Climate change propaganda

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Secondly WHO of us has a degree in climatology ?

Would a degree in chemistry be a sufficient alternative in your opinion?

----

Watching scientific illiterates explaining "science" was funny for a short while a long time ago, but nowadays it's way too common, and way too many people are serious about the stupid things they claim to be science, about htings they believe in but haven't even understood on the most basic level (some postings in this thread fit perfectly into this scheme).

Whenever you believe the lowest level of stupidity has been reached some idiot pulls out an excavator just to dig an even deeper hole, more often enough accompanied by "It's a conspiracy" - "The government *blah blah blah*" - "The bible says..." - "Do your own research" - "There's a study/article here that says..."

I've experienced exactly this sort of bs for my entire work life, and the internet has made it far worse. The "do your own reserach" crowd has yet to produce a single individual who understands even the most basic scitentific principle and apply it correctly. Dunning-Kruger all around, and it's not just the flat earthers.

I even had the case of one of this "do your own research"-idiots telling me I wasn't able to understand a certain topic, and he linked three scientific papers with the aforementioned "do your own research" in tow - yes, you fool, I did, two of the papers were my own, for the third I was co-author.

[Dowly]

@Rockstar RE: Temperature measurements

I think it helps if you look at it at a smaller scale. Global temperatures are collected from hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of individual weather stations that take temperature measurements, usually daily. From these individual data sets, you start to build a bigger picture, first a local area then moving to wider region before somewhere down the line you pool it all together as global temperature. This data should be available from your local weather stations, so you could even download it and plonk it all in to excel and see how temperatures in your area have changed over time. (I just did, it was pretty cool!)

As for new methods and equipment, yes of course there will be difference between new and old. That's where calibration comes into play; you don't just switch off the old equipment, you keep it on and compare that data with the new data and adjust as needed. If you have the old equipment running parallel with the new one for a year and see that there's a difference of 0.1C between the two, you know how to adjust the old temperatures to match the new data from the new equipment. I am assuming the 30 year average is constantly running, so as years go by the data gets newer and newer with old temperatures dropping off from the other end.

Global temperature measurements are also not only tied to ground/sea based measurements, satellites keep track of temperatures as well and can be used to corroborate the data gathered from ground based stations.


As for your claim that there is no proof of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere. That's just not true. Just like every other known gas on Earth, CO2's properties are well known and have been studied for over a century.
One could even do their own experiment to see how CO2 interacts with the sun (or a powerful light). Take two clear containers, one with air and one with CO2 added to the mix. Point a powerful light towards them or have them sit in the sun and use something to measure the temperature inside the two containers. After a while, you will see that the temperature inside the container with added CO2 will show warmer temperatures.

[Rockstar]

I do agree the globe is warming, but as one physicist/geophysicist said: “

“While I do not know what precisely (though I know a little) causes Global Warming, I do know what does not cause it. CO2 and other greenhouse gases, anthropogenic or otherwise, are merely passive players that, like the GTA (Global Temperature Anomaly), are driven by other more dynamic forces associated with Earth’s core, the Sun, and even the Cosmos (referring to the Danish theory of cloud formation), all of which act, react, and interact in a very complex manner.

Note that the IPCC concentrates on Solar Irradiance, but ignores other solar energies such as that associated with Solar Magnetic Flux that has more than doubled since 1900. Gravity is another player in the Global Warming picture. Also note that Mars has global warming comparable to Earth’s without CO2 (Fenton, et. al., Nature, 2008). There are no Martians to either generate or enhance CO2 on Mars.”

I mean if conclusive evidence is in that CO2 is the cause, why are learned people still saying such things?

Then there are Ne'er Do Wells like myself that still find studies showing other forces of nature mantle plumes or so-called heat bombs melting the both polar ice caps Greenland ice from the bottom up?


If people want to blame themselves for something let them take responsibility for the 7 millions deaths THEY cause each year from air pollution they generate. And the misery and death THEY cause by demanding the others dig up Cobalt in the Congo so they can have their precious cell phones. Take responsibility for that. The idea people proclaim they can save a planet when they can’t even care for their fellow human is conceited fantasy.

The planet Earth has changed, is changing and will change, it’s is gonna warm or cool as it has throughout its’ history with or without man and or his CO2.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

… Would a degree in chemistry be a sufficient alternative in your opinion?

. Ummm, no. topic isn’t about chemistry really.

Dunning-Kruger all around, and it's not just the flat earthers.

I even had the case of one of this "do your own research"-idiots telling me I wasn't able to understand a certain topic, and he linked three scientific papers with the aforementioned "do your own research" in tow - yes, you fool, I did, two of the papers were my own, for the third I was co-author.

Funny you should mention the Dunning-Kruger effect. I brought this up last time someone used that term the way you do. One article from Psychology Today states “that one way to avoid falling prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect, people can honestly and routinely question their knowledge base and the conclusions they draw, rather than blindly accepting them.”.

“How do you fix the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Question what you know and pay attention to those who have different viewpoints. Seek feedback from people you can trust who you know are highly skilled in your area of interest. Be open to constructive criticism and resist the impulse to become defensive. Don’t pretend to know something you don’t. Make it a priority to continue learning and growing.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-kruger-effect

——————————-

In a later article from the same magazine another states the Dunning-Kruger effect isn’t real. “ The Dunning-Kruger effect is commonly invoked in online arguments to discredit other people’s ideas. The effect states that people who know the least about a topic are the most overconfident about that topic while people who know the most tend to be more humble and accurate in their self-assessment. It seems intuitively right, and it’s often a way to undercut people who present their opinions and arguments with "absolute certainty" that they’re right. The only problem is that the Dunning-Kruger effect itself is wrong.”…

“So now if someone online says something cutting about how the person they're arguing with is too stupid to know they’re wrong, you can point them to this post. There is no Dunning-Kruger. Everyone thinks they’re better than average. How’s that for taking the wind out of a dunk?”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...uger-isnt-real

https://gwern.net/docs/iq/2020-gignac.pdf

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

. Ummm, no. topic isn’t about chemistry really.

