FOLLOW BOREME
 
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

(1:37) Message from former Greek finance minister Yanis Varafoukis: "The most difficult question our children will ask of us will be: What did you do to avert the climate catastrophe that hit our generation? That's why I am calling for a European Green New Deal and at least 500 billion euro per year to be invested in reversing a climate disaster."

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (19 days ago)

“100 companies produce 71% of worldwide CO2 emissions.”  There they go again limiting the “problem” to CO2.  How many companies are responsible for CFC’s, agriculture, and deforestation?  Wouldn’t you agree that those are also important?  25% of greenhouse gas is from Agriculture, forestry, and other land use. 

Small amounts of chlorine and CFCs have a huge impact on the global temperatures.  All those people with swimming pools that need to put chlorine in the water every week, where do you think all the chlorine that was there went?

ReplyVote up (6)down (5)
Original comment

“100 companies produce 71% of worldwide CO2 emissions.”  There they go again limiting the “problem” to CO2.  How many companies are responsible for CFC’s, agriculture, and deforestation?  Wouldn’t you agree that those are also important?  25% of greenhouse gas is from Agriculture, forestry, and other land use. 

Small amounts of chlorine and CFCs have a huge impact on the global temperatures.  All those people with swimming pools that need to put chlorine in the water every week, where do you think all the chlorine that was there went?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (17 days ago)

Finally you arrived. You just said CFCs (the result of human activity) "have a huge impact on the global temperature" . You just agreed with AGW. Well done.

But you overshot. "CFCs’ contribution to global warming has been small. The atmospheric energy rise is the first step to warming. The atmospheric energy rise of CFCs since 1750 has been about 0.34 Watt/m2. By comparison CO2 contributes 1.66 Watt/m2, methane 0.48 Watt/m2 and N2O ~0.16 Watt/m2." LINK

Original comment

Finally you arrived. You just said CFCs (the result of human activity) "have a huge impact on the global temperature" . You just agreed with AGW. Well done.

But you overshot. "CFCs’ contribution to global warming has been small. The atmospheric energy rise is the first step to warming. The atmospheric energy rise of CFCs since 1750 has been about 0.34 Watt/m2. By comparison CO2 contributes 1.66 Watt/m2, methane 0.48 Watt/m2 and N2O ~0.16 Watt/m2." LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (17 days ago)

“You just agreed with AGW” I agree that humans may have some impact on the environment but how much is still open to debate.  Some say it’s 100% of our warming is caused by humans and for that I disagree.  I’d still like to know what year it would be in order for the earth to have reached our current temperature naturally without human intervention.  Since the planet naturally goes in and out of ice ages, it seems likely the planet would have eventually reached this same temperature even if humans were not on the earth.  But when that would have been is the greatest question of them all.

“The atmospheric energy rise of CFCs since 1750 has been about 0.34 Watt/m2.”  First, can you tell me how much of that was since 1880? Second, that’s actually huge since it represents 20.5% of CO2’s contribution but you never hear about it.  That’s only talking about CFCs as in the stuff they use in refrigerators and air conditioners but what about all the evaporating raw chlorine from all the swimming pools around the world?  The chlorine is the part of the CFC that attacks the O3 molecules that protects the planet from the radiation in the first place — sort of the first line of defense.

Original comment

“You just agreed with AGW” I agree that humans may have some impact on the environment but how much is still open to debate.  Some say it’s 100% of our warming is caused by humans and for that I disagree.  I’d still like to know what year it would be in order for the earth to have reached our current temperature naturally without human intervention.  Since the planet naturally goes in and out of ice ages, it seems likely the planet would have eventually reached this same temperature even if humans were not on the earth.  But when that would have been is the greatest question of them all.

“The atmospheric energy rise of CFCs since 1750 has been about 0.34 Watt/m2.”  First, can you tell me how much of that was since 1880? Second, that’s actually huge since it represents 20.5% of CO2’s contribution but you never hear about it.  That’s only talking about CFCs as in the stuff they use in refrigerators and air conditioners but what about all the evaporating raw chlorine from all the swimming pools around the world?  The chlorine is the part of the CFC that attacks the O3 molecules that protects the planet from the radiation in the first place — sort of the first line of defense.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (16 days ago)

OK, so you agree human activity is warming the climate, you just don't think it's by very much. What are you basing that on? Give me a line of logic that supports your position.

Original comment

OK, so you agree human activity is warming the climate, you just don't think it's by very much. What are you basing that on? Give me a line of logic that supports your position.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (15 days ago)

You’re attempting to put words in my mouth.  I didn’t say it’s not much.  I said we aren’t 100% responsible and I don’t know how much humans are responsible and neither does anyone else.  They take guesses and seem to only concentrate on burning oil and coal but somehow think it’s okay to burn bio mass renewables.  Until someone can tell me, with evidence, what year it would be in order for the earth to have its current temperature if humans were not on the planet would I agree that the scientists know what they are doing.  

Do you at least agree that we are in an ice age and the planet would eventually come out of it, just like all previous ice ages, regardless of what the humans are doing?

Original comment

You’re attempting to put words in my mouth.  I didn’t say it’s not much.  I said we aren’t 100% responsible and I don’t know how much humans are responsible and neither does anyone else.  They take guesses and seem to only concentrate on burning oil and coal but somehow think it’s okay to burn bio mass renewables.  Until someone can tell me, with evidence, what year it would be in order for the earth to have its current temperature if humans were not on the planet would I agree that the scientists know what they are doing.  

Do you at least agree that we are in an ice age and the planet would eventually come out of it, just like all previous ice ages, regardless of what the humans are doing?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (15 days ago)

OK, so you agree human activity is warming the climate, but you don't think all the warming is caused by humans, just some of it, but you're not sure how much. And you think climate scientists don't know either, they are guessing. I hope that's a fair summation of your current position.

Sometimes, just simple logic clears things up. If human activity is NOT responsible for all the warming, then some natural process must also be involved. There's a Nobel Prize for you if you discover that process.

"Do you at least agree that we are in an ice age and the planet would eventually come out of it, just like all previous ice ages, regardless of what the humans are doing?" Yes and no. At this point in time, if human activity had no impact on the climate, we would be cooling with an ice age beginning within 1500 years. 

"According to research published in Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will defer the next ice age. Researchers used data on Earth's orbit to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one and from this have predicted that the next ice age would usually begin within 1,500 years. They go on to say that emissions have been so high that it will not." LINK

Original comment

OK, so you agree human activity is warming the climate, but you don't think all the warming is caused by humans, just some of it, but you're not sure how much. And you think climate scientists don't know either, they are guessing. I hope that's a fair summation of your current position.

Sometimes, just simple logic clears things up. If human activity is NOT responsible for all the warming, then some natural process must also be involved. There's a Nobel Prize for you if you discover that process.

"Do you at least agree that we are in an ice age and the planet would eventually come out of it, just like all previous ice ages, regardless of what the humans are doing?" Yes and no. At this point in time, if human activity had no impact on the climate, we would be cooling with an ice age beginning within 1500 years. 

"According to research published in Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will defer the next ice age. Researchers used data on Earth's orbit to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one and from this have predicted that the next ice age would usually begin within 1,500 years. They go on to say that emissions have been so high that it will not." LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (15 days ago)

“OK, so you agree human activity is warming the climate, but you don't think all the warming is caused by humans, just some of it, but you're not sure how much. And you think climate scientists don't know either, they are guessing. I hope that's a fair summation of your current position.”  Yes, I think you understand my position now.

“then some natural process must also be involved” Yes, it’s the act of coming out of our ice age which is outside the normal for our planet based upon the history.  Usually an ice age is caused by a sudden change such as a super volcano explosion or an asteroid impact.  It can take thousands or millions of years to recover from those events.

“At this point in time, if human activity had no impact on the climate, we would be cooling with an ice age beginning within 1500 years. “  What do you mean by that?  We are currently in an ice age.  Maybe we should clarify something else.  Do you believe we are currently in an ice age or not?

Define Ice Age: “An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers”  There are polar ice sheets in case you didn't know.

"According to research published in Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will defer the next ice age.” We are already in an ice age so that sentence is completely bogus.

Original comment

“OK, so you agree human activity is warming the climate, but you don't think all the warming is caused by humans, just some of it, but you're not sure how much. And you think climate scientists don't know either, they are guessing. I hope that's a fair summation of your current position.”  Yes, I think you understand my position now.

“then some natural process must also be involved” Yes, it’s the act of coming out of our ice age which is outside the normal for our planet based upon the history.  Usually an ice age is caused by a sudden change such as a super volcano explosion or an asteroid impact.  It can take thousands or millions of years to recover from those events.

“At this point in time, if human activity had no impact on the climate, we would be cooling with an ice age beginning within 1500 years. “  What do you mean by that?  We are currently in an ice age.  Maybe we should clarify something else.  Do you believe we are currently in an ice age or not?

Define Ice Age: “An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers”  There are polar ice sheets in case you didn't know.

"According to research published in Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will defer the next ice age.” We are already in an ice age so that sentence is completely bogus.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (14 days ago)

OK, so you think global warming is partly caused by human activity, and partly "the act of coming out of our ice age"

Let's look at the past 30 years. The sun's output has decreased, the change in Earth's orbit the last 30 times around the sun has cooled the climate a negligible amount, and billions of tons of greenhouse gasses have been added to the atmosphere (over 40 thousand million tons of CO2 in 2018 alone).

So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to "the act of coming out of our ice age" ? Is this your personal theory? Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up? 

Original comment

OK, so you think global warming is partly caused by human activity, and partly "the act of coming out of our ice age"

Let's look at the past 30 years. The sun's output has decreased, the change in Earth's orbit the last 30 times around the sun has cooled the climate a negligible amount, and billions of tons of greenhouse gasses have been added to the atmosphere (over 40 thousand million tons of CO2 in 2018 alone).

So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to "the act of coming out of our ice age" ? Is this your personal theory? Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up? 

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (13 days ago)

You didn’t answer my question above where I asked you, “Maybe we should clarify something else.  Do you believe we are currently in an ice age or not?”

If you did answer that, you would also agree, I’m pretty sure, that the planet would eventually come out of that ice age just as it has done on all previous ice ages.  Maybe you don’t agree we are in an ice age and that’s why you don’t understand the concept.

Original comment

You didn’t answer my question above where I asked you, “Maybe we should clarify something else.  Do you believe we are currently in an ice age or not?”

If you did answer that, you would also agree, I’m pretty sure, that the planet would eventually come out of that ice age just as it has done on all previous ice ages.  Maybe you don’t agree we are in an ice age and that’s why you don’t understand the concept.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (13 days ago)

I don't want to get distracted talking about ice ages when today's climate change has nothing to do with ice ages. And we've been through this a gazillion times before. Don't you remember?

So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to  "the act of coming out of our ice age" ? Is this your personal theory? Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up? 

Original comment

I don't want to get distracted talking about ice ages when today's climate change has nothing to do with ice ages. And we've been through this a gazillion times before. Don't you remember?

So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to  "the act of coming out of our ice age" ? Is this your personal theory? Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up? 

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (13 days ago)

If you deny we are in an ice age then our conversation is over.  There is no sense in going further because that’s obviously where we fundamentally disagree.

Original comment

If you deny we are in an ice age then our conversation is over.  There is no sense in going further because that’s obviously where we fundamentally disagree.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (13 days ago)

Yes, we are in an ice age.

So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to  "the act of coming out of our ice age" ? Is this your personal theory? Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up? 

Original comment

Yes, we are in an ice age.

So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to  "the act of coming out of our ice age" ? Is this your personal theory? Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up? 

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (13 days ago)

Sorry but if we cannot even agree that we are currently in an ice age then it's not worth my time discussing this further with you.   And yes, scientists agree we are in an ice age.

Original comment

Sorry but if we cannot even agree that we are currently in an ice age then it's not worth my time discussing this further with you.   And yes, scientists agree we are in an ice age.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (12 days ago)

I just agreed we are in an ice age. I can read Wikipedia as well.

So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to "the act of coming out of our ice age"? Is this your personal theory? Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up?

Original comment

I just agreed we are in an ice age. I can read Wikipedia as well.

So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to "the act of coming out of our ice age"? Is this your personal theory? Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (12 days ago)

“I just agreed we are in an ice age.” Fair enough but it took you a long time to admit it.  Don’t know why because it’s clear and scientists do agree we are in an ice age.

“So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to ‘the act of coming out of our ice age’?”  This is so obvious.  You can look at the historical record of the planet to see that Earth goes in and out of ice ages naturally.  So if history is any indicator of a probable future, then it is logical we would naturally come out of our current ice age too.  There’s no reason to believe this ice age is any different from previous ones.

“Is this your personal theory?” I wouldn’t use the word theory for something that’s a fact.  Ice ages are period of colder than average temperatures.  This means if the Earth goes back to it’s average (or what I keep calling normal) temperature, it will have to warm up.

“Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up?”  Yes, scientists agree on this too.  They agree that the warming between 1850 to 1950 was caused by increases in solar output and decreases in cooling volcanism.  Although scientists don’t attribute the last 50 years to solar activity or lack of volcanism, that previous 100 years of warming has started a runaway warming loop.

So now that you finally agree we are in an ice age, please answer this question again.  What year would it be to have reached our current temperature naturally if humans were not on the planet?  Last time you said if it wasn’t for human activity, we would go into an ice age but we are already in one.  You also said that it would defer the next ice age by 1500 years but again we are already in an ice age.  So neither of your past comments are valid.

Original comment

“I just agreed we are in an ice age.” Fair enough but it took you a long time to admit it.  Don’t know why because it’s clear and scientists do agree we are in an ice age.

“So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to ‘the act of coming out of our ice age’?”  This is so obvious.  You can look at the historical record of the planet to see that Earth goes in and out of ice ages naturally.  So if history is any indicator of a probable future, then it is logical we would naturally come out of our current ice age too.  There’s no reason to believe this ice age is any different from previous ones.

“Is this your personal theory?” I wouldn’t use the word theory for something that’s a fact.  Ice ages are period of colder than average temperatures.  This means if the Earth goes back to it’s average (or what I keep calling normal) temperature, it will have to warm up.

“Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up?”  Yes, scientists agree on this too.  They agree that the warming between 1850 to 1950 was caused by increases in solar output and decreases in cooling volcanism.  Although scientists don’t attribute the last 50 years to solar activity or lack of volcanism, that previous 100 years of warming has started a runaway warming loop.

So now that you finally agree we are in an ice age, please answer this question again.  What year would it be to have reached our current temperature naturally if humans were not on the planet?  Last time you said if it wasn’t for human activity, we would go into an ice age but we are already in one.  You also said that it would defer the next ice age by 1500 years but again we are already in an ice age.  So neither of your past comments are valid.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (12 days ago)

OK, so just to update your position: global warming is partly caused by human activity, and partly "the act of coming out of the Little Ice Age". Is that fair?

Original comment

OK, so just to update your position: global warming is partly caused by human activity, and partly "the act of coming out of the Little Ice Age". Is that fair?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (12 days ago)

I agree the planet has been warming since 1880.  We know this because there have been direct measurements of the temperature.  This has never been in dispute.

About the cause of the warming, AGW proponents are quick to blame humans and CO2.  I’m not so quick to make that leap of faith because there are many potential causes of the warming.  I do not deny that humans may be the cause of a portion of it but not all of it.

If humans were not on this planet, Earth would return to the temperatures it was prior to the asteroid event that killed the dinosaurs.  That temperature was 25C.  It is only 16C today so we have a lot of heating to do before it’s back to normal.  It may take millions of years to get there but it will.  

The current ice age is an abnormally cold period for the planet.  We would eventually get back to normal temperatures.  This would occur regardless if humans were here or not.  The only question is about when it would occur and how much did human activity cause the acceleration of that event?  That is the unknown factor.

Original comment

I agree the planet has been warming since 1880.  We know this because there have been direct measurements of the temperature.  This has never been in dispute.

About the cause of the warming, AGW proponents are quick to blame humans and CO2.  I’m not so quick to make that leap of faith because there are many potential causes of the warming.  I do not deny that humans may be the cause of a portion of it but not all of it.

If humans were not on this planet, Earth would return to the temperatures it was prior to the asteroid event that killed the dinosaurs.  That temperature was 25C.  It is only 16C today so we have a lot of heating to do before it’s back to normal.  It may take millions of years to get there but it will.  

The current ice age is an abnormally cold period for the planet.  We would eventually get back to normal temperatures.  This would occur regardless if humans were here or not.  The only question is about when it would occur and how much did human activity cause the acceleration of that event?  That is the unknown factor.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (12 days ago)

guest123456789 I ask again because only WalterEgo is trying to answer the question that I intended for you....

Why do you believe we're in a "current ice age"?

It's OK if you don't know why you believe that, or if you are just following what cherry picked scientists believe but I am jst curious.

Original comment

guest123456789 I ask again because only WalterEgo is trying to answer the question that I intended for you....

Why do you believe we're in a "current ice age"?

It's OK if you don't know why you believe that, or if you are just following what cherry picked scientists believe but I am jst curious.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (12 days ago)

Now I'm confused. Which ice age are you talking about? In your earlier post, all that stuff about 1850 - 1950 concerns the Little Ice Age that started around 1600. But the 25C stuff you keep going on about refers to the "big" ice ages that cycle over thousands and millions of years. These are caused by the Earth's orbit around the sun rather than solar output or volcanism that caused the Little Ice Age.
 
So when you say "the act of coming out of our ice age" , which ice age do you mean? The Little Ice Age, or the big ice age (Quaternary glaciation) that started about 2.6 million years ago?

Original comment

Now I'm confused. Which ice age are you talking about? In your earlier post, all that stuff about 1850 - 1950 concerns the Little Ice Age that started around 1600. But the 25C stuff you keep going on about refers to the "big" ice ages that cycle over thousands and millions of years. These are caused by the Earth's orbit around the sun rather than solar output or volcanism that caused the Little Ice Age.
 
So when you say "the act of coming out of our ice age" , which ice age do you mean? The Little Ice Age, or the big ice age (Quaternary glaciation) that started about 2.6 million years ago?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (12 days ago)

"it’s clear and scientists do agree we are in an ice age."  The agreement of scientists doesn't make something true.  Can you point me towards a metastudy that shows we are definitely in an Ice Age?  Not cherry-picked of course.

Original comment

"it’s clear and scientists do agree we are in an ice age."  The agreement of scientists doesn't make something true.  Can you point me towards a metastudy that shows we are definitely in an Ice Age?  Not cherry-picked of course.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (12 days ago)

He's playing semantics. Technically we're in an ice age because of how ice age is defined. 

"By definition we are still in the last great ice age – which began during the late Pliocene epoch (ca. 2.58 million years ago) – and are currently in an interglacial period, characterized by the retreat of glaciers." 

LINK

Original comment

He's playing semantics. Technically we're in an ice age because of how ice age is defined. 

"By definition we are still in the last great ice age – which began during the late Pliocene epoch (ca. 2.58 million years ago) – and are currently in an interglacial period, characterized by the retreat of glaciers." 

LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (12 days ago)

Well personally I like to see evidence.  I am not just going to take people's word for it when they say we're in an Ice Age.  How do we even know the glaciers are actually retreating?  I don't accept the consensus of scientists or geologists as being "proof" and I am surprised he does.

Original comment

Well personally I like to see evidence.  I am not just going to take people's word for it when they say we're in an Ice Age.  How do we even know the glaciers are actually retreating?  I don't accept the consensus of scientists or geologists as being "proof" and I am surprised he does.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (12 days ago)

I was quite surprised when I looked up the definition of "ice age", that it was so vague. I was expecting something like - an ice age is defined as when 50% or more of the land is covered by ice all year round - or something like that. But all I could find was definitions like: "Ice age, also called glacial age, any geologic period during which thick ice sheets cover vast areas of land..." LINK
So whether we are in an ice age or not, just depends on how we define "ice age".

"How do we even know the glaciers are actually retreating?" The simplest way is just to take photos, for example: LINK

Original comment

I was quite surprised when I looked up the definition of "ice age", that it was so vague. I was expecting something like - an ice age is defined as when 50% or more of the land is covered by ice all year round - or something like that. But all I could find was definitions like: "Ice age, also called glacial age, any geologic period during which thick ice sheets cover vast areas of land..." LINK
So whether we are in an ice age or not, just depends on how we define "ice age".

"How do we even know the glaciers are actually retreating?" The simplest way is just to take photos, for example: LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (12 days ago)

Taking 2 photos doesn't make something true.  I need more than a consensus of cherry picked photos.

I am surprised that the original poster doesn't explain how he claims to know that we're "are in an Ice Age".  

Original comment

Taking 2 photos doesn't make something true.  I need more than a consensus of cherry picked photos.

I am surprised that the original poster doesn't explain how he claims to know that we're "are in an Ice Age".  

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (12 days ago)

About 10% of the Earth is covered in ice. Apparently, that is still defined as within an ice age. It's just a mild part of an ice age. It's a bit like having a warm day in winter - it's still winter according to how we define winter.

About 400 billion tons of ice per year has been lost since 1941. 

Sources:
E. Leuliette and L. Miler, Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04608 (2009).

Kwok, R. and G. F. Cunningham (2015), Variability of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume from CryoSat-2, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 373:20140157, doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.015 7.

Holland, P. R. and R. Kwok (2012), Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea ice drift, Nat Geosci., doi: 10.1038/NGEO1627.

Kwok, R. and N. Untersteiner (2011), The thinning of Arctic sea ice, Phys. Today, 64(4), 36-41.

Kwok, R., and D. A. Rothrock (2009), Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958 – 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15501, doi:10.1029/2009GL039035.

E. Rignot et al., Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modeling, Nature Geoscience. Vol 1, 2008.

Isabella Velicogna, Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L19503 (2009).

------------

Happy reading.

Original comment

About 10% of the Earth is covered in ice. Apparently, that is still defined as within an ice age. It's just a mild part of an ice age. It's a bit like having a warm day in winter - it's still winter according to how we define winter.

About 400 billion tons of ice per year has been lost since 1941. 

Sources:
E. Leuliette and L. Miler, Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04608 (2009).

Kwok, R. and G. F. Cunningham (2015), Variability of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume from CryoSat-2, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 373:20140157, doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.015 7.

Holland, P. R. and R. Kwok (2012), Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea ice drift, Nat Geosci., doi: 10.1038/NGEO1627.

Kwok, R. and N. Untersteiner (2011), The thinning of Arctic sea ice, Phys. Today, 64(4), 36-41.

Kwok, R., and D. A. Rothrock (2009), Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958 – 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15501, doi:10.1029/2009GL039035.

E. Rignot et al., Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modeling, Nature Geoscience. Vol 1, 2008.

Isabella Velicogna, Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L19503 (2009).

------------

Happy reading.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (12 days ago)

“About 10% of the Earth is covered in ice. Apparently, that is still defined as within an ice age. It's just a mild part of an ice age.”  Yes, I agree it’s a mild part of an ice age and there have been worse periods where the most of Earth was covered in ice including at the equator.

LINK

But I’m referring to the cooling that started during the Eocene era where the planet was constantly cooling and has never recovered.  That was around 50 million years ago and the temperature dropped from +14C delta from 1960-1990 levels down to -6C delta. We are simply recovering from that period.  The lowest recent temperatures were 20,000 years ago during the end of the Pleistocene era.

Would you agree that plants and animals thrived during the Jurassic period?  The average temperatures around that time were 25C so life easily goes on living with those temperatures.  Then an asteroid hit and there was a mass extinction event and the temperatures haven’t recovered back to 25C yet.  So I claim the earth could go all the way back to 25C and life will continue thrive on this planet while WalterEgo claims all life will die in the entire universe if we go up a couple more degrees.  Which seems more plausible considering the historical record of the planet?

There was a little ice age and we are also coming out of that but that was a short term situation because there were a lot of temperature fluctuations between 800,000 years ago and 20,000 years ago. It’s now pretty steady in comparison.   I’m looking at the bigger picture like millions of years of history.

I would still like someone to show me some correlation between CO2 and temperatures in the planet’s historical record because I see none.  Here’s a graph that shows both overlayd on top of each other.  See if you can see that correlation.  https://c3headlines.typ epad.com/.a/6a010536b5803 5970c017c37fa9895970b-pi

Original comment

“About 10% of the Earth is covered in ice. Apparently, that is still defined as within an ice age. It's just a mild part of an ice age.”  Yes, I agree it’s a mild part of an ice age and there have been worse periods where the most of Earth was covered in ice including at the equator.

LINK

But I’m referring to the cooling that started during the Eocene era where the planet was constantly cooling and has never recovered.  That was around 50 million years ago and the temperature dropped from +14C delta from 1960-1990 levels down to -6C delta. We are simply recovering from that period.  The lowest recent temperatures were 20,000 years ago during the end of the Pleistocene era.

Would you agree that plants and animals thrived during the Jurassic period?  The average temperatures around that time were 25C so life easily goes on living with those temperatures.  Then an asteroid hit and there was a mass extinction event and the temperatures haven’t recovered back to 25C yet.  So I claim the earth could go all the way back to 25C and life will continue thrive on this planet while WalterEgo claims all life will die in the entire universe if we go up a couple more degrees.  Which seems more plausible considering the historical record of the planet?

There was a little ice age and we are also coming out of that but that was a short term situation because there were a lot of temperature fluctuations between 800,000 years ago and 20,000 years ago. It’s now pretty steady in comparison.   I’m looking at the bigger picture like millions of years of history.

