It's getting hot in here....

Austria!

ardinn wrote: »

I posted a video on page 1 or 2 that gives you the exact science - but pick and choose your sauce accordingly there einstein!

ardinn wrote: »

You didnt watch is what your trying to say then yeah?

The guy on the video is not a scientist and not accurately reporting the scientific consensus.

He's a genuine crackpot. It's not even well disguised.

ardinn

Austria! wrote: »

The guy on the video is not a scientist and not accurately reporting the scientific consensus.

He's a genuine crackpot. It's not even well disguised.

Nope - he isnt - but go on explain how he is wrong?

Which part of the specific 5 minutes I recommended is incorrect - or any of the 3 hrs where he explains everything you need to know on the matter.

It is very hard to get scientists who have studied and taught for 30 - 60 years in one particular pattern to change their beliefs or accept contrary evidence as it would invalidate their whole lives work - Thats the main issue with this and other subjects such as the dating of the sphinx and lost civilizations in eygpt 12,500 years ago - which is funny because it is precisely related.

Thats whats happening with you - you were told something for years and you believed it - evidence now proves otherwise, yet you still believe it - because its all you know!

HellSquirrel

ardinn wrote: »

Nope - he isnt - but go on explain how he is wrong?

Which part of the specific 5 minutes I recommended is incorrect - or any of the 3 hrs where he explains everything you need to know on the matter.

It is very hard to get scientists who have studied and taught for 30 - 60 years in one particular pattern to change their beliefs or accept contrary evidence as it would invalidate their whole lives work - Thats the main issue with this and other subjects such as the dating of the sphinx and lost civilizations in eygpt 12,500 years ago - which is funny because it is precisely related.

Thats whats happening with you - you were told something for years and you believed it - evidence now proves otherwise, yet you still believe it - because its all you know!

Look at it from the other side, what makes you so certain that this one chap with his explanations are so much more convincing than the evidence that the status quo has been built on? Where did the sq go wrong? What points is he correct on and why? Why does it invalidate what other scientists see evidence pointing towards.

Etc.

I mean, you can just go on accusing people of not reading your links because something something sheeple, but maybe you need to critically assess your own links too.

ardinn

I follow him and a number of other "crackpots" some of whom have changed their views on matters, and a lot of geological and archeological scientists who tie in with these views on climate change. To me they make the most sense - So I am saying they are right - the same way you and yours are parroting the same stuff you have been hearing for years - we are both probably wrong - I just prefer the new twist - it seems more plausible!

Austria!

ardinn wrote: »

Nope - he isnt - but go on explain how he is wrong?

Which part of the specific 5 minutes I recommended is incorrect - or any of the 3 hrs where he explains everything you need to know on the matter.

It is very hard to get scientists who have studied and taught for 30 - 60 years in one particular pattern to change their beliefs or accept contrary evidence as it would invalidate their whole lives work - Thats the main issue with this and other subjects such as the dating of the sphinx and lost civilizations in eygpt 12,500 years ago - which is funny because it is precisely related.

Thats whats happening with you - you were told something for years and you believed it - evidence now proves otherwise, yet you still believe it - because its all you know!

Do you think it's only climate science and dating objects where scientists can't change their beliefs or is it all of science in your opinion? And if you don't trust scientists on issues who can you possibly trust? Non-scientists? Is that what you're saying?

Incidentally he's pretty much wrong from the part of the video you recommended onwards. He's talking about the temp fluctuations in one ice core as if they're the global temperature. Obviously the fluctuations of 2-4 degrees every 10 20 30 years (17.30 in your video), aren't what is happening globally (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#Tree_rings_and_ice_cores_.28from_1.2C000-2.2C000_years_before_present.29 ), so when he talks about how the modern temp change of 1 degree in the last century is small he's comparing apples to oranges.

25 minutes in talking about the 97& consensus. "Basically it goes to 3 or 4 pieces of research, some surveys that were sent out that were slanted right form the beginning."

Here's a simple link explaining the consensus.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Do you think he accurately describes the consensus when he talks about it at 25 minutes in?

