Climate change science resources

Yes, it was.

You are not addressing anything. You are merely continuing onward with your argument of the stone fallacy, shouting "nuh uh!!!" yet refusing to form any sort of a valid counterargument to my position, of which I have already explained precisely why science does not make use of supporting evidence.

 

No, it doesn't. AGW theory outright denies logic, science, and mathematics. I've already briefly explained each one of these points in the past, so I will just copy and paste from my past explanations and insert that info here:

LOGIC: AGW zealots reject logic because they form their argumentation around words which are circularly defined (such as "global warming" and "climate change"). Circular definitions do not work; they are meaningless, as they do not make reference to anything outside of themselves. Thus, any argumentation based on such a circular definition is a void argument.

SCIENCE: AGW zealots also reject science, typically rejecting the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law. They have two main arguments: the "magick blanket argument" and the "bouncing photon argument". These arguments attempt to make heat flow uphill (from cold to hot instead of hot to cold, in violation of the 2nd LoT), and also attempt to decrease radiance of Earth while increasing temperature of Earth (the SB Law states that radiance and temperature are directly proportional).

MATHEMATICS: AGW zealots reject mathematics when they claim that a "global temperature" can be accurately measured using current technology. In actuality, there is no way to accurately measure it. The Earth is about 197 million sq miles. NASA (if I recall correctly) makes claim to about 7,500 land based thermometers (which are NOT uniformly spaced nor are they simultaneously read by the same observer, as required by statistical mathematics, but for sake of argument, I will assume that they are). That would mean that each thermometer covers an area of approx. 26,266 sq miles, or similar to the size of West Virginia. Now, do you really think that one thermometer can accurately measure the temperature of anywhere within West Virginia? Obviously not... especially when one thinks about the range and variance of temperatures... Temperatures have been observed to range from -128deg F to 134deg F (262deg F range) and have been observed to vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE and 49degF per TWO MINUTES. This shows the importance of close proximity and simultaneous reading of thermometers to get any sort of semi-accurate result. Thus, in order to bring the margin of error down to +-10deg F, we would need approx. 200 million thermometers, many more than NASA's 7,500... and to add to my copy/paste, this is focusing on SURFACE LEVEL ELEVATION ONLY... Of course, there are many elevations above and below the surface level, all of which are a part of Earth and would need to be accounted for... This means that numerous hundreds of millions of thermometers, beyond the hundreds of millions required for the surface level, would be required...

To put it shortly, unless the Earth were blanketed in thermometers, we have no way of knowing what Earth's temperature is to any usable accuracy.

BUT, but what about magickal satellites??!! Well, satellites do not measure absolute temperature; they measure light. The issue with converting that light reading into a temperature reading is that we don't know the emissivity of Earth. We don't know how much light is a result of Earth's radiation nor how much is a result of starlight, moonlight, etc... In order to figure out the emissivity of Earth, we would need to know what we are trying to figure out in the first place, which is the temperature of Earth. Thus, a chicken and egg issue...

AGW is nothing more than a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword. It is a void argument. It rejects laws of science. It rejects statistical mathematics. I'm not going to believe in a religion which requires me to reject logic, science, and mathematics...

See above.

Also, this is a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof off of yourself. YOU are making the claim that Earth is increasing in temperature. The burden of proof is YOURS...

I don't need to do that. The IPCC (and their reports) are not science. This is a false authority fallacy. The theories of science themselves are the proper authority on this matter, not the IPCC or any of their reports.

 

Especially when you make claims without foundation.

 

While numerical costs are objective, worth is subjective.

How do you know that it is a "straw man argument" if you (as you admit) haven't even read the argument for yourself?

What is "the field"?
Qualifications are not science.

 

Bowerbird keeps forgetting that there is no such thing as a "global climate".

 

Define "climate change". What are you even talking about? Chanting mindless buzzwords is meaningless.

What about it?

 

Thank you. I do have a lot of patience when attempting to educate science deniers such as Bowerbird, Cosmo, and seemingly also yourself.

Creationism is a religious theory about a past unobserved event. It is not falsifiable, as we do not have a time machine to see what actually happened.

Flat Earth theory has been falsified for a long time now.

What "global warming" are you speaking of? What raw data are you basing this conclusion off of?

 

I refer you to the 2nd of the three quotes in your question.

 

Void Argument.

** Define and quantify "climate change".
** Define and quantify "rapid climate change".
** Define and quantify "strong human component".
** Define and quantify "very strongly suggestive ...".

There is no data set of Earth's temperature. It does not exist.

It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy using our current infrastructure. Any attempts to do so are rejecting numerous requirements of statistical mathematics.

Define "climate hiccup". Another meaningless buzzword, yielding another void argument...