I would still like someone to show me some correlation between CO2 and temperatures in the planet’s historical record because I see none.  Here’s a graph that shows both overlayd on top of each other.  See if you can see that correlation.  https://c3headlines.typ epad.com/.a/6a010536b5803 5970c017c37fa9895970b-pi

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (11 days ago)

"But I’m referring to the cooling that started during the Eocene era where the planet was constantly cooling and has never recovered.  That was around 50 million years ago and the temperature dropped from +14C delta from 1960-1990 levels down to -6C delta. We are simply recovering from that period." That 20C drop you are talking about happened over many millions of years. How much would you expect the temperature to drop in a random 30-year period within those millions of years? The correct answer is: pretty much zero. Also it's not a steady drop. Within those millions of years, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of warm and cold periods. In the last 1000 years alone we've had the MWP and the LIA. You keep trying to use graphs with a resolution of 1 pixel per million years when discussing a 30 year period. How many times do I need to explain that before you get it? Do you have learning difficulties?

Look at this temperature/CO2 graph spanning 400,000 years - that's half a pixel on the graphs you are using. LINK Now do you understand? If humans were not around, would we be on a rising temperature curve or decreasing temperature curve? The correct answer is decreasing temperature curve reaching intense ice age conditions within 1500 years - that's according to research published in Nature Geoscience. Scroll back up for details.

"I would still like someone to show me some correlation between CO2 and temperatures in the planet’s historical record because I see none.  Here’s a graph..."  We've also been through this before. Are you sure you don't have learning difficulties? The sun's output is missing.

In the last 1000 years pre-Industrial Revolution, CO2 in the armosphere hardly changed. But if you drew a temperature/CO2 graph, they would not correlate because we had the MWP followed by the LIA which were caused by sun and volcano activity. Same goes for a temperature/CO2 graph that spans millions of years - it's not going to correlate because other things that also affect the temperature are missing. 

Original comment

"But I’m referring to the cooling that started during the Eocene era where the planet was constantly cooling and has never recovered.  That was around 50 million years ago and the temperature dropped from +14C delta from 1960-1990 levels down to -6C delta. We are simply recovering from that period." That 20C drop you are talking about happened over many millions of years. How much would you expect the temperature to drop in a random 30-year period within those millions of years? The correct answer is: pretty much zero. Also it's not a steady drop. Within those millions of years, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of warm and cold periods. In the last 1000 years alone we've had the MWP and the LIA. You keep trying to use graphs with a resolution of 1 pixel per million years when discussing a 30 year period. How many times do I need to explain that before you get it? Do you have learning difficulties?

Look at this temperature/CO2 graph spanning 400,000 years - that's half a pixel on the graphs you are using. LINK Now do you understand? If humans were not around, would we be on a rising temperature curve or decreasing temperature curve? The correct answer is decreasing temperature curve reaching intense ice age conditions within 1500 years - that's according to research published in Nature Geoscience. Scroll back up for details.

"I would still like someone to show me some correlation between CO2 and temperatures in the planet’s historical record because I see none.  Here’s a graph..."  We've also been through this before. Are you sure you don't have learning difficulties? The sun's output is missing.

In the last 1000 years pre-Industrial Revolution, CO2 in the armosphere hardly changed. But if you drew a temperature/CO2 graph, they would not correlate because we had the MWP followed by the LIA which were caused by sun and volcano activity. Same goes for a temperature/CO2 graph that spans millions of years - it's not going to correlate because other things that also affect the temperature are missing. 

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (12 days ago)

" I agree it’s a mild part of an ice age".

Why do you refuse to answer my very simple question?  You go to some lengths to avoid answering it.

What evidence do you have that we are currently in an ice age?

 

Original comment

" I agree it’s a mild part of an ice age".

Why do you refuse to answer my very simple question?  You go to some lengths to avoid answering it.

What evidence do you have that we are currently in an ice age?

 

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (11 days ago)

“Why do you refuse to answer my very simple question” Have you considered it’s because I’m having a civil conversation with WalterEgo and you’re butting into it?  Why do I need to provide you with evidence that we are in an ice age when WalterEgo answered that for you and there are search engines like google and bing that could help educate you?

Original comment

“Why do you refuse to answer my very simple question” Have you considered it’s because I’m having a civil conversation with WalterEgo and you’re butting into it?  Why do I need to provide you with evidence that we are in an ice age when WalterEgo answered that for you and there are search engines like google and bing that could help educate you?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (11 days ago)

"Butting into it"?  Sorry I assumed you could manage 2 conversations at once, or at least spend 1 minute answering a question if you actually knew the answer.

Judging from your hostility and petulance, it's still a question you feel unable to answer.  In the 2 sentences you just wrote, you could have easily told me why you believe we're in an Ice Age, but I guess the truth is you don't know.  Fine.

WalterEgo's explanation was based on the findings of a few scientists (mainly one person in fact), so I am surprised that you now think a consensus among a certain group qualifies as evidence to you.  If that's the case, you surely agree with him about AGW.  

You're right, Google and Bing both say that we're in an ice age, and they both say that AGW is real too.  I suppose you have yet to figure out a consistent position.  Google and Bing don't seem to know why guest123456789 believes we're in an ice age, and apparently neither do you.  

Original comment

"Butting into it"?  Sorry I assumed you could manage 2 conversations at once, or at least spend 1 minute answering a question if you actually knew the answer.

Judging from your hostility and petulance, it's still a question you feel unable to answer.  In the 2 sentences you just wrote, you could have easily told me why you believe we're in an Ice Age, but I guess the truth is you don't know.  Fine.

WalterEgo's explanation was based on the findings of a few scientists (mainly one person in fact), so I am surprised that you now think a consensus among a certain group qualifies as evidence to you.  If that's the case, you surely agree with him about AGW.  

You're right, Google and Bing both say that we're in an ice age, and they both say that AGW is real too.  I suppose you have yet to figure out a consistent position.  Google and Bing don't seem to know why guest123456789 believes we're in an ice age, and apparently neither do you.  

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (11 days ago)

“Sorry I assumed you could manage 2 conversations at once” I can but WalterEgo and I have a couple years of history on this topic and I know he already answered your question so there’s no need for me to do it too.

“it's still a question you feel unable to answer.” Not unable but unwilling to repeat an answer already provided by someone else.  

“WalterEgo's explanation was based on the findings of a few scientists (mainly one person in fact)” Assuming you mean R. Kwok, I guess you didn’t notice his other references with different people and the obvious “and” along with another scientist whenever his name was mentioned.  For example, “Kwok, R., and D. A. Rothrock”  So you’re also agreeing with me that peer reviewing is considered cherry picking.  What if R. Kwok peer reviewed the mass majority of those 95% of scientific papers that claim AGW is true?  Hmmmm….  

“I am surprised that you now think a consensus among a certain group qualifies as evidence to you.” I don’t.  That’s not the way to do science.  Providing evidence is science.  There is evidence of us being in an Ice Age but you just refuse to accept it.  Question:  Is there polar ice on the planet?  Are there alpine glaciers?  Answer those questions, then look at what qualifies as an ice age and then get back to me.

“You're right, Google and Bing both say that we're in an ice age, and they both say that AGW is real too”  Did Google say the only evidence we are in an ice age is that 95% of scientists agree we are in an ice age or did they include facts that proved it?  Now maybe you can understand the difference.

Original comment

“Sorry I assumed you could manage 2 conversations at once” I can but WalterEgo and I have a couple years of history on this topic and I know he already answered your question so there’s no need for me to do it too.

“it's still a question you feel unable to answer.” Not unable but unwilling to repeat an answer already provided by someone else.  

“WalterEgo's explanation was based on the findings of a few scientists (mainly one person in fact)” Assuming you mean R. Kwok, I guess you didn’t notice his other references with different people and the obvious “and” along with another scientist whenever his name was mentioned.  For example, “Kwok, R., and D. A. Rothrock”  So you’re also agreeing with me that peer reviewing is considered cherry picking.  What if R. Kwok peer reviewed the mass majority of those 95% of scientific papers that claim AGW is true?  Hmmmm….  

“I am surprised that you now think a consensus among a certain group qualifies as evidence to you.” I don’t.  That’s not the way to do science.  Providing evidence is science.  There is evidence of us being in an Ice Age but you just refuse to accept it.  Question:  Is there polar ice on the planet?  Are there alpine glaciers?  Answer those questions, then look at what qualifies as an ice age and then get back to me.

“You're right, Google and Bing both say that we're in an ice age, and they both say that AGW is real too”  Did Google say the only evidence we are in an ice age is that 95% of scientists agree we are in an ice age or did they include facts that proved it?  Now maybe you can understand the difference.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (11 days ago)

OK so you're not answering because you agree with WalterEgo's answer, namely that that your belief that we are in an Ice Age is due to a consensus among certain scientists, and the evidence that those scientists have told you about.  

You're right, some of those papers were written in conjunction with other scientists.  To put it into context, even when you include the other people that worked with Kwok, you're talking about a consensus of 9 scientists.  So thousands of AGW papers from scientists worldwide is biased and cherry-picking, but literally 9 scientists that nearly all work with one guy is legit?  I'm disappointed.  I thought you were a genuine skeptic.

"There is evidence of us being in an Ice Age but you just refuse to accept it".  I don't need to accept this so called 'evidence' if it just the findings of cherry-picked scientists.  Can you find me a comprehensive international meta-study that hasn't been cherry-picked?  Be honest?  Besides, I'm pretty sure that people would say 'There is evidence of humans are accelerating catastrophic climate change but guest12345678 just refuses to accept it'.

"did they include facts that proved it"?  The sites that say we're currently in an Ice Age include facts that some people would say 'prove it'.  The sites that say AGW is real include facts that some people would say 'prove it'.  See the difference?  Nope.

What surprises me is you're so quick to accept evidence from a consensus of scientists instead of analysing the evidence yourself.  I thought that was literally exactly what you're objecting to.  You really ought to try and stick with your principles, that's all.

Original comment

OK so you're not answering because you agree with WalterEgo's answer, namely that that your belief that we are in an Ice Age is due to a consensus among certain scientists, and the evidence that those scientists have told you about.  

You're right, some of those papers were written in conjunction with other scientists.  To put it into context, even when you include the other people that worked with Kwok, you're talking about a consensus of 9 scientists.  So thousands of AGW papers from scientists worldwide is biased and cherry-picking, but literally 9 scientists that nearly all work with one guy is legit?  I'm disappointed.  I thought you were a genuine skeptic.

"There is evidence of us being in an Ice Age but you just refuse to accept it".  I don't need to accept this so called 'evidence' if it just the findings of cherry-picked scientists.  Can you find me a comprehensive international meta-study that hasn't been cherry-picked?  Be honest?  Besides, I'm pretty sure that people would say 'There is evidence of humans are accelerating catastrophic climate change but guest12345678 just refuses to accept it'.

"did they include facts that proved it"?  The sites that say we're currently in an Ice Age include facts that some people would say 'prove it'.  The sites that say AGW is real include facts that some people would say 'prove it'.  See the difference?  Nope.

What surprises me is you're so quick to accept evidence from a consensus of scientists instead of analysing the evidence yourself.  I thought that was literally exactly what you're objecting to.  You really ought to try and stick with your principles, that's all.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (11 days ago)

“OK so you're not answering because you agree with WalterEgo's answer, namely that that your belief that we are in an Ice Age is due to a consensus among certain scientists, and the evidence that those scientists have told you about.  “  Is that what I said?  Maybe this is why I don’t want to chat with you.  I took the effort to respond to you anyway and this is what you thought I said.  Absolutely incredible.

“catastrophic climate change” What temperature do you consider to be catastrophic?  And who is it supposedly catastrophic to?

Original comment

“OK so you're not answering because you agree with WalterEgo's answer, namely that that your belief that we are in an Ice Age is due to a consensus among certain scientists, and the evidence that those scientists have told you about.  “  Is that what I said?  Maybe this is why I don’t want to chat with you.  I took the effort to respond to you anyway and this is what you thought I said.  Absolutely incredible.

“catastrophic climate change” What temperature do you consider to be catastrophic?  And who is it supposedly catastrophic to?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (11 days ago)

Oh come on, seriously.  Get your story straight.

"Is that what I said?"  
What you actually said is "(WalterEgo) already answered your question so there’s no need for me to do it too" and refused to answer yourself.  So you're just agreeing with him, you don't have any other clearer reasons why you believe what you believe.  Well he believes what he believes because of consensus of peer-reviewed scientists, so by implication that's your view too.  No problem, but that is literally the exact opposite of what you used to pretend to believe about consensus, scientists, peer-review, evidence, etc. etc.  Maybe that's why you don't want to chat with me.  I've accidentally tripped you up with own principles.  That wasn't my intention, I was hoping your skepticism was consistent.  

"What temperature do you consider to be catastrophic?  And who is it supposedly catastrophic to?"
You missed my point.  I am not saying anything is catastrophic - I am saying the people that do (who may answer your question) will say that there is evidence that you're choosing not to accept and they will probably cite peer reviewed science papers.  Sometimes you accept that, sometimes you don't.

