Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

Nope. I don't engage AI, which is GIGO.

 

The "points" your AI "raised" were just autofill nonscience that has been refuted here many times, often by Jack. Getting AI to do your copy-paste for you does not add any logical robustness or empirical validity to anti-fossil-fuel boilerplate, sorry.

 

Dude you are in poker terms betting against the nuts and haven't the good sense to either fold or call.

 

That is not an argument. That is a cop out.

Moreover, you can't refute the following point:

All that matters is the argument.

See, the confusion lies in getting stuck on how arguments are arrived at. They influence the argument, but they don't change the principle, that, ''all that matters is the argument'.

Refute that and you might have a point.

However, you can't, because it's self evident, just like the sky, just like air, water, and the stars above.

That is precisely why your point is not an argument, but a cop out, a false reason to avoid an argument,

See, if the argument is wrong, just debate it. Debating is the whole point,.

 

Many comments and threads made on this forum, by any means, are inaccurate. This is the whole point, to debate.

AI is used by medicine, engineering, has passed the law exam, the medical exam, and defeated the grand master at chess, even the Chinese GO master. It's not perfect, nor is anything in this world. A good debate fact checks his research, and Ai is just another tool, like the encyclopedia, like the dictionary, like perusing documents and research papers. There is no difference. And AI is not merely 'autofill' is is far more robust than that. You have not done your homework.

All the matters is the argument. If you disagree, debate. Ad machinam is like ad hominem, a logical fallacy.

I do not copy and paste. I write, edit, research, fact check, etc. Most my data points are sourced, check the sources.

All that matters is the argument. If you disagree, just continue with the debate.

Until you can refute that principle, your argument isn't accurate.

 

Please contribute to the thread, move the debate forward per the topic of the OP, in a meaningful way.

I look forward to your constructive contribution.

 

Why do you believe in AGW? Because you understand all the equations? Because it is the overwhelming consensus of scientists? Because that is what my political party believes? Be honest.

 

Because I have read the science and don’t understand all the “equations” but do understand enough. When it comes to consensus we aren’t talking just a couple of hundred scientists here - we are talking tens of thousands worldwide. I am an Aussie and that means my politics is less influenced by partisanship than in America.

Bottom line I have been studying climate science since the seventies and have been debating it for well over twenty years. And I have have yet to see one fact based rebuttal of the actual science.

 

The OP premise is that there is no benefit to debating climate science because warming is occurring and that’s all that matters.

The OP premise is that predictions made in 1985 about units of warming per unit of atmospheric CO2 were correct so nothing else needs be discussed. Unfortunately the predictions from 1985 are in direct conflict with current IPCC predictions so it actually is very important to discuss why.

The premise of the OP (and many others here) seems to be that all warming is bad. This is a false premise and is not supported by evidence. Something that reduces net mortality can not be all “bad”.

The real cop out is in saying no debate on climate change is necessary or edifying just because warming is occurring. It’s not only a cop out, it’s highly illogical. It’s like saying debate on economic situations of various demographics is no longer necessary because we know if someone working by the hour works more hours they make more money.

 

The so called consensus does not exist. They try to get around that fact by claiming that submittal of peer approved papers proves the consensus. The problem with that theory is that there is too much room for manipulation. Find me a study where they actually ask scientists what they believe. When they deceive, I see no reason to believe anything they say.

Man does affect the weather. The issue is how much, what can be done about it and how accurately it can be predicted.

 

Except your premise is that its all good.

 

He is not wrong we have to move from investigation to mitigation. Australia is about to burn again,
El Niño is not even here yet and we are on fire. And yes, although we have always had bushfires they are getting worse
https://openresearch-repository.anu...Vardoulakis_Lessons_Learned_from_the_2020.pdf

.

okay i’ m game - go for it. I’ll just watch and read

Australia burnt in 2019 - 2020. Go for it - convince me that is “good”. Changing weather conditions will affect crops - convince me that is “good”. Droughts will intensify - convince me that will be “good”. Floods will intensify - convince me that is “good”

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/climate-change-impacts-highlight-need-action-cop24

https://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects/default.htm

no it is saying “let’s move on and deal with the negative outcomes

 

Multiple research papers using multiple methodologies. I will back that when YOU back your claim

 

One fact based rebuttal

How is your response a “fact based rebuttal”?