And come on, listen to his description of himself
"master builder and architectural designer, teacher, geometrician, geomythologist, geological explorer and renegade scholar."

That is guaranteed crackpot territory.

SEPT 23 1989

How is the antarctic doing?

Discodog

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I think Ireland will do very well out of this

Look at where we are compared to Canada. We should have their climate but we don't thanks to the Gulf Stream. There is evidence to suggest that an Arctic melt could slow or stop it & then we have months of snow every year.

ardinn

Austria! wrote: »

Do you think it's only climate science and dating objects where scientists can't change their beliefs or is it all of science in your opinion? And if you don't trust scientists on issues who can you possibly trust? Non-scientists? Is that what you're saying?

No - Where did i say the cant? They just tend to stick with the standard order. Changing habits is the most dificult thing to do!

Austria! wrote: »

Incidentally he's pretty much wrong from the part of the video you recommended onwards. He's talking about the temp fluctuations in one ice core as if they're the global temperature. Obviously the fluctuations of 2-4 degrees every 10 20 30 years (17.30 in your video), aren't what is happening globally (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#Tree_rings_and_ice_cores_.28from_1.2C000-2.2C000_years_before_present.29 ), so when he talks about how the modern temp change of 1 degree in the last century is small he's comparing apples to oranges.

1 ice core?? you serious?

Austria! wrote: »

25 minutes in talking about the 97& consensus. "Basically it goes to 3 or 4 pieces of research, some surveys that were sent out that were slanted right form the beginning."

Austria! wrote: »

Here's a simple link explaining the consensus.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

See my first point - consensus - from scientists brought up with old teaching models

Austria! wrote: »

Do you think he accurately describes the consensus when he talks about it at 25 minutes in?

Do you whole heartedly believe then general consensus to be totally true and that my point on aging research and the lack of interest in accepting new studies not to have an effect here?

Austria! wrote: »

And come on, listen to his description of himself
"master builder and architectural designer, teacher, geometrician, geomythologist, geological explorer and renegade scholar."

Thats not his description of himself!

Austria! wrote: »

That is guaranteed crackpot territory.

Graham hancock explains the way people dismiss new evidence and call people psuedo scientists and crackpots etc very well on Joe rogan in one of his podcasts - he is slowly prooving them all wrong tho. so if you dont want to even consider that that consensus is old and biased and there may be a fresh outlook on things then thats grand - I dont really care.

The problem is with the consensus, if scientist go against the grain, they get ostracized, lose funding, lose work, livlihoods - going against the grain and challenging what is in every case multi billion dollar industries isnt very easy - most people just keep going, stay quiet and get paid.

V_Moth

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

How is the antarctic doing?

Lowest ever ice extent:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

If anyone doubts the 20 Degrees C claim, here is the on of the best temperature anomaly visualisations:

http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/#T2_anom

The Arctic has been cooling slightly in the last few days so the temperature anomaly is down to only 5-10 Degrees C. The temperature anomaly has been in that latter range for the last few months so the Guardian article isn't reporting anything new. The only thing new was the sudden melting of around 70,000 square km's of ice last week.

Just for fun, a thought experiment on a scenario of achieving 10 Degree C global warming in a decade:

http://arctic-news.blogspot.ie/2016/07/a-global-temperature-rise-of-more-than-ten-degrees-celsius-by-2026.html

V_Moth

Randall Munroe did a good illustration of temperature changes in the last 22,000 years:

http://xkcd.com/1732/

ardinn

"Changes in the earths orbit"?

Well half of that is wrong - Its widely accepted now that there was a impact 12,500 yrs ago, causing those extinctions, also causing water vapour to rise and create a greenhouse effect! Speeding up the melting to such an extent that what was thought to have happened over 1000 years actually happened in the space of 5-10

HellSquirrel

I watched the first portion and bits further along.

Disregarding factual accurateness, taking as he said entirely as truth, lost civilizations and all; that doesn't invalidate anthropogenic climate change. There is no controversy -at all- that massive swings in climate happen. There is at this stage a tiny tiny minority of scientist who disagrees that humans could be responsible for. I did say scientist, in the most recent study I saw, out of a survey of scientific literature published in 2012, some 2500 authors, and over nine thousand papers, one scientist disagreed. That's what the consensus looks like.