Original comment

Oh come on, seriously.  Get your story straight.

"Is that what I said?"  
What you actually said is "(WalterEgo) already answered your question so there’s no need for me to do it too" and refused to answer yourself.  So you're just agreeing with him, you don't have any other clearer reasons why you believe what you believe.  Well he believes what he believes because of consensus of peer-reviewed scientists, so by implication that's your view too.  No problem, but that is literally the exact opposite of what you used to pretend to believe about consensus, scientists, peer-review, evidence, etc. etc.  Maybe that's why you don't want to chat with me.  I've accidentally tripped you up with own principles.  That wasn't my intention, I was hoping your skepticism was consistent.  

"What temperature do you consider to be catastrophic?  And who is it supposedly catastrophic to?"
You missed my point.  I am not saying anything is catastrophic - I am saying the people that do (who may answer your question) will say that there is evidence that you're choosing not to accept and they will probably cite peer reviewed science papers.  Sometimes you accept that, sometimes you don't.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (11 days ago)

You are confused. A definition is not the same as a consensus. The definition of "ice age" seems to be very vague. For example, Wikipedia says: "An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age." Under that definition we are in an ice age because we still have continental and polar ice sheets, and alpine glaciers.

It's just words. If the definition was "at least 50% of the planet covered in ice all year round", then we're not in an ice age. Don't worry about it. Guest1-9 was just playing word games. He was argueing that a study that said 'if humans were not around, the planet would experience an ice age within 1500 years', was wrong because we are already in an ice age. 

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a tighter scientific definition of "ice age", so if anyone knows...

About retreating glaciers, that's an entirely different point. That is about what we accept as evidence since none of us are experts.

Original comment

You are confused. A definition is not the same as a consensus. The definition of "ice age" seems to be very vague. For example, Wikipedia says: "An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age." Under that definition we are in an ice age because we still have continental and polar ice sheets, and alpine glaciers.

It's just words. If the definition was "at least 50% of the planet covered in ice all year round", then we're not in an ice age. Don't worry about it. Guest1-9 was just playing word games. He was argueing that a study that said 'if humans were not around, the planet would experience an ice age within 1500 years', was wrong because we are already in an ice age. 

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a tighter scientific definition of "ice age", so if anyone knows...

About retreating glaciers, that's an entirely different point. That is about what we accept as evidence since none of us are experts.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (11 days ago)

I'm not confused and I'm not quibbling about a definition.  

My point is, under any definition of 'ice age' you personally still follow the consensus of scientific or geological research.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  That's to say that unless you personally wish to tour every potential glacier on the planet, take notes, measurements etc, you depend on a consensus that confirms "we still have continental and polar ice sheets, and alpine glaciers".  It's pretty uncontroversial right?  [If you did want to get into semantics, which I don't, you could say that the usage of the term 'ice age' itself is also set by consensus by those that use the term.]  You personally follow the consensus of so-called experts which for most people is a fairly typical and reasonable position.

By contrast, guest proudly challenges the consensus and wears that as a badge of honour.  He seems to think that the consensus around AGW isn't a reason to believe it or act upon it, or he thinks that there is no consensus at all.  He seems to think the process of peer-review is a form of cherry-picking and cannot be trusted.  

But what my input here has been getting at is that he doesn't always think like this...  

Sometimes, he thinks that obediently following the consensus of peer-reviewed scientists isn't enough, and is in itself unscientific.  

Sometimes however, as this thread shows, he blindly and unequivocally follows the same consensus as most other people, and it never crosses his mind to challenge it - I mean, it's on Google and Bing, so it's true.  

It's a contradiction for him to iron out - it was never really a point against you.  

Original comment

I'm not confused and I'm not quibbling about a definition.  

My point is, under any definition of 'ice age' you personally still follow the consensus of scientific or geological research.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  That's to say that unless you personally wish to tour every potential glacier on the planet, take notes, measurements etc, you depend on a consensus that confirms "we still have continental and polar ice sheets, and alpine glaciers".  It's pretty uncontroversial right?  [If you did want to get into semantics, which I don't, you could say that the usage of the term 'ice age' itself is also set by consensus by those that use the term.]  You personally follow the consensus of so-called experts which for most people is a fairly typical and reasonable position.

By contrast, guest proudly challenges the consensus and wears that as a badge of honour.  He seems to think that the consensus around AGW isn't a reason to believe it or act upon it, or he thinks that there is no consensus at all.  He seems to think the process of peer-review is a form of cherry-picking and cannot be trusted.  

But what my input here has been getting at is that he doesn't always think like this...  

Sometimes, he thinks that obediently following the consensus of peer-reviewed scientists isn't enough, and is in itself unscientific.  

Sometimes however, as this thread shows, he blindly and unequivocally follows the same consensus as most other people, and it never crosses his mind to challenge it - I mean, it's on Google and Bing, so it's true.  

It's a contradiction for him to iron out - it was never really a point against you.  

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (11 days ago)

You sound confused to me. Agreeing on the definition of a term is so communication is more effective. If you define "ice age" as when the planet is covered by 90% ice, and I define it as when the planet is covered by 10% ice, then there are going to be misunderstandings. So we agree on a definition so we can communicate.

Agreeing with a scientific consensus is very different. A scientific consensus means the research of a high number of experts agree. It is the best knowledge experts have to date. 

A non-expert in climate science has no choice but to accept the scientific consensus on AGW - unless they can demonstrate that the experts are conspiring to deceive, or are incompetent.

Compare these scenarios. If you see 100 doctors, and 97 of them say you have a heart problem, you'd be a fool not to accept their verdicts - unless you had other information - that they are conspiring to deceive you, or that they are incompetent.

If you see 100 witch doctors and 97 of them say you have a heart problem, you'd be a fool to accept their verdicts -  because you do have other information - that they are incompetent.

I accept the scientific consensus on climate change because climate scientists know climate better than me. I cannot show they are incompetent. And it is not plausible that thousands of climate scientists all around the world, speaking different languages, are conspiring to deceive the public, and have deceived great minds like Noam Chomsky and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but couldn't fool Trump or Guest1-9. Also, of the climate science that I do understand, it all hangs together. And the weather we are witnessing all around the globe is consistent with the science.

---------------

What you say about Guest1-9 is all very well, but YOU are not prepared to accept that glaciers are retreating. There are photos galore of retreating glaciers on the internet. You should try it sometime. There are also satellite measurements of ice thickness using fancy instruments. How much evidence do you need?

I had just finished writing this thread and was about to submit it, when I noticed that in the meantime, you and Guest1-9 had been conversing. I can't believe you asked him again "how do you know we are in an ice age?"

Original comment

You sound confused to me. Agreeing on the definition of a term is so communication is more effective. If you define "ice age" as when the planet is covered by 90% ice, and I define it as when the planet is covered by 10% ice, then there are going to be misunderstandings. So we agree on a definition so we can communicate.

Agreeing with a scientific consensus is very different. A scientific consensus means the research of a high number of experts agree. It is the best knowledge experts have to date. 

A non-expert in climate science has no choice but to accept the scientific consensus on AGW - unless they can demonstrate that the experts are conspiring to deceive, or are incompetent.

Compare these scenarios. If you see 100 doctors, and 97 of them say you have a heart problem, you'd be a fool not to accept their verdicts - unless you had other information - that they are conspiring to deceive you, or that they are incompetent.

If you see 100 witch doctors and 97 of them say you have a heart problem, you'd be a fool to accept their verdicts -  because you do have other information - that they are incompetent.

I accept the scientific consensus on climate change because climate scientists know climate better than me. I cannot show they are incompetent. And it is not plausible that thousands of climate scientists all around the world, speaking different languages, are conspiring to deceive the public, and have deceived great minds like Noam Chomsky and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but couldn't fool Trump or Guest1-9. Also, of the climate science that I do understand, it all hangs together. And the weather we are witnessing all around the globe is consistent with the science.

---------------

What you say about Guest1-9 is all very well, but YOU are not prepared to accept that glaciers are retreating. There are photos galore of retreating glaciers on the internet. You should try it sometime. There are also satellite measurements of ice thickness using fancy instruments. How much evidence do you need?

I had just finished writing this thread and was about to submit it, when I noticed that in the meantime, you and Guest1-9 had been conversing. I can't believe you asked him again "how do you know we are in an ice age?"

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (11 days ago)

Nope, you're definitely confused.  I'll say again, this isn't about definitions or about your beliefs.  Why do you want to get caught on semantics? 

Anyway, consensus is relevant to 'Ice Age' in two obvious ways.  
- Semantics - the definition is agreed by the community that use the term most often so they have a label for something that we can understand.  That's the scientific / geological consensus of what an Ice Age is.  WalterEgo agrees with the consensus.
- Application (what I'm talking about).  To determine whether the situation meets the definition above, you have to look at the consensus of scientists and their evidence.  If most experts (the consensus) have recorded temperatures, measured glaciers, etc, and show the definition of Ice Age is a good description of what's going on, then you feel justified.  WalterEgo agrees with the consensus.

Basically, knowing the definition of a word is different to knowing whether that definition applies to a given circumstance.  For the former you need a dictionary, for the latter you need evidence, and on scientific matters the evidence comes in the form of expert opinion and peer reviewed papers - consensus.

"YOU are not prepared to accept that glaciers are retreating".  
What the heck?  Where have I said anything whatsoever about my beliefs?  What a ridiculous strawman.  Why do you view everything as an opportunity to climb onto your soapbox?

"I accept the scientific consensus on climate change because climate scientists know climate better than me".  
Brilliant.  And the people that measure glaciers know more about glaciers, and the people that record and analyse global temperatures know more about global temperatures.  You look at photos online (seems like a low bar), but still, if the consensus of photos didn't show 'retreating glaciers', you might not believe it.  You follow the consensus.  I KNOW!

The simple point I have been trying to show (which has been completely lost on both of you), is while you DO religiously follow the consensus of experts, guest does NOT.  Sometimes he accepts consensus, sometimes he doesn't.  I was trying to find out why he thinks that is.

Original comment

Nope, you're definitely confused.  I'll say again, this isn't about definitions or about your beliefs.  Why do you want to get caught on semantics? 

Anyway, consensus is relevant to 'Ice Age' in two obvious ways.  
- Semantics - the definition is agreed by the community that use the term most often so they have a label for something that we can understand.  That's the scientific / geological consensus of what an Ice Age is.  WalterEgo agrees with the consensus.
- Application (what I'm talking about).  To determine whether the situation meets the definition above, you have to look at the consensus of scientists and their evidence.  If most experts (the consensus) have recorded temperatures, measured glaciers, etc, and show the definition of Ice Age is a good description of what's going on, then you feel justified.  WalterEgo agrees with the consensus.

Basically, knowing the definition of a word is different to knowing whether that definition applies to a given circumstance.  For the former you need a dictionary, for the latter you need evidence, and on scientific matters the evidence comes in the form of expert opinion and peer reviewed papers - consensus.

"YOU are not prepared to accept that glaciers are retreating".  
What the heck?  Where have I said anything whatsoever about my beliefs?  What a ridiculous strawman.  Why do you view everything as an opportunity to climb onto your soapbox?

"I accept the scientific consensus on climate change because climate scientists know climate better than me".  
Brilliant.  And the people that measure glaciers know more about glaciers, and the people that record and analyse global temperatures know more about global temperatures.  You look at photos online (seems like a low bar), but still, if the consensus of photos didn't show 'retreating glaciers', you might not believe it.  You follow the consensus.  I KNOW!

The simple point I have been trying to show (which has been completely lost on both of you), is while you DO religiously follow the consensus of experts, guest does NOT.  Sometimes he accepts consensus, sometimes he doesn't.  I was trying to find out why he thinks that is.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (10 days ago)

"Application (what I'm talking about).  To determine whether the situation meets the definition above" That might be what you're talking about, but that was not what we were talking about. Guest1-9 was playing word games. It was only about definition. Scroll back up and reread. He even threatened to end the discussion if I didn't agree with a definition from Wikipedia. It was just a tactic to distract. He does it all the time. 

"The simple point I have been trying to show (which has been completely lost on both of you), is..."  It's because you jumped in out of context, and that's why your simple point was lost on both of us. In context, it made no sense. Are you PA?

Original comment

"Application (what I'm talking about).  To determine whether the situation meets the definition above" That might be what you're talking about, but that was not what we were talking about. Guest1-9 was playing word games. It was only about definition. Scroll back up and reread. He even threatened to end the discussion if I didn't agree with a definition from Wikipedia. It was just a tactic to distract. He does it all the time. 

