be taking that Hummer away from a high mileage driver and putting it in the hands of a low mileage driver, i.e. me." This infuriates them! You have to factor in the entire ecosystem, not your isolated self. It is a bit like Al Gore's film, "Inconvenient Truth." Prothletising about reducing your carbon footprint, while travelling the world in private jets to convey his message.
Regarding Jordan Peterson being rude, I think he is probably at the end of his tether with trigger replies based on mainstream thinking. I started a thread about this, talking about the ready-made lexicon, pre-formed arguments and channeled thinking. The thread can be found here:
I think, therefore I can't think: https://themindtavern.com/community/threads/i-think-therefore-i-cant-think.302/#post-2537
He gets interviewed so frequently, he probably just sees the same old pattern repeating itself, and drives him bonkers. No one is thinking. People are just regurgitating. That is why we have places like The Mind Tavern, where we can explore difficult topics and different opinions.
>>> Perhaps in future we will get a six pack of concentrate Coke sachets! <<<
There is something similar, it's called SodaStream and I think there are other similar devices. I used to have one, 40 odd years ago...
There is something similar, it's called SodaStream and I think there are other similar devices. I used to have one, 40 odd years ago...