Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[CJJon]

This is some seriously ignorant thought. Wow.

Sponsored

 

[CJJon]

Hello; I thought about addressing this a few moments ago. Not too much point. I figure any who might be lurking and reading the thread can see for themselves. I know what I wrote as do you.

I guess part of the tactic is to try to make my statements seem flawed. I call it pretending my statements do not make sense. You are correct I was not making the sort of argument he implied.
I also notice another attempt to set definitions so as to suit. That is a strategy in use for some time. I did not understand it for some time outside of this site. This is perhaps one of the more successful things being done. Control the language and then control the message. We wound up with cancel culture from it, among other things.
It often now is no longer subtle. Everything is infrastructure or all the things that get labeled as racists can be examples of overreach. Nobody wants to be labeled a racists so many hold back or keep silent. These are not in use in this thread, but I have been labeled as selfish a few times.

Here they hope to continue to throw personal remarks in the comments and claim the remarks are not personal. I do concede the last batch are not as strong as some which have gone before. But still in a similar vein. If you cannot successfully dispute a statement then cast dispersions on the person. Try to make the person seem unworthy of consideration. Such does not work on me. I have no way to tell if it works on others.

I called you selfish because you said selfish things. You worry about how you will personally will be effected by whatever solution is tried. You worry about money and lifestyle changes. If you will keep warm. All selfish things by definition.

 

[Burkey]

This is some seriously ignorant thought. Wow.

Doesn’t understand the scientific method, thinks the scientific method is terrible.

 

[HiTekExec]

I don't get it? Is that some sort of vitamin?

Yes, for rodeo riders; it helps them last 8 seconds...

 

[Burkey]

Please highlight the faulty premise.
Actually, allow me to state the premises because you’ll probably turn it into a train-wreck.

1. The Earth is warming.

2. We haven’t yet found a “natural“ reason for this to be happening.

3. There IS a reason or reasons why this is happening.

4. The reason/s can be discovered.

5. All of the currently available evidence suggests that the current rate of warming is greater than at any period in the Earths history.

6. CO2 concentrations, when combined with every other known contributor, make a remarkable correlation with the Earths temperature right now, in the past, and in the predictions that have come to fruition over the past 40 or so years.

7. Until we can provide an alternative explanation that accounts for all of the data and serves as a useful tool for making predictions, the only VIABLE explanation is the one on the table in front of us right now.

Now go forth and tell me which of these premises you can prove to be faulty?

 

[CJJon]

More nonsense. Has no rational argument.

 

[sk47]

Please highlight the faulty premise.
4. The reason/s can be discovered.

5. All of the currently available evidence suggests that the current rate of warming is greater than at any period in the Earths history.

6. CO2 concentrations, when combined with every other known contributor, make a remarkable correlation with the Earths temperature right now, in the past, and in the predictions that have come to fruition over the past 40 or so years.

7. Until we can provide an alternative explanation that accounts for all of the data and serves as a useful tool for making predictions, the only VIABLE explanation is the one on the table in front of us right now.

Now go forth and tell me which of these premises you can prove to be faulty?

Hello; #4 -reasons for /causes of a number of things have yet to be discovered. While some reasons/causes have become known for some things others remain a mystery. There are theories about climate change. A theory can be popular but is not necessarily proof.
Two example were the theory of dinosaur extinction and the theory that all life was sustained by the sun. I grew up thinking those two were true, yet new evidence put both old theories into the trash bin.
I can see a case where, like evolution, some parts of the current theories will stand while other parts will be reformed if and when new evidence or better understanding can be had.

#5 - I tried to make this case before. Yes the current "direct" measurements appear to be quite accurate. With the invention of good instruments the warming rates can be had for some recent time frame. To state the rate is greater than any period of earth's history is a stretch which I do think can be proven by "indirect" evidence.

#6 - Correlation by itself does not prove causation. I posted a link in which one of you precious climate models has one of the parameters which is supposed to happen in 50 years, happening now. A 50 years mistake on an important parameter ought to be consider a serious flaw in the model. If the instrument being used is giving flawed readings , then trust in the instrument ought to be questioned.
Sure they can go back in and reprogram the models to fit the mistake , but that is backward. As I stated such modification of an instrument early on when it is being calibrated is acceptable. After the instrument is put into regular use and it's findings become part of the basis for regulations and legislation, such an error is not acceptable

#7- You have it backward. We humans have been going on with our day to day lives for thousands of years. You have a "new" theory and somehow that new theory is supposed to be the bedrock of fact and truth. That we are supposed to do the work. In a sense you are part of the prosecution. The defense does not have to prove an alternative. The prosecution must prove it's case.
The big problems with your case have to do with the facts known about past climate changes which happened long before human actions came into play. The fact that there were five ice sheet advances and retreats does not weigh in your favor. You tend to be selective in your evidence.