There is no data set of Earth's temperature. It does not exist.

Random numbers are not data, and refusal to follow the requirements of statistical mathematics (such as acting as if a simple average of data is somehow a statistical summary) renders any "statistical summary" resulting from it to be null and void.

 

Not an argument...

 

WOW!!! That went right over your head there, didn't it? If you don't see how or why maybe some kind soul will explain it to you.

 

Rubbish!
Science is not your forté.
Your misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper's influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject,or falsify hypotheses,that science cannot find evidence that supports one idea over others. Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine,especially with scientists, but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn't a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built.Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.

 

Just so you know, I wasn't referring to AGW; it pertains to gfm7175's lack of knowledge regarding the scientific method.

 

But you made no argument at all, that is the problem!

 

Life's too short.

 

I offer a somewhat different perspective. The folks who opine climate change and AGW are power hungry folks who just want to legislate enough exclusivity and protection for their income streams that others won't ever be able to compete with them.

Whenever you see the acolytes travel privately to Davos, for example, or to span the globe on their private cruise ships, we have only to ask them why their luxury is never discussed as a part of the "pain" that the rest of society has to endure on their behalf. They simply believe that scaring folks into giving up is the only way they can hold onto their privileges. So, when Nancy (for example) travels every week back to CA and then back to DC, she isn't actually helping the cause, she is actually demonstrating this notion that authority has perks, none of which can be yours.

Look at electric cars for a moment. They have an overall higher CO2 footprint to make and service and fuel than standard gas vehicles. They cost double what a gas powered car does. They offer only the most "luxury" (the new Mercedes mantra) to the elite who can smugly spend over 100K on their new purchase but "feel" the comfort both in the luxury of their car, but the luxury of sophistry in their minds that they are, in fact, doing something "important".

Ask why one of the first executive orders from Biden was XL pipeline denial. The DNC all understand that cheap energy does them and their elitist oligarch crowd no benefit. Since the inauguration, gas in my town has climbed about 30% from 1.59 to about 2.10. That isn't the magic of markets, its the prospect that less available oil for refinement will be available because Joe artificially turned off a major spigot. Electrical power is also going up. shocking. This is what collusion in the markets driven by public policy produces. And it take a narrative of panic and fear to make folks simply accept it.

 

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

No valid argumentation presented.

 

Supporting evidence is not used in science; it is instead used in religion.

For example: There is a massive amount of supporting evidence for Christianity, and no refuting evidence for it (as the theory cannot be falsified). The Bible is supporting evidence for it, as well as life itself, the BILLIONS of self-proclaimed Christians in the world, the fine-tuning of the universe, and the intricacies/complexities of the "circle of life".

Therefore, according to your very own description of science, the theory of Christianity would be "accepted science". Is this your position? If not, then what part/s of your prior post do you wish to revise?

 

Not an argument either...

 

BINGO. You expanded upon the issue very well, and hit the nail on the head while doing so. Good post!

 

Climate change happens every day, and has happened every day for as long as this planet has been here.
It's more usable term is "weather".

These imbeciles that keep preaching "climate change" have no concept of reality in any reference.
People have been brainwashed by these puppeteers to be their mules, stooges, and trojan horses.

This planet is NOT a stationary object. It constantly shifts, it constantly turns, it is constantly affected by all sorts of universal and cosmic forces, and it will never stop. Even before man evolved, this planet was turning, changing, and recreating itself every day.

Change is evolution of the planet. This planet doesn't give a rats behind if we live or die, it will be here long after we've all killed each other.....and it will continue to change.

Trying to stop "climate change" is like a gnat trying to stop a speeding train. It will never happen.

 

The fossil fuel industry is as dead as the fossils it is based on. Deal with it.

The clean air in cities as far apart as Los Angeles and New Delhi during the height of the initial lockdown in March ALONE is reason enough to dump the fossil fuel industry.

 

Who would have thought that a thread on how to save the planet would bring out some of the worst of humanity.

Here's my contribution: https//climate.nasa.gov/

( Right-wingers - think Space Force people)

 

Well that is your opinion - an erroneous one but still yours. I note too you off euro substantiation

 

((((Sigh)))Ji

it always does

Note how many will use straw man arguments, cherry picking, AstroTurf sites, unsubstantiated claims and outright ridiculous claims

A couple of my all time favourite examples of the latter was one member (who is still here) who claimed that climate change was occurring because “earth had moved into a warm part of space”. Then there was the idiot who kept claiming that there could not be more CO2 in the upper atmosphere because his high school science class had proved CO2 was “heavier than air” - which of course is correct but ignores completely the principles underpinning diffusion. There are so many many more examples and what really gets me is that the same idiots churning out this rubbish are trying to convince you THEY know more about science than you do