"The simple point I have been trying to show (which has been completely lost on both of you), is..."  It's because you jumped in out of context, and that's why your simple point was lost on both of us. In context, it made no sense. Are you PA?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (10 days ago)

I started my separate conversation with guest to draw his attention to a simple observation:  That by saying we conformed to the definition of an Ice Age, he was making assumptions based on peer-reviewed science - and that, according to him, is something he doesn't approve of.

You decided to go down the rabbit hole of semantics.  I don't think his point is about semantics, guest doesn't think it's about semantics, and I don't think it was a distraction technique on his part.  That was your cheapshot, an excuse-meme of yours, to try and invalidate his point.  

Speaking of excuse-memes, I didn't jump out of any context either.  You were narrowly seeing the context as just the futile endless bickering between you two.  You assume every comment on here is My View vs Your View.  I explained early on that this is a new conversation with guest, not about what he believes (let alone you), but about how he reaches those conclusions. 

Original comment

I started my separate conversation with guest to draw his attention to a simple observation:  That by saying we conformed to the definition of an Ice Age, he was making assumptions based on peer-reviewed science - and that, according to him, is something he doesn't approve of.

You decided to go down the rabbit hole of semantics.  I don't think his point is about semantics, guest doesn't think it's about semantics, and I don't think it was a distraction technique on his part.  That was your cheapshot, an excuse-meme of yours, to try and invalidate his point.  

Speaking of excuse-memes, I didn't jump out of any context either.  You were narrowly seeing the context as just the futile endless bickering between you two.  You assume every comment on here is My View vs Your View.  I explained early on that this is a new conversation with guest, not about what he believes (let alone you), but about how he reaches those conclusions. 

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (10 days ago)

"I don't think his point is about semantics, guest doesn't think it's about semantics, and I don't think it was a distraction technique on his part.  That was your cheapshot, an excuse-meme of yours, to try and invalidate his point." If you can't see that Guest1-9 was employing a distraction technique, then I can't help you. I was trying to narrow down the conversation to a single point that would be difficult to dispute. I was getting close, and then you came along and ruined it all. Thanks a bunch.

Having said that, your point about cherry-picking peer reviewed research is an excellent one. You just worded it so badly you really did sound like a Flat-Earther. Like when when you asked: "Can you point me towards a metastudy that shows we are definitely in an Ice Age?" when his point was we are in an ice age because that is the definition in Wikipedia.

"...the futile endless bickering between you two" From my point of view, the bickering is not futile. I have learnt a lot about climate change from bickering with Guest1-9. This time around, I have gained a better understanding of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, and about why temperature and CO2 graphs don't correlate.

Original comment

"I don't think his point is about semantics, guest doesn't think it's about semantics, and I don't think it was a distraction technique on his part.  That was your cheapshot, an excuse-meme of yours, to try and invalidate his point." If you can't see that Guest1-9 was employing a distraction technique, then I can't help you. I was trying to narrow down the conversation to a single point that would be difficult to dispute. I was getting close, and then you came along and ruined it all. Thanks a bunch.

Having said that, your point about cherry-picking peer reviewed research is an excellent one. You just worded it so badly you really did sound like a Flat-Earther. Like when when you asked: "Can you point me towards a metastudy that shows we are definitely in an Ice Age?" when his point was we are in an ice age because that is the definition in Wikipedia.

"...the futile endless bickering between you two" From my point of view, the bickering is not futile. I have learnt a lot about climate change from bickering with Guest1-9. This time around, I have gained a better understanding of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, and about why temperature and CO2 graphs don't correlate.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (10 days ago)

"Thanks a bunch".  You were welcome to continue your previous conversation, and I had expected nothing less.  It hadn't crossed my mind that you'd see another opportunity for a soapbox moment, and wade into a new line of conversation I was having with him.

His point wasn't "we are in an ice age because that is the definition in Wikipedia."  That's a really churlish way to try and invalidate his argument.  His point was (and is) that we are in an ice age, because the term accurately describes the current situation of the planet.  

It wasn't his distraction technique, and if you were focussed on trying to understand his argument rather than score points, you would have seen that.  He believes that the planet's warming is probably due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW, and for that he needed to check if you accepted the premise; that we are coming out of an Ice Age.  You did, and he quickly moved on.  It was you who has dragged your heels over the whole 'semantics' issue, so if it's anyone's distraction it is yours.

As for Flat-Earther, I was glad he used that expression.  I worded it carefully as I was attempting to demonstrate the logical conclusion of his supposed hatred of peer review.  I have still avoided sharing my own views, and both of you made assumptions.

"From my point of view, the bickering is not futile".  That's because you like your views to become more entrenched.  You like to find more information that supports the view you already had.  You like to 'win' rather than discuss or explore.  You employ all the countless point-scoring techniques, and you end up polarising the debate further through an inability to ever cede any ground.  I know it's fun for you, but it's also futile. 

Original comment

"Thanks a bunch".  You were welcome to continue your previous conversation, and I had expected nothing less.  It hadn't crossed my mind that you'd see another opportunity for a soapbox moment, and wade into a new line of conversation I was having with him.

His point wasn't "we are in an ice age because that is the definition in Wikipedia."  That's a really churlish way to try and invalidate his argument.  His point was (and is) that we are in an ice age, because the term accurately describes the current situation of the planet.  

It wasn't his distraction technique, and if you were focussed on trying to understand his argument rather than score points, you would have seen that.  He believes that the planet's warming is probably due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW, and for that he needed to check if you accepted the premise; that we are coming out of an Ice Age.  You did, and he quickly moved on.  It was you who has dragged your heels over the whole 'semantics' issue, so if it's anyone's distraction it is yours.

As for Flat-Earther, I was glad he used that expression.  I worded it carefully as I was attempting to demonstrate the logical conclusion of his supposed hatred of peer review.  I have still avoided sharing my own views, and both of you made assumptions.

"From my point of view, the bickering is not futile".  That's because you like your views to become more entrenched.  You like to find more information that supports the view you already had.  You like to 'win' rather than discuss or explore.  You employ all the countless point-scoring techniques, and you end up polarising the debate further through an inability to ever cede any ground.  I know it's fun for you, but it's also futile. 

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (9 days ago)

Psychology is not your strong point.

Original comment

Psychology is not your strong point.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (9 days ago)

Cute.  I have people rather better qualified than you for my appraisals, but thanks for sharing.

I don't necessarily agree with his beliefs (or indeed yours), but guest is the more honest interlocuter here; If you ever bother to try and truly understand someone's point instead of distracting them, applying silly labels and excuses, and furiously digging yourself deeper into your mindset, you could turn out to be quite an interesting person for a discussion.  Quite some work ahead, lad.

Original comment

Cute.  I have people rather better qualified than you for my appraisals, but thanks for sharing.

I don't necessarily agree with his beliefs (or indeed yours), but guest is the more honest interlocuter here; If you ever bother to try and truly understand someone's point instead of distracting them, applying silly labels and excuses, and furiously digging yourself deeper into your mindset, you could turn out to be quite an interesting person for a discussion.  Quite some work ahead, lad.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (9 days ago)

I rest my case.

Original comment

I rest my case.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (9 days ago)

You had a case? 

I can see how frustrating it is for you when someone doesn't view the world in the same way as you.  It must be us.  Definitely not you.  

Original comment

You had a case? 

I can see how frustrating it is for you when someone doesn't view the world in the same way as you.  It must be us.  Definitely not you.  

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (9 days ago)

You wrote this a couple of threads ago:  "It wasn't his distraction technique, and if you were focussed on trying to understand his argument rather than score points, you would have seen that.  He believes that the planet's warming is probably due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW, and for that he needed to check if you accepted the premise; that we are coming out of an Ice Age.  You did, and he quickly moved on."

Do you stand by that?

Original comment

You wrote this a couple of threads ago:  "It wasn't his distraction technique, and if you were focussed on trying to understand his argument rather than score points, you would have seen that.  He believes that the planet's warming is probably due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW, and for that he needed to check if you accepted the premise; that we are coming out of an Ice Age.  You did, and he quickly moved on."

Do you stand by that?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (9 days ago)

Would it be worth it?  What are you hoping to achieve?  I've spelt everything out.  

You stalled the debate with semantics instead of understanding what he was driving at.

You're not too hot at spotting your own mistakes, hypocrisies or excuses, so it wouldn't be productive to extend this.

It says it all though, when I consider a AGW denier to be a fairer intelecutor than you.

Original comment

Would it be worth it?  What are you hoping to achieve?  I've spelt everything out.  

You stalled the debate with semantics instead of understanding what he was driving at.

You're not too hot at spotting your own mistakes, hypocrisies or excuses, so it wouldn't be productive to extend this.

It says it all though, when I consider a AGW denier to be a fairer intelecutor than you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (9 days ago)

I just wanted you to confirm that what you said is what you meant. So, let's break it down. "He believes that the planet's warming is ... he needed to check if you accepted the premise; that we are coming out of an Ice Age.  You did, and he quickly moved on." I didn't. I accepted we were in an ice age because that is the definition in Wikipedia. I said: "I just agreed we are in an ice age. I can read Wikipedia as well."

He replied: "Fair enough but it took you a long time to admit it.  Don’t know why because it’s clear and scientists do agree we are in an ice age." Then he quickly moved on. 

I certainly did not accept we were coming out of an ice age. I said: "...if human activity had no impact on the climate, we would be cooling with an ice age beginning within 1500 years." That is the opposite to coming out of an ice age. 

He wasn't checking if I accepted the premise that we are coming out of an ice age, he was checking if I accepted we are IN an ice age right now. He said: “Maybe we should clarify something else.  Do you believe we are currently in an ice age or not?”

"He believes that the planet's warming is probably due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW". You even got that wrong.

I said: " OK, so you agree human activity is warming the climate, but you don't think all the warming is caused by humans, just some of it, but you're not sure how much. And you think climate scientists don't know either, they are guessing. I hope that's a fair summation of your current position. "

He confirms it: "Yes, I think you understand my position now."

He thinks AGW is partly responsible, and so are ice age cycles. He just doesn't know  how big each part is.

For someone who analyses text for a living, you are rubbish.

Original comment

I just wanted you to confirm that what you said is what you meant. So, let's break it down. "He believes that the planet's warming is ... he needed to check if you accepted the premise; that we are coming out of an Ice Age.  You did, and he quickly moved on." I didn't. I accepted we were in an ice age because that is the definition in Wikipedia. I said: "I just agreed we are in an ice age. I can read Wikipedia as well."

He replied: "Fair enough but it took you a long time to admit it.  Don’t know why because it’s clear and scientists do agree we are in an ice age." Then he quickly moved on. 

I certainly did not accept we were coming out of an ice age. I said: "...if human activity had no impact on the climate, we would be cooling with an ice age beginning within 1500 years." That is the opposite to coming out of an ice age. 

He wasn't checking if I accepted the premise that we are coming out of an ice age, he was checking if I accepted we are IN an ice age right now. He said: “Maybe we should clarify something else.  Do you believe we are currently in an ice age or not?”

"He believes that the planet's warming is probably due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW". You even got that wrong.

I said: " OK, so you agree human activity is warming the climate, but you don't think all the warming is caused by humans, just some of it, but you're not sure how much. And you think climate scientists don't know either, they are guessing. I hope that's a fair summation of your current position. "

He confirms it: "Yes, I think you understand my position now."

He thinks AGW is partly responsible, and so are ice age cycles. He just doesn't know  how big each part is.

For someone who analyses text for a living, you are rubbish.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (9 days ago)

Well that answers my questions about whether it would it be worth it.  

Sweet you still think your appraisal of my academic skills is worth sharing, but I wish you'd grow up a little.

"I hope that's a fair summation of your current position".  I'm surprised he agreed.  You deviously left out the alternative factor that he has been explaining - very sneaky.  He isn't just shrugging and saying some is AGW; he is proposing a detailed argument that you literally didn't even acknowledge in that summation.  Poor effort.

In the very same comment where he accepted your summary, he also quickly added "'Some natural process must also be involved'... Yes, it’s the act of coming out of our ice age".  So yes, *coming out* of the ice age is his theory to account for a significant part of global warming.  To run with that, the most obvious premise he needed you to accept is that we're in an ice age to begin with (before you decide if you're coming out), and that was the point where you used your childish 'semantics' excuse.  

And actually, whichever premise(s) you think he was checking, the fact is it was a premise (and critical at that), so not word-games, and not a distraction technique.  It was you who used it as such, presumably because you find his actual argument harder to challenge.  I wish you would study some predicate logic.

What is also fascinating, is that this originally had nothing to do with you or your earlier conversation with him (which we have now ended up discussing).  I didn't write to you, because I know about your adversarial antiscience method of debate, your excuses-memes, and the fact that you always just dig yourself deeper into your hole.  Despite what you've tried to do with the conversation, this was never about what he believes, and certainly not about what you believe.  You're so used to point-scoring and Me vs You arguments, you've responded in the only way you know how.

Please, next time you lock horns with him, listen.  Don't just look for ways of slowing the argument until it stalls.