Another thing is your focus on trying to prove that humans are a major cause of climate change and that you give very little attention to the cost of what the proposed fixes may be.

So I will pretend for the sake of hoping to get an answer that we humans are the cause. The questions are in two parts.
1. - What are the the things we will have to do to make you happy. What will we have to give up or change in our lifestyles?
A. When will we have to submit to the required changes?
B. How many people and/or countries will have to be onboard for the sacrifices to make a difference?
C. What is the plan for when some countries/ people do not play according to you plans? How will non-compliers be punished or will it be an all voluntary thing?

2. When will the efforts and sacrifices start to pay off?
A. I have read, in your links and other sources, that the warming will continue for 50 years regardless of what we do now. Is this the way it will be by you take?
I. The polar bears will not be saved?
II. the glaciers will not be saved?
III. What is the lifestyle an average human can expect under your save the climate rules?
B. Another thing I glean from the sources is that in 100 years with an all out effort the warming may be reduced by 1/2 degree. The way I read this is 100 years from now the temps can go up perhaps as much as 3 to 4 degrees. If we do all the drastic things you want the temps will still go up, but may be 1/2 a degree less. Am I wrong on this?

 

[Burkey]

More nonsense. Has no rational argument.

Seems that the stupid want to cancel science.
I‘d rather that we cancel stupidity.
Hence, BJ is now set to ignore.
What a vastly better forum experience this will be for me without his presence.
Praise Jesus.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; #4 -reasons for /causes of a number of things have yet to be discovered. While some reasons/causes have become known for some things others remain a mystery. There are theories about climate change. A theory can be popular but is not necessarily proof.
Two example were the theory of dinosaur extinction and the theory that all life was sustained by the sun. I grew up thinking those two were true, yet new evidence put both old theories into the trash bin.
I can see a case where, like evolution, some parts of the current theories will stand while other parts will be reformed if and when new evidence or better understanding can be had.

#5 - I tried to make this case before. Yes the current "direct" measurements appear to be quite accurate. With the invention of good instruments the warming rates can be had for some recent time frame. To state the rate is greater than any period of earth's history is a stretch which I do think can be proven by "indirect" evidence.

#6 - Correlation by itself does not prove causation. I posted a link in which one of you precious climate models has one of the parameters which is supposed to happen in 50 years, happening now. A 50 years mistake on an important parameter ought to be consider a serious flaw in the model. If the instrument being used is giving flawed readings , then trust in the instrument ought to be questioned.
Sure they can go back in and reprogram the models to fit the mistake , but that is backward. As I stated such modification of an instrument early on when it is being calibrated is acceptable. After the instrument is put into regular use and it's findings become part of the basis for regulations and legislation, such an error is not acceptable

#7- You have it backward. We humans have been going on with our day to day lives for thousands of years. You have a "new" theory and somehow that new theory is supposed to be the bedrock of fact and truth. That we are supposed to do the work. In a sense you are part of the prosecution. The defense does not have to prove an alternative. The prosecution must prove it's case.
The big problems with your case have to do with the facts known about past climate changes which happened long before human actions came into play. The fact that there were five ice sheet advances and retreats does not weigh in your favor. You tend to be selective in your evidence.

Another thing is your focus on trying to prove that humans are a major cause of climate change and that you give very little attention to the cost of what the proposed fixes may be.

So I will pretend for the sake of hoping to get an answer that we humans are the cause. The questions are in two parts.
1. - What are the the things we will have to do to make you happy. What will we have to give up or change in our lifestyles?
A. When will we have to submit to the required changes?
B. How many people and/or countries will have to be onboard for the sacrifices to make a difference?
C. What is the plan for when some countries/ people do not play according to you plans? How will non-compliers be punished or will it be an all voluntary thing?

2. When will the efforts and sacrifices start to pay off?
A. I have read, in your links and other sources, that the warming will continue for 50 years regardless of what we do now. Is this the way it will be by you take?
I. The polar bears will not be saved?
II. the glaciers will not be saved?
III. What is the lifestyle an average human can expect under your save the climate rules?
B. Another thing I glean from the sources is that in 100 years with an all out effort the warming may be reduced by 1/2 degree. The way I read this is 100 years from now the temps can go up perhaps as much as 3 to 4 degrees. If we do all the drastic things you want the temps will still go up, but may be 1/2 a degree less. Am I wrong on this?