 

How was what you said "fact based proof"?

 

Certainly not.

 

I stand by the IPCC findings - in that I have actually read them - have you? Or have you decided that you won’t because “it is all (fill in the conspiracy theory)

I am actually happy to debate any part of those reports you would like BUT you have to link to the specific part you think is inaccurate.

 

AI's claim (#480) about Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) is uninformed to the point of ignorance.
AI's citation of Cook et al is irrelevant.
AI's taking refuge in a "consensus" claim would be cowardice if machines were capable of cowardice.

 

Debate? Really? Are you claiming that you have studied and understand the mathematical models and have actually gone through the calculations on which the IPCC findings are based?

My doubt is simple. The earth is a huge heat sink with a molten center. In order to have global warming, it would require warming that huge heat sink. The atmosphere does not warm or cool independently of that huge heat sink. Then I look at how CO2 is exchanged between plants and trees. If the CO2 increases, those plants and trees grow faster and convert the CO2 to oxygen and carbon at a faster rate.

I hear about all these new records. I served in the US Air Force as a meteorologist for twenty years. There are millions of opportunities to establish new records every day and hundreds of new records on a daily basis. Yet, every time there is some significant new record, the AGW crowd cites it as proof.

I look at the global warming and it is on the order of a degree/ten years. The global temperature heating cooling and heating patterns are similar to those for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Have you ever heard them preach to the public that there is a overwhelming consensus of scientific papers that prove global warming? No. They claim a consensus of scientists even though there is no such poll or study. A large proportion of scientists have doubts and I believe even more would openly express those doubts if they were allowed to freely express their opinion.

 

Can you define “getting worse”?

It’s all in this thread. I’ve presented the numbers on multiple occasions in this thread and the one the OP linked to.

Fire is not necessarily “bad”. Extremely hot and uncontrollable fire is generally bad. Both the US and Australia have historically “benefitted” from fire based land management strategies employed by indigenous peoples.

Another question. Do you know what is another driving force behind recent fires in Australia besides AGW?

I explained agriculture to you awhile back. Here is that information again. Most folks base their beliefs on climate change and agriculture on flawed studies that assume producers will not leverage longer growing seasons, more heat units, etc. provided by AGW. Those studies assume producers will plant genetics suited to shorter season cooler climate even though genetics suited to warmer longer season climate are ready available, and when used, increase yields substantially. The last study below is one that accounts for producers leveraging change and shows increases in yield, not decreases.


Yes weather patterns are shifting. If you want to talk agriculture I’m in.

Let’s look at what scientists say about Australian wheat yields increasing with climate change. Typically scientists that have specialties in agronomy know more about agriculture than politicians.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096321000292

Improving yields of Australian wheat with warming climate has a long history. This study was published in 1997 and looked at climate impacts on Australian wheat yields since the 1950’s.

https://www.nature.com/articles/387484a0#:~:text=Climate trends appear to be,temperatures being the dominant influence.

Australian has a lot of arid regions, no? Let’s see what is going on globally with arid regions and plant productivity!

https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg2/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf

Wow. So higher temps, higher CO2 levels, more grazing, and changes to precipitation patterns has INCREASED plant productivity in arid regions globally.

Here’s a glimpse of what scientists predict for more global scope of agriculture going forward. Scientists that understand agricultural producers always adapt. That we have been adapting since the dawn of agriculture and we won’t stop.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34411-5

Of your list, drought is probably the most concerning if it actually plays out. Even drought conditions can have positive results however. Often our highest corn yields where I live occur in drought years. It’s a function of less cloud cover, less plant disease, more heat units, etc.