Original comment

Well that answers my questions about whether it would it be worth it.  

Sweet you still think your appraisal of my academic skills is worth sharing, but I wish you'd grow up a little.

"I hope that's a fair summation of your current position".  I'm surprised he agreed.  You deviously left out the alternative factor that he has been explaining - very sneaky.  He isn't just shrugging and saying some is AGW; he is proposing a detailed argument that you literally didn't even acknowledge in that summation.  Poor effort.

In the very same comment where he accepted your summary, he also quickly added "'Some natural process must also be involved'... Yes, it’s the act of coming out of our ice age".  So yes, *coming out* of the ice age is his theory to account for a significant part of global warming.  To run with that, the most obvious premise he needed you to accept is that we're in an ice age to begin with (before you decide if you're coming out), and that was the point where you used your childish 'semantics' excuse.  

And actually, whichever premise(s) you think he was checking, the fact is it was a premise (and critical at that), so not word-games, and not a distraction technique.  It was you who used it as such, presumably because you find his actual argument harder to challenge.  I wish you would study some predicate logic.

What is also fascinating, is that this originally had nothing to do with you or your earlier conversation with him (which we have now ended up discussing).  I didn't write to you, because I know about your adversarial antiscience method of debate, your excuses-memes, and the fact that you always just dig yourself deeper into your hole.  Despite what you've tried to do with the conversation, this was never about what he believes, and certainly not about what you believe.  You're so used to point-scoring and Me vs You arguments, you've responded in the only way you know how.

Please, next time you lock horns with him, listen.  Don't just look for ways of slowing the argument until it stalls.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (8 days ago)

Please stop, you're giving academia a bad name. Even your latest response alone is full of inaccuracies.

"I hope that's a fair summation of your current position".  I'm surprised he agreed.  You deviously left out the alternative factor that he has been explaining - very sneaky." I didn't deviously do anything. I summed up his position in a concise easy-to-understand sentence - "so you think global warming is partly caused by human activity, and partly "the act of coming out of our ice age" - 3 times! Was that not enough?

"So yes, *coming out* of the ice age is his theory to account for a significant part of global warming." That's not accurate. He did not say it was a SIGNIFICANT part of global warming. 

I said: "so you agree human activity is warming the climate, you just don't think it's by very much."  
He said: "I didn’t say it’s not much.  I said we aren’t 100% responsible and I don’t know how much humans are responsible and neither does anyone else."

"And actually, whichever premise(s) you think he was checking, the fact is it was a premise (and critical at that), so not word-games, and not a distraction technique.  It was you who used it as such, presumably because you find his actual argument harder to challenge."

You presume wrong. His argument was not hard to challenge. I did - in a long detailed post about a quarter the way down the page: "But I’m referring to the cooling that started during the Eocene era ...  it's not going to correlate because other things that also affect the temperature are missing." But he hasn't responded - because you came along.

"Please, next time you lock horns with him, listen.  Don't just look for ways of slowing the argument until it stalls." I was not trying to slow the argument until it stalls. I was trying to narrow it down to a single point of discussion. And we almost got there - then you came along.

FYI, my "single point of discussion" was not an excuse meme. This is it: Over a 30 year period, how much global warming could we expect from ice age cycles that span over thousands and millions of years. If the answer is pretty much zero, then human activity is responsible for pretty much all of global warming - according to what Guest1-9 believes.

Oh, and please don't play at psychology. You're rubbish at that as well.

Original comment

Please stop, you're giving academia a bad name. Even your latest response alone is full of inaccuracies.

"I hope that's a fair summation of your current position".  I'm surprised he agreed.  You deviously left out the alternative factor that he has been explaining - very sneaky." I didn't deviously do anything. I summed up his position in a concise easy-to-understand sentence - "so you think global warming is partly caused by human activity, and partly "the act of coming out of our ice age" - 3 times! Was that not enough?

"So yes, *coming out* of the ice age is his theory to account for a significant part of global warming." That's not accurate. He did not say it was a SIGNIFICANT part of global warming. 

I said: "so you agree human activity is warming the climate, you just don't think it's by very much."  
He said: "I didn’t say it’s not much.  I said we aren’t 100% responsible and I don’t know how much humans are responsible and neither does anyone else."

"And actually, whichever premise(s) you think he was checking, the fact is it was a premise (and critical at that), so not word-games, and not a distraction technique.  It was you who used it as such, presumably because you find his actual argument harder to challenge."

You presume wrong. His argument was not hard to challenge. I did - in a long detailed post about a quarter the way down the page: "But I’m referring to the cooling that started during the Eocene era ...  it's not going to correlate because other things that also affect the temperature are missing." But he hasn't responded - because you came along.

"Please, next time you lock horns with him, listen.  Don't just look for ways of slowing the argument until it stalls." I was not trying to slow the argument until it stalls. I was trying to narrow it down to a single point of discussion. And we almost got there - then you came along.

FYI, my "single point of discussion" was not an excuse meme. This is it: Over a 30 year period, how much global warming could we expect from ice age cycles that span over thousands and millions of years. If the answer is pretty much zero, then human activity is responsible for pretty much all of global warming - according to what Guest1-9 believes.

Oh, and please don't play at psychology. You're rubbish at that as well.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (8 days ago)

It's amusing that you consider my Boreme comments part of academia.  I take it you stopped at O-levels then?  And hey I'm no expert in academia or psychology, but you're not exactly hard to unpick - you present in exactly the same way and make the same idiosyncratic fallacies every time you post.  I'd be tempted to share the various subjects where you've highlighted your own incompetencies, but I'm sure you'd be as interested in my appraisals as I am in yours.

You're not following your own argument.  Earlier I said "He believes that the planet's warming is probably due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW".  You said that this was incorrect, because he agreed to the summary sentence you quoted which had made no mention of ice ages.  I've pointed out that in that sentence, you deviously ignored that part of his argument altogether.  Yes, he makes you address it later in the page, which is why your original summary was meaningless in ascertaining what his specific argument is.  You then belittled his argument with labels and putdowns like 'semantics' and 'word-games' (even sneakily trying to get me to see it that way) despite the fact that the passing reference he made to a definition had actually been the necessary premise of an argument.

"He did not say it was a SIGNIFICANT part of global warming."  Another attempt at point-scoring, this time by quibbling the use of a quantifier.  Cheap even by your petty standards.  I didn't say that's what he *said*, I said that is *his theory*.  I deduced this from the context of his other comments (give it a whirl).  If in doubt, why not ask him if he might consider the natural cycles of the planet to play a significant part, and see if I deduced correctly?

Of course, you were so close to backing him into a corner.  So close!  Just think, had you not slammed on the brakes with your distraction tactics and labels, then involved yourself with my new conversation with guest, we could both be having separate a conversation with him.  Indeed, he could still be running rings around you, while you could have cherry-picked even more information to reinforce what you already believe.  Don't worry.  I'm sure you'll get another opportunity to dodge his arguments sometime soon.

Oh OK.  You're not devious, you can easily challenge his argument, you're not trying to stall the debate by using excuses and labels, you're not point-scoring, and no doubt you're the best person to judge all these things.  Well done, your self-awareness is coming on in leaps and bounds.  Or...

Original comment

It's amusing that you consider my Boreme comments part of academia.  I take it you stopped at O-levels then?  And hey I'm no expert in academia or psychology, but you're not exactly hard to unpick - you present in exactly the same way and make the same idiosyncratic fallacies every time you post.  I'd be tempted to share the various subjects where you've highlighted your own incompetencies, but I'm sure you'd be as interested in my appraisals as I am in yours.

You're not following your own argument.  Earlier I said "He believes that the planet's warming is probably due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW".  You said that this was incorrect, because he agreed to the summary sentence you quoted which had made no mention of ice ages.  I've pointed out that in that sentence, you deviously ignored that part of his argument altogether.  Yes, he makes you address it later in the page, which is why your original summary was meaningless in ascertaining what his specific argument is.  You then belittled his argument with labels and putdowns like 'semantics' and 'word-games' (even sneakily trying to get me to see it that way) despite the fact that the passing reference he made to a definition had actually been the necessary premise of an argument.

"He did not say it was a SIGNIFICANT part of global warming."  Another attempt at point-scoring, this time by quibbling the use of a quantifier.  Cheap even by your petty standards.  I didn't say that's what he *said*, I said that is *his theory*.  I deduced this from the context of his other comments (give it a whirl).  If in doubt, why not ask him if he might consider the natural cycles of the planet to play a significant part, and see if I deduced correctly?

Of course, you were so close to backing him into a corner.  So close!  Just think, had you not slammed on the brakes with your distraction tactics and labels, then involved yourself with my new conversation with guest, we could both be having separate a conversation with him.  Indeed, he could still be running rings around you, while you could have cherry-picked even more information to reinforce what you already believe.  Don't worry.  I'm sure you'll get another opportunity to dodge his arguments sometime soon.

Oh OK.  You're not devious, you can easily challenge his argument, you're not trying to stall the debate by using excuses and labels, you're not point-scoring, and no doubt you're the best person to judge all these things.  Well done, your self-awareness is coming on in leaps and bounds.  Or...

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (8 days ago)

"It's amusing that you consider my Boreme comments part of academia." I don't. They are full of flaws.

For example, just in your last comment: "Earlier I said "He believes that the planet's warming is probably due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW".  You said that this was incorrect, because he agreed to the summary sentence you quoted which had made no mention of ice ages." Wrong again. It's incorrect because you said "...rather than AGW", rather than "as well as", or words to the effect. Rather than AGW means instead of AGW, which is not what he believes. It's the opposite! 

I know you didn't mean that, but it's just another example of your sloppiness. If you didn't brag about your academic credentials so much in the past, I wouldn't have a such problem with your sloppiness. After all, I'm certainly not immune to sloppiness myself.

Anyway, there's plenty more in your last comment that I'm tempted to pull apart, but I'm fed up with this. Have the last word - and please, please - no more inaccuracies. And definitely no more psychology.

Original comment

"It's amusing that you consider my Boreme comments part of academia." I don't. They are full of flaws.

For example, just in your last comment: "Earlier I said "He believes that the planet's warming is probably due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW".  You said that this was incorrect, because he agreed to the summary sentence you quoted which had made no mention of ice ages." Wrong again. It's incorrect because you said "...rather than AGW", rather than "as well as", or words to the effect. Rather than AGW means instead of AGW, which is not what he believes. It's the opposite! 

I know you didn't mean that, but it's just another example of your sloppiness. If you didn't brag about your academic credentials so much in the past, I wouldn't have a such problem with your sloppiness. After all, I'm certainly not immune to sloppiness myself.

Anyway, there's plenty more in your last comment that I'm tempted to pull apart, but I'm fed up with this. Have the last word - and please, please - no more inaccuracies. And definitely no more psychology.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (7 days ago)
Latest comment:

OK, just trying to wade through the mass of petty labels and abuse and see if you're actually trying to make any point...

Briefly, you don't like logical deduction but notice guest says "I do not deny that humans MAY be the cause of a portion of it", and that "there’s not enough evidence" to believe in AGW, and AGW is "only an opinion" and "guesses", but he is also clear that "the act of coming out of our ice age" 'MUST' be involved.  He hasn't claimed to know, but statements like that led me to suggest 'he believes the planet's warming is PROBABLY due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW' - note, that's not ALL the warming, that's not DEFINITELY.

Context - try it - why did I try to summarise his beliefs in the first place?  Can you tell?  It was to show you that a single premise about being in an ice age wasn't a semantic distraction, because as soon as you accepted it, he wanted to move on.  Do you see that logically, even if I had completely misrepresented his beliefs in a single sub-clause, my actual argument was that he used a definition as a necessary premise, not a distraction.  You couldn't come up with anything against that argument, so you started quibbling word choices.  Literally, the perfect example of a semantic distraction.  A perfect hypocrisy.

This thread is a great example of your debating.  You didn't really want to understand or engage with guest's core argument about ice ages - you put words into his mouth, accused him of having learning difficulties and judged his premises as 'word-games', even trying to manipulate me into believing the same.  Pretty underhand.  Neither did you try to understand or engage with my argument about how guest only follows scientific consensus when it suits him, nor even my argument that a premise is not a distraction - likewise, you put words into my mouth, and focussed on individual expressions like 'significant' and 'rather than' in an effort to score petty points, predictably mixing in your usual stock of labels and excuse-memes as soon as you decided who I was.

"Brag about your academic credentials so much in the past."  Again.  Grow up.  Where are all these comments where I have mentioned credentials, career, expertise, qualifications or anything of that nature?  I've obviously done it "so much" that you'll be able to find plenty of them.  I can think of a single occasion, literally years ago, where I stated that part of what I am paid for is textual analysis.  No claims to expertise, career, talent, or qualification, yet you have used it as a childish insult on nearly every thread, claiming that 'text analysis' is my job.  A great strategy whenever you feel like getting hung up on semantics or who you think I am, instead of tackling my argument.  It's so old.