Chemistry is widely used in climate science.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Chemistry is widely used in climate science.

So is misinformation


Remember the 97% consensus clown show?

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/20....299L/abstract

https://www.wmbriggs.com/public/Legates.etal.2015.pdf

[Ostfriese]

[QUOTE=Rockstar;2850637]

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/20....299L/abstract

https://www.wmbriggs.com/public/Legates.etal.2015.pdf

Nice, the Legates paper, haven't seen that one in a while, as it is already a decade old and the discussion about it long over. That paper actually is a response to a single paper by Daniel Bedford (about agnotology as a teaching tool) from 2010, which Legates et al. comprehensively misrepresent and deliberately misquotes.

This was addressed by Daniel Bedford an John Cook in an answer in "Science & Education" in 2013 (https://link.springer.com/article/10...191-013-9608-3 unfortunatly behind a pay wall).

[Rockstar]

And the polls? You of all people should know science is not a democracy. Did you use a poll to determine wether your work in chemistry was correct?

If we want to know the probability climate change is man-made you do a data analysis. We don’t poll scientists, because if 97.1% of scientists in a poll say they believe it's man-made, the risk is that the masses will think there's a 97.1% chance this is correct. And lord knows the masses will hold onto their cherished beliefs to the point they can't be bothered to think about new data because they contradict something they once claimed as the truth. If we rely on polls we have to factor in all those social and psychological problems too.

So, you might think I don’t like polls and you’d be right, I don’t. Couple that when I see every major media outlet walking lock step in reporting on the subject, and the opinions of politicians, their chosen & Hollywood personalities are heard above ALL. I begin to wonder if I’m being fed a line of b.s. and so begin digging around. And lo and behold even today there are still others presenting analysis and data which show it’s the planet just doing what planets do. It wouldn’t be the first time a global catastrophe wiped out a big chunk of life on this planet. If that is the case then the only thing we can do is adapt or perish.

There are three things I can be certain of and that’s planet earth’s geologic and climate history. And the ancient texts which I think clearly show that when man can’t explain why on a clear sunny day the sun was blotted out from the sky. The prophets blamed the masses telling them it was their fault because of some offense they committed. Centuries later we find out it was just the moon doing what moons do eclipsing the sun.

That’s my story and for now I’m sticking to it.

[mapuc]

In my theory this climate change we are in and it's just the beginning, is man made.

In our way of how we act towards mother Earth.

Markus

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I begin to wonder if I’m being fed a line of b.s. and so begin digging around. And lo and behold even today there are still others presenting analysis and data which show it’s the planet just doing what planets do.

Yet you still can't provide any alternatives to what's causing climate change.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

And the polls? You of all people should know science is not a democracy. Did you use a poll to determine wether your work in chemistry was correct?

Experiments, peer reviews, discussion with other scientists and (something you seem to lack, at least judging from the words you write here) the understanding that I can and might be proven wrong, as well as the willingness to accept this.

If we want to know the probability climate change is man-made you do a data analysis.

You completely miss the point. There's clear evidence, based on series of experiments which have been repeated dozens of times that mankind has heavily contributed to climate change since the dawn of industrialization. It doesn't really matter if it is entirely man-made (which it very likely is not) or if mankind has only heavily sped the entire process up (which it very likely did). There's more than enough evidence to support it, and it doesn't matter what the exact probability is.

And lord knows the masses will hold onto their cherished beliefs to the point they can't be bothered to think about new data because they contradict something they once claimed as the truth.

Yep, just like religious fundamentalists (especially Christian), conspiracy theorists, flat earthers. Unfortunately you are doing just the same, just with a different belief.

I begin to wonder if I’m being fed a line of b.s. and so begin digging around.

Which on the very basic level is completely ok and necessary. But you already have marked it down as bs, and you simply cannot (or don't want to, can't say which just from reading your words) accept that your verdict "bs" might simply be wrong.
Just because someone I don't like says something I don't like, don't understand or simply cannot fathom to be true that doesn't mean it's bs.

And the ancient texts which I think clearly show that when man can’t explain why on a clear sunny day the sun was blotted out from the sky.

Which ancient texts are this supposed to be? (Please don't tell me it's "The Bible"...) The ancient Egyptians, the ancient Greek, the ancient Persians and the ancient Chinese all correctly attributed this to the moon moving in between the sun and the earth at least 2,500 years ago, and they all were capable of predicting eclipses reasonably accurate decades or even centuries before they would occur. Even other late bronze age civilizations (phoenicians, to name just one) likely knew this about 1,200 BC. The ancient Chinese might have known even as far back as 2,000 BC. Even in Central and Southern America classical drawings have been recovered that hint that the native people there knew about eclipses as far back as 2,000 years ago.

That’s my story and for now I’m sticking to it.

The greenhouse effect as a principle was first described 200 years ago. The first known and published experiments measuring the influence of infrared radiation on atmospheric gases, especially carbon dioxide and water vapor, were done in the late 1850 by John Tyndall. Global warming is often said to be a topic that came up in the 2000s, but was actually first predicted by Svanthe Arrhenius in 1896, including several models showing different amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere due to industrialization. Exxon correctly predicted the temperature rise due to massive carbon dioxide release back in the early 1970s.

All you have to offer is "I don't like what the mass media are telling".