You still don't get the basics. "A theory can be popular but is not necessarily proof."

This statement is wrong on it's face. It also doesn't give you the green light to discount the particular 'theory' and ignore the evidence.

Frankly I glossed over the rest of your wordy post and found nothing of substance yet again. Just more selfish syntax. "give up" "change our lifestyles" "submit to the change" "sacrifices" "pay off" "punished".

Show me the data and science behind your claims that "in 100 years with an all out effort the warming may be reduced by 1/2 degree". On one hand you claim to not know what changes it will take to effect climate warming and on the other you have read somewhere about an "all out effort" that will only reduce warming slightly. Seems like you should know what these things are, no?

*NB: This post contains no ad-hominem attacks, real or imagined.

 

[sk47]

Show me the data and science behind your claims that "in 100 years with an all out effort the warming may be reduced by 1/2 degree". On one hand you claim to not know what changes it will take to effect climate warming and on the other you have read somewhere about an "all out effort" that will only reduce warming slightly. Seems like you should know what these things are, no?

Hello; Most recently I listened to a woman guest on Washington Journal (C-SPAN) who made such a statement. I think her name may have been Amy Harder associated with Axious (sp) perhaps.
You apparently missed my very last question. There are two of you who keep pushing the rest of us to accept your take that we humans are the main cause of warming. You in particular keep calling me selfish for not wanting to give up my current lifestyle for benefits that may only happen in 50 to 100 years.
You in particular will post long lists of links to reports on climate change. Is the answer to my question not in all that data? In 50 or 100 years what will be the reduction of global temps if you get compliance. Am I wrong in thinking the temps will go up for decades regardless of what we do and if we do all the things climate advocates want we may only see a modest benefit in terms of temperature?

 

[sk47]

Washington Journal Amy Harder : CSPAN2 : May 14, 2021 1:55pm-2:00pm EDT : Free Borrow & Streaming : Internet Archive

Here is a link to her appearance on Washington journal. I may have to retract my claim she was the most recent source about the 1/2 degree drop in temperature in 100 years. She may have said such but after I saw her image I do recall she was talking about not eating eating beef and pork. That may be why I wrote down her name.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Most recently I listened to a woman guest on Washington Journal (C-SPAN) who made such a statement. I think her name may have been Amy Harder associated with Axious (sp) perhaps.
You apparently missed my very last question. There are two of you who keep pushing the rest of us to accept your take that we humans are the main cause of warming. You in particular keep calling me selfish for not wanting to give up my current lifestyle for benefits that may only happen in 50 to 100 years.
You in particular will post long lists of links to reports on climate change. Is the answer to my question not in all that data? In 50 or 100 years what will be the reduction of global temps if you get compliance. Am I wrong in thinking the temps will go up for decades regardless of what we do and if we do all the things climate advocates want we may only see a modest benefit in terms of temperature?

More confusion. Never once has it been said humans are the main cause of warming. Sheesh!

Global warming is cyclical. The recent warming trend has been exacerbated by human activity. Global warming will most likely continue if every human dropped dead today, just not as much. There is a tipping point where the temps will be too high, which has the potential to cause severe problems around the globe. If we can curb what humans are doing, we may just ovoid hitting that tipping point.

What that means in terms of solutions or what the ultimate costs may be is up for debate. Let's stop with all the nonsense and accept what we see and currently know and work toward some viable solutions...before it is indeed too late.

 

[CJJon]

Washington Journal Amy Harder : CSPAN2 : May 14, 2021 1:55pm-2:00pm EDT : Free Borrow & Streaming : Internet Archive

Here is a link to her appearance on Washington journal. I may have to retract my claim she was the most recent source about the 1/2 degree drop in temperature in 100 years. She may have said such but after I saw her image I do recall she was talking about not eating eating beef and pork. That may be why I wrote down her name.

I'm not sure what the link is supposed to show regards anything you have claimed.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Did a search. Found several sites. Here is a link to one.
This is what will happen to the climate in the next 100 years (theconversation.com)

Had to do the math. We may already be at 1 degree C warm already.
Adding the Paris and other agreements together we will get a 2.7 degree world (of warming?)

If we go on as usual the world can warm from 3 to 5 degrees C by the end of the century. So If I subtract 2.7 form 3 degrees I get that we can maybe save 3/10 of a degree of warming. Taking 2.7 from 5 degrees gets a 2.3 degrees of reduced warming.

There are other number to play with, but all are estimates at this point.

 

[sk47]

I'm not sure what the link is supposed to show regards anything you have claimed.

Hello; You challenged me to provide a source. I guess you do not recall your own statements.

Sponsored