To end, despite the new conversation not involving you, despite me not sharing my beliefs, you still managed to hijack it and turn it into another one of your petty adversarial Me vs. You matches.  Do you see that?  Sadly, our beliefs on the matter for once are probably very similar, but you were just too keen to have a spat.  My mistake.  You do this with everyone, which is why my original remark wasn't aimed at you, and I should have known better than to respond when you tried to involve yourself.  I had been doing well to stay out of your circular bickering and flag-waving, but I need to do better.

Original comment
Latest comment:

OK, just trying to wade through the mass of petty labels and abuse and see if you're actually trying to make any point...

Briefly, you don't like logical deduction but notice guest says "I do not deny that humans MAY be the cause of a portion of it", and that "there’s not enough evidence" to believe in AGW, and AGW is "only an opinion" and "guesses", but he is also clear that "the act of coming out of our ice age" 'MUST' be involved.  He hasn't claimed to know, but statements like that led me to suggest 'he believes the planet's warming is PROBABLY due to our coming out of an ice age rather than AGW' - note, that's not ALL the warming, that's not DEFINITELY.

Context - try it - why did I try to summarise his beliefs in the first place?  Can you tell?  It was to show you that a single premise about being in an ice age wasn't a semantic distraction, because as soon as you accepted it, he wanted to move on.  Do you see that logically, even if I had completely misrepresented his beliefs in a single sub-clause, my actual argument was that he used a definition as a necessary premise, not a distraction.  You couldn't come up with anything against that argument, so you started quibbling word choices.  Literally, the perfect example of a semantic distraction.  A perfect hypocrisy.

This thread is a great example of your debating.  You didn't really want to understand or engage with guest's core argument about ice ages - you put words into his mouth, accused him of having learning difficulties and judged his premises as 'word-games', even trying to manipulate me into believing the same.  Pretty underhand.  Neither did you try to understand or engage with my argument about how guest only follows scientific consensus when it suits him, nor even my argument that a premise is not a distraction - likewise, you put words into my mouth, and focussed on individual expressions like 'significant' and 'rather than' in an effort to score petty points, predictably mixing in your usual stock of labels and excuse-memes as soon as you decided who I was.

"Brag about your academic credentials so much in the past."  Again.  Grow up.  Where are all these comments where I have mentioned credentials, career, expertise, qualifications or anything of that nature?  I've obviously done it "so much" that you'll be able to find plenty of them.  I can think of a single occasion, literally years ago, where I stated that part of what I am paid for is textual analysis.  No claims to expertise, career, talent, or qualification, yet you have used it as a childish insult on nearly every thread, claiming that 'text analysis' is my job.  A great strategy whenever you feel like getting hung up on semantics or who you think I am, instead of tackling my argument.  It's so old.

To end, despite the new conversation not involving you, despite me not sharing my beliefs, you still managed to hijack it and turn it into another one of your petty adversarial Me vs. You matches.  Do you see that?  Sadly, our beliefs on the matter for once are probably very similar, but you were just too keen to have a spat.  My mistake.  You do this with everyone, which is why my original remark wasn't aimed at you, and I should have known better than to respond when you tried to involve yourself.  I had been doing well to stay out of your circular bickering and flag-waving, but I need to do better.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (10 days ago)

"He even threatened to end the discussion if I didn't agree with a definition from Wikipedia."  To be fair, being in the ice age is very important to the discussion because it also means that we are currently in a temporary lower than average temperature for the planet.  We will eventually get back to average even if we do nothing because the ice age is temporary.  

Original comment

"He even threatened to end the discussion if I didn't agree with a definition from Wikipedia."  To be fair, being in the ice age is very important to the discussion because it also means that we are currently in a temporary lower than average temperature for the planet.  We will eventually get back to average even if we do nothing because the ice age is temporary.  

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (11 days ago)

Here's a good youtube video from an educational channel called Sixty Symbols.  https://www.y outube.com/watch?v=wLlA1w 4OZWQ  

The guy talking had 120 - 130 papers published and has peer reviewed many others.  He explains the peer review process and how it can be biased because there are so few people in the field and they all know each other and shouldn't, but may accept a paper just because they know the person that wrote it.

I do not believe 95% of scientists have agreed in AGW.  I agree that they cherry picked scientific papers that talk about AGW and said that 95% of those AGW papers agree that humans are the cause.  Papers are not scientists.  Many papers could have been written by the same scientists and many scientists never cared to have their papers published or peer reviewed.   They never list the names of the scientists that agreed but there has been a list of 650 - 700 that sent a letter to congress that disagreed with AGW.  And to top it all off, it doesn’t matter scientifically if people all agree. If it did, then 100% of preachers believe there is a God so there must be a God, right?

Original comment

Here's a good youtube video from an educational channel called Sixty Symbols.  https://www.y outube.com/watch?v=wLlA1w 4OZWQ  

The guy talking had 120 - 130 papers published and has peer reviewed many others.  He explains the peer review process and how it can be biased because there are so few people in the field and they all know each other and shouldn't, but may accept a paper just because they know the person that wrote it.

I do not believe 95% of scientists have agreed in AGW.  I agree that they cherry picked scientific papers that talk about AGW and said that 95% of those AGW papers agree that humans are the cause.  Papers are not scientists.  Many papers could have been written by the same scientists and many scientists never cared to have their papers published or peer reviewed.   They never list the names of the scientists that agreed but there has been a list of 650 - 700 that sent a letter to congress that disagreed with AGW.  And to top it all off, it doesn’t matter scientifically if people all agree. If it did, then 100% of preachers believe there is a God so there must be a God, right?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (11 days ago)

Odd.  You're referencing a video about the disadvantages of the peer review system, just below a comment where you cited the extra peer-reviewed papers from Kwok's co-authors et al as a reason for believing that we're in an Ice Age.  "Many papers could have been written by the same scientists" - OK, just like Kwok's numerous papers about us being in an Ice Age.

Yes, I completely understand your views on AGW and your doubts about the 95% figure.  What I don't see is why a peer reviewed consensus about the specific geological epoch we are in (or the presence or retreat of glaciers) should be any different.  If you approve of the peer-review system, Like WalterEgo, then it's simple.  If you don't like to do that, then you need another way (and no, Google and Bing don't count).  So again, how do you know we are in an Ice Age?

"And to top it all off, it doesn’t matter scientifically if people all agree."  Then we're back to square one, right?  How do I know if we're in an Ice Age or if AGW is true? 

Original comment

Odd.  You're referencing a video about the disadvantages of the peer review system, just below a comment where you cited the extra peer-reviewed papers from Kwok's co-authors et al as a reason for believing that we're in an Ice Age.  "Many papers could have been written by the same scientists" - OK, just like Kwok's numerous papers about us being in an Ice Age.

Yes, I completely understand your views on AGW and your doubts about the 95% figure.  What I don't see is why a peer reviewed consensus about the specific geological epoch we are in (or the presence or retreat of glaciers) should be any different.  If you approve of the peer-review system, Like WalterEgo, then it's simple.  If you don't like to do that, then you need another way (and no, Google and Bing don't count).  So again, how do you know we are in an Ice Age?

"And to top it all off, it doesn’t matter scientifically if people all agree."  Then we're back to square one, right?  How do I know if we're in an Ice Age or if AGW is true? 

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (11 days ago)

"papers from Kwok's co-authors et al as a reason for believing that we're in an Ice Age." No, that's not it.  I know there's polar ice and alpine glaciers.  You somehow think I need to witness that myself to "believe" it exists.  That's flat-Earther mentality right there.  I do not need to orbit the planet myself to know that it’s spherical. 

"I completely understand your views on AGW and your doubts about the 95% figure.  What I don't see is why a peer reviewed consensus about the specific geological epoch we are in (or the presence or retreat of glaciers) should be any different."   Because we know the earth is warming -- that's fact.  AGW say's it's humans that caused it -- that's an opinion.   Having polar ice and alpine glaciers is fact.  The definition of Ice Age has been determined and matches the fact.  There's no opinion involved.

"So again, how do you know we are in an Ice Age?"   And again I ask you to look up the definition and then ask yourself does the planet meet that definition.  I made the determination it does.  You can do that for yourself and if you disagree, that's fine.  I'm not here to convince you either way.

Original comment

"papers from Kwok's co-authors et al as a reason for believing that we're in an Ice Age." No, that's not it.  I know there's polar ice and alpine glaciers.  You somehow think I need to witness that myself to "believe" it exists.  That's flat-Earther mentality right there.  I do not need to orbit the planet myself to know that it’s spherical. 

"I completely understand your views on AGW and your doubts about the 95% figure.  What I don't see is why a peer reviewed consensus about the specific geological epoch we are in (or the presence or retreat of glaciers) should be any different."   Because we know the earth is warming -- that's fact.  AGW say's it's humans that caused it -- that's an opinion.   Having polar ice and alpine glaciers is fact.  The definition of Ice Age has been determined and matches the fact.  There's no opinion involved.

"So again, how do you know we are in an Ice Age?"   And again I ask you to look up the definition and then ask yourself does the planet meet that definition.  I made the determination it does.  You can do that for yourself and if you disagree, that's fine.  I'm not here to convince you either way.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (11 days ago)

God this is frustrating.  I'm not asking you to convince me of anything - I haven't shared my views at all.  I'm trying to make you aware of how you might have come to your own views.  Really interesting though about you calling it a 'Flat-Earther mentality' though.  I would have to agree.  That's more or less where I'd put your beliefs on the spectrum.

"I do not need to orbit the planet myself to know that it’s spherical."  Great.  Then how do yo know?

"Because we know the earth is warming -- that's fact".  Great.  How do you know?  WalterEgo might as well just say "It's a fact that AGW is real".  You would ask him how he knows.  

Definition.  "An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers."  Fantastic.  Now to assess whether that definition applies, you have to know whether the planet is warming and whether there are glaciers.  How do you know?

It clearly isn't obvious to you, about how you think you know about all these things, so let me tell you...

You follow the consensus of the people that have studied it.  

Basically everything that you think you know was arrived at through scientific consensus.  Through peer review.

But you seem to dispute this approach, because it's that exact approach that also leads most people into believing AGW is real.  

Do you have a system other than peer review and scientific consensus that enables you to directly access evidence without the scientific community, or do you have a rigorous method of deciding when peer review and consensus is acceptable and when it isn't?

Original comment

God this is frustrating.  I'm not asking you to convince me of anything - I haven't shared my views at all.  I'm trying to make you aware of how you might have come to your own views.  Really interesting though about you calling it a 'Flat-Earther mentality' though.  I would have to agree.  That's more or less where I'd put your beliefs on the spectrum.

"I do not need to orbit the planet myself to know that it’s spherical."  Great.  Then how do yo know?

"Because we know the earth is warming -- that's fact".  Great.  How do you know?  WalterEgo might as well just say "It's a fact that AGW is real".  You would ask him how he knows.  

Definition.  "An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers."  Fantastic.  Now to assess whether that definition applies, you have to know whether the planet is warming and whether there are glaciers.  How do you know?

It clearly isn't obvious to you, about how you think you know about all these things, so let me tell you...

You follow the consensus of the people that have studied it.  

Basically everything that you think you know was arrived at through scientific consensus.  Through peer review.

But you seem to dispute this approach, because it's that exact approach that also leads most people into believing AGW is real.  

Do you have a system other than peer review and scientific consensus that enables you to directly access evidence without the scientific community, or do you have a rigorous method of deciding when peer review and consensus is acceptable and when it isn't?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (11 days ago)

“‘Because we know the earth is warming -- that's fact’.  Great.  How do you know?”  Because those were direct measurements taken and not much analysis needed.

“WalterEgo might as well just say ‘It's a fact that AGW is real’.  You would ask him how he knows.” AGW is different, it’s an opinion.  It’s like if I went to the Doctor and he X-rayed my arm and told me I have a broken arm.  That’s fact. But if he tried to identify how I broke it, that’s going to be an opinion.  I could tell him that I broke it falling out of a tree and he might believe me but I could be lying. Maybe I broke it doing something embarrassing like I fell off a bicycle because I don’t know how to ride one and I didn’t want him to know the truth.  AGW has a political agenda and there are reasons for people to lie.  They keep going on and on about how it’s the CO2 but when I ask people to see any correlation with CO2 and the temperatures of the earth according to the historical record, WalterEgo says “But the sun’s output is missing from the graph.”  So it is the sun’s output or is it CO2 that’s more important to the increase?  It gives me a lot of doubt.

“Now to assess whether that definition applies, you have to know whether the planet is warming and whether there are glaciers.  How do you know?”  You do not need to know if the planet is warming.  The definition said it’s a long period of reduction in temperature.  So you can look at the historical record like at the Jurassic period where the temperatures were at 25C and compare it with today’s 16C to see if it’s a reduction of temperature.  You can check if there’s ice and alpine glaciers which is very easy to check and there have been millions of pictures taken from the ground and from satellites.