Flooding is probably the most misunderstood phenomenon by most climate activists. When flooding occurs in places like Bangladesh for example the actual causes of the flooding are seldom reported. Anthropogenic global warming makes the headlines but has very little to do with the direct causes which include deforestation at higher altitudes, desertification at lower altitudes, poor management of flood control infrastructure built by colonizers, and deforestation on coastlines.

“Flooding” is interesting in that it is a primary driver of unconsolidated aquifer replenishment. Extreme precipitation events are almost exclusively responsible for aquifer recharge in many regions. Other benefits include healthy wetlands, healthy river delta ecosystems, and deposition of mineral rich sediment on agricultural land bordering waterways.

You can’t deal with the negative outcomes of anthropogenic climate change. Because you don’t know what specific human activities are most responsible for each problem. You seem unaware of anthropogenic causes of fires in Australia outside of CO2 driven warming. You don’t know what anthropogenic factors are responsible for flooding in specific areas.

Because you don’t know what’s actually the main cause of problems you can’t solve them. We can stop fossil fuel usage tomorrow and the flooding problems in Bangladesh will never improve. We can stop fossil fuel usage tomorrow and fires will continue to be more severe in Australia.

The fact warming is occurring does not mean warming is the cause of all the problems we face. Many are anthropogenic, but unrelated to CO2. You can cherry pick effects of warming all you like. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t many very positive effects as well. Just because you aren’t aware of something doesn’t exclude it’s existence. You are well aware of problems that can/may result from climate change. I’m well aware of them as well. You are not aware of very positive effects of climate change. We should never make decisions without full data sets. We wouldn’t trade our car in on a new one without making some kind of cost/benefit analysis. We shouldn’t make decisions on climate without at least knowing about some of the data needed to perform a cost/benefit analysis. I’m just here to help you learn a bit about the actual science involved so you at least have the option of basing your opinions on all the facts, not just a few headlines from the media.

 

The latter two are completely different from the ChatGPT/autofill type, as they create their training data themselves. You haven't done your homework.

Wrong. The difference is very obvious: the AI can be used to generate an arbitrarily large quantity of coherent-looking "argument" that just regurgitates the commonest Internet opinions without actually understanding anything it has written.

It's pretty much autofill on steroids, like I said. You have not done your homework.

No, because the AI can't (yet) actually follow an argument.

Your AI "contribution" essentially just copy-pasted the commonest expressed views from the Internet, including the exploded consensus claim.

Wrong. Using AI just means you can generate an arbitrarily large quantity of "consensus" boilerplate with minimal effort. A human being can't possibly address it all.

 

Again - where are your “facts”?

 

Oh! Oh! Oh! Can I please please please add this to my list of the most hilariously inaccurate misunderstandings and misinterpretations of science! Please! Please!

 

If you follow my conversations with @557, that wouldn't be a fair characterization. I'll present a point of view, noting that I can't have a point of view because I do not know a lot about the subject, but I'll present a point of view to gauge the reaction of others, noting also their credibility on the subject, and gauge reactions and listen to what appeals to my personal sensibilities. That's the best one can do, if you are not a climate scientist, I do know that many who purport to work in the field, or are knowledgeable, many disagree with each other. Then the question becomes who is right? I don't know that we can know, to be frank.

If that is true, and I think it is, then the question becomes, which path is the wisest path to take, in terms of public policy?

Should do we nothing?

or should we do something? If we should do something, what should we do?

A lot of folks are providing a lot of answers to that question, some much more detailed than others over those who tend to think in a binary framework.

You tell me.

 

IF you're serious I'd like to recommend this book by Judith Curry PhD.She explains her conversion from AGW radical to a more balanced approach and presents a science approach to deal with the uncertainty of climate change using risks management analysis and techniques. (book title is link)