Question for you, do you believe there is a God?  100% of preachers say there is one so it must be true, right?

Original comment

“‘Because we know the earth is warming -- that's fact’.  Great.  How do you know?”  Because those were direct measurements taken and not much analysis needed.

“WalterEgo might as well just say ‘It's a fact that AGW is real’.  You would ask him how he knows.” AGW is different, it’s an opinion.  It’s like if I went to the Doctor and he X-rayed my arm and told me I have a broken arm.  That’s fact. But if he tried to identify how I broke it, that’s going to be an opinion.  I could tell him that I broke it falling out of a tree and he might believe me but I could be lying. Maybe I broke it doing something embarrassing like I fell off a bicycle because I don’t know how to ride one and I didn’t want him to know the truth.  AGW has a political agenda and there are reasons for people to lie.  They keep going on and on about how it’s the CO2 but when I ask people to see any correlation with CO2 and the temperatures of the earth according to the historical record, WalterEgo says “But the sun’s output is missing from the graph.”  So it is the sun’s output or is it CO2 that’s more important to the increase?  It gives me a lot of doubt.

“Now to assess whether that definition applies, you have to know whether the planet is warming and whether there are glaciers.  How do you know?”  You do not need to know if the planet is warming.  The definition said it’s a long period of reduction in temperature.  So you can look at the historical record like at the Jurassic period where the temperatures were at 25C and compare it with today’s 16C to see if it’s a reduction of temperature.  You can check if there’s ice and alpine glaciers which is very easy to check and there have been millions of pictures taken from the ground and from satellites.

Question for you, do you believe there is a God?  100% of preachers say there is one so it must be true, right?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (10 days ago)


You hurt your arm and you go to your doctor.  He says it's a break, so 100% of the experts you consulted agree it's a break.  How about you go to the doctor and he says it's a sprain.  It doesn't get better, so you go to a different doctor (a second *opinion*) who says it's a hairline fracture.  You get a referral, go to a consultant, and they confirm it is a fracture.  I'm guessing you're going to assume it's a fracture.  You're still following the expert consensus.  Well done.

"Because those were direct measurements taken".  By whom?  By different people?  Did most of them point to the conclusion that the earth is warming?  Then you're following expert consensus.  Well done.

How do you know that during "the Jurassic period... temperatures were at 25C"?  You look at evidence gathered by experts, their analysis over time and their interpretation of the available evidence (published in peer-reviewed papers).  You're following the expert consensus.  Well done.  3 out of 3 so far!

Now, how do you know that AGW is a hoax (or exaggerated or however you want to dress it up)?  You ignore the evidence gathered by experts, you refute their professional analysis, and cast doubts on the entire peer-review system (which taught you that the earth is warming and that in the Jurassic period temperatures were at 25C).  Shame, you were doing so well.  Do you see my point?

There may well be issues with peer review, even if that is the best system we have.  Of course scientists may be incentivised or biased - research may be funded by the motor industry to belittle the impact of emissions for example.  But if you want to be skeptical, be skeptical.  Don't depend on that system for everything you think you know or unquestioningly consider to be a 'fact', but then ignore it when you don't like its conclusion.

(I'm not responding to the God question - not because it's a really bad analogy [which it is] but because none of my input here has been about my beliefs or even my views on science.  They are simply not relevant.  I'm just trying to see if the opinions you've chosen to share can be presented in a consistent way.)

Original comment


You hurt your arm and you go to your doctor.  He says it's a break, so 100% of the experts you consulted agree it's a break.  How about you go to the doctor and he says it's a sprain.  It doesn't get better, so you go to a different doctor (a second *opinion*) who says it's a hairline fracture.  You get a referral, go to a consultant, and they confirm it is a fracture.  I'm guessing you're going to assume it's a fracture.  You're still following the expert consensus.  Well done.

"Because those were direct measurements taken".  By whom?  By different people?  Did most of them point to the conclusion that the earth is warming?  Then you're following expert consensus.  Well done.

How do you know that during "the Jurassic period... temperatures were at 25C"?  You look at evidence gathered by experts, their analysis over time and their interpretation of the available evidence (published in peer-reviewed papers).  You're following the expert consensus.  Well done.  3 out of 3 so far!

Now, how do you know that AGW is a hoax (or exaggerated or however you want to dress it up)?  You ignore the evidence gathered by experts, you refute their professional analysis, and cast doubts on the entire peer-review system (which taught you that the earth is warming and that in the Jurassic period temperatures were at 25C).  Shame, you were doing so well.  Do you see my point?

There may well be issues with peer review, even if that is the best system we have.  Of course scientists may be incentivised or biased - research may be funded by the motor industry to belittle the impact of emissions for example.  But if you want to be skeptical, be skeptical.  Don't depend on that system for everything you think you know or unquestioningly consider to be a 'fact', but then ignore it when you don't like its conclusion.

(I'm not responding to the God question - not because it's a really bad analogy [which it is] but because none of my input here has been about my beliefs or even my views on science.  They are simply not relevant.  I'm just trying to see if the opinions you've chosen to share can be presented in a consistent way.)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (10 days ago)

“Now, how do you know that AGW is a hoax …?  You ignore the evidence gathered by experts” What evidence?  All the models they create have been wrong, either under target or over target.  They make claims about CO2 being the cause without talking about agriculture, cement production, CFCs and other chlorine sources, and deforestation.  They never mention that water is the biggest source of greenhouse gas.  It’s all very deceptive so you have to use your own critical thinking skills to check if it passes the smell test.

“professional analysis”  You say analysis, I say opinion.

“cast doubts on the entire peer-review system” Yes because anyone that attempts to publish a paper against AGW will never get it past the peer-review system.  It’s already biased to begin with.  People who wish to speak out against AGW are afraid of losing their jobs or government research funding so they don’t speak out.  Like I said, there is a political agenda here and that casts doubt so you cannot just trust what people are telling you.  This is not something you can visually see like polar ice and alpine glaciers.

“Do you see my point?”  Your point seems to be to argue and that’s all.

“There may well be issues with peer review, even if that is the best system we have.” True so you cannot trust it.  Remember when Galileo Galilei knew the earth went around the sun but the prevailing thought by all the scientists was the sun went around the earth.  He spoke up and got excommunicated for it.  He died in 1642 and it wasn’t until 1758 when the prohibition against heliocentrism was removed from the index of prohibited books.  That’s more than 100 years after he died.

“But if you want to be skeptical, be skeptical.”  I am skeptical.  I never said AGW isn’t true.  I just say there’s not enough evidence.   I never said God doesn’t exist, or the tooth fairy, or Big Foot, or the Easter Bunny, I just say there’s not enough evidence that show they exist.

“because none of my input here has been about my beliefs” Sure it has.  If you blindly trust what you’re told without evidence, then it’s a faith based system — or belief.  Whatever you want to call it.

Original comment

“Now, how do you know that AGW is a hoax …?  You ignore the evidence gathered by experts” What evidence?  All the models they create have been wrong, either under target or over target.  They make claims about CO2 being the cause without talking about agriculture, cement production, CFCs and other chlorine sources, and deforestation.  They never mention that water is the biggest source of greenhouse gas.  It’s all very deceptive so you have to use your own critical thinking skills to check if it passes the smell test.

“professional analysis”  You say analysis, I say opinion.

“cast doubts on the entire peer-review system” Yes because anyone that attempts to publish a paper against AGW will never get it past the peer-review system.  It’s already biased to begin with.  People who wish to speak out against AGW are afraid of losing their jobs or government research funding so they don’t speak out.  Like I said, there is a political agenda here and that casts doubt so you cannot just trust what people are telling you.  This is not something you can visually see like polar ice and alpine glaciers.

“Do you see my point?”  Your point seems to be to argue and that’s all.

“There may well be issues with peer review, even if that is the best system we have.” True so you cannot trust it.  Remember when Galileo Galilei knew the earth went around the sun but the prevailing thought by all the scientists was the sun went around the earth.  He spoke up and got excommunicated for it.  He died in 1642 and it wasn’t until 1758 when the prohibition against heliocentrism was removed from the index of prohibited books.  That’s more than 100 years after he died.

“But if you want to be skeptical, be skeptical.”  I am skeptical.  I never said AGW isn’t true.  I just say there’s not enough evidence.   I never said God doesn’t exist, or the tooth fairy, or Big Foot, or the Easter Bunny, I just say there’s not enough evidence that show they exist.

“because none of my input here has been about my beliefs” Sure it has.  If you blindly trust what you’re told without evidence, then it’s a faith based system — or belief.  Whatever you want to call it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (10 days ago)

"What evidence?"  So as predicted, you have fallen into your own trap:  "There is evidence of X but you just refuse to accept it."  There are extensive studies and meta-studies on AGW as well you know, and they look at data that is considered to be evidence by professional climatologists.  You disagree because it doesn't pass "the smell test", or your own critical thinking skills(!).  Fine. 

"True so you cannot trust (the peer review system)".  So here we are.  Then why DO you trust it?  This is the crux of the matter, your contradiction in a nutshell.  Basically everything you think you know about science, including the things that you have already mentioned and labelled 'fact', are the result of a system that you claim not to trust.  

The measurements about glaciers were published and peer reviewed so they could be replicated and studied elsewhere.  Yes, you can go and look at glaciers, but you don't, so you're trusting the system of those that do - you have faith in them.  The theories about temperature in different geological epochs were published and peer reviewed.  You can't go back in time with a thermometer, so you're trusting the system - you have faith in them. 

It isn't about my beliefs because nowhere on his page have I shared my beliefs about AGW, peer review, or god.  You don't know what I believe, you're just assuming.  It's not even about what YOU believe - it's really about how you come to believe whatever that is. 

I don't wish for an argument - if you and WalterEgo had read carefully, you'd notice that I'm not even advocating use of peer review, the dismissal of it, or outright skepticism, let alone specific beliefs themselves.  I am not positioning myself against you.  Go to WalterEgo for your "I'm righter than you" ping-pong.  I was just hoping that you would have some way of presenting the opposite methods you use in a way that is consistent.  So far you haven't;  you just emphasise the same contradiction.  It may have been an incommensurable position to begin with - frankly, that's the way it looked - but I wanted to see if you could rationalise it.

Original comment

"What evidence?"  So as predicted, you have fallen into your own trap:  "There is evidence of X but you just refuse to accept it."  There are extensive studies and meta-studies on AGW as well you know, and they look at data that is considered to be evidence by professional climatologists.  You disagree because it doesn't pass "the smell test", or your own critical thinking skills(!).  Fine. 

"True so you cannot trust (the peer review system)".  So here we are.  Then why DO you trust it?  This is the crux of the matter, your contradiction in a nutshell.  Basically everything you think you know about science, including the things that you have already mentioned and labelled 'fact', are the result of a system that you claim not to trust.  

The measurements about glaciers were published and peer reviewed so they could be replicated and studied elsewhere.  Yes, you can go and look at glaciers, but you don't, so you're trusting the system of those that do - you have faith in them.  The theories about temperature in different geological epochs were published and peer reviewed.  You can't go back in time with a thermometer, so you're trusting the system - you have faith in them. 

It isn't about my beliefs because nowhere on his page have I shared my beliefs about AGW, peer review, or god.  You don't know what I believe, you're just assuming.  It's not even about what YOU believe - it's really about how you come to believe whatever that is. 

I don't wish for an argument - if you and WalterEgo had read carefully, you'd notice that I'm not even advocating use of peer review, the dismissal of it, or outright skepticism, let alone specific beliefs themselves.  I am not positioning myself against you.  Go to WalterEgo for your "I'm righter than you" ping-pong.  I was just hoping that you would have some way of presenting the opposite methods you use in a way that is consistent.  So far you haven't;  you just emphasise the same contradiction.  It may have been an incommensurable position to begin with - frankly, that's the way it looked - but I wanted to see if you could rationalise it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (12 days ago)

I don't see that as evidence personally.  Especially when 4 of those references are from the same scientist.

My question is to guest and its why does he believe we are in an ice age?  You might be happy to accept a consensus of a few scientists (or mainly 1) but is he?  I didn't think he approved of that?

Original comment

I don't see that as evidence personally.  Especially when 4 of those references are from the same scientist.

My question is to guest and its why does he believe we are in an ice age?  You might be happy to accept a consensus of a few scientists (or mainly 1) but is he?  I didn't think he approved of that?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Yanis Varafoukis | Green New Deal for Europe
Yanis Varafoukis | Green New Deal for Europe
Bizarre birds of paradise in New Guinea
Bizarre birds of paradise in New Guinea
Thom Hartmann | Richard Wolff | How empires end
Thom Hartmann | Richard Wolff | How empires end
Historian calls out billionaires at Davos
Historian calls out billionaires at Davos
How homeless people survive the polar vortex
How homeless people survive the polar vortex