So even if some of his jumps weren't a bit dodgy (I certainly got the impression from how he was speaking about it that he had formed a narrative about a lost civilisation and was a bit determined to fit the facts to it, nothing he's saying there invalidates that the single current cause of massive forcing (has anyone noticed a bombardment of meteorites lately?) is human emissions of reactive gas and the serious imbalances caused to the earth's natural inhibitors of drastic change.

ardinn

HellSquirrel wrote: »

(I certainly got the impression from how he was speaking about it that he had formed a narrative about a lost civilisation and was a bit determined to fit the facts to it.

Now - go watch grahams hancocks podcasts with Joe - its truly amazing the connections with randalls and other scientists work that they all come together - prof robert schock (sp) is another one. and eventually they come on together and start working together!!

Look - Do me a favour if your really interested in this - watch the following jre episodes - they talk about a lot of stuff but its really really interesting and as well as climate change it will completely change your opinion on egypt, the history and timeline of mankind, the warning signals that have been left on earth by superior civilzations before us that are the great pyramids, the sphinx, obecli tepi, gunan padang (all sp) and many other megalythic sites and underwater civilizations that they have discovered. Main stream egyptoligists, scientists, and academics are trying to blacken their names But as the series goes on you learn more of their more recent discoveries, and how opposition is slowly retreating as evidence mounts and questions about existing timelines not making sense cannot be answered.

Start here

JRE

#142
#360
#417
#501
#551
#606
#725
#809
#872

There is something to get your head around - great fun listening that simply challenges what you know and shows you another way of looking at it - Im not getting into the nitpicking of certain sentances said here and there! Watch the above 28hrs of discussion - Ive seen them all numerous times - get back to me on your thoughts!!

JRE is available as an app so you have no excuse - stick it on your phone - the ones with randall though essentially need to be watched.

BorneTobyWilde

To worry about climate change now is to call the people of the future dumbasses . It's only a matter of time before all fuels as we know it seize to exist and clean energy becomes normal.
I for one will not call the people of the future simple .

HellSquirrel

ardinn wrote: »

Now - go watch grahams hancocks podcasts with Joe - its truly amazing the connections with randalls and other scientists work that they all come together - prof robert schock (sp) is another one. and eventually they come on together and start working together!!

Look - Do me a favour if your really interested in this - watch the following jre episodes - they talk about a lot of stuff but its really really interesting and as well as climate change it will completely change your opinion on egypt, the history and timeline of mankind, the warning signals that have been left on earth by superior civilzations before us that are the great pyramids, the sphinx, obecli tepi, gunan padang (all sp) and many other megalythic sites and underwater civilizations that they have discovered. Main stream egyptoligists, scientists, and academics are trying to blacken their names But as the series goes on you learn more of their more recent discoveries, and how opposition is slowly retreating as evidence mounts and questions about existing timelines not making sense cannot be answered.


There is something to get your head around - great fun listening that simply challenges what you know and shows you another way of looking at it - Im not getting into the nitpicking of certain sentances said here and there! Watch the above 28hrs of discussion - Ive seen them all numerous times - get back to me on your thoughts!!

JRE is available as an app so you have no excuse - stick it on your phone - the ones with randall though essentially need to be watched.

Woah woah. I only watched that one because you were determined to argue how it changed everything about climate change. It didn't. Remotely. It didn't actually refer to the points being debated in this thread (at least not in the 90-mins or so I had on). I actually have no idea what conversation you're debating at the moment, but I have a feeling it's not connected to the conversation anyone else is having.

Can I just clear up a few of the most absolutely basic points about this debate?
- Natural climatic shifts are real and we have much evidence of them in the past. Debate was done on this point prior to the 1930s. After all the work done on the field since then, there are still people coming out with "the climate changes naturally" like it's a new thing!!
-The conversation is about -anthropogenic- climate change. Can the human race have had such an effect on the earth's natural processes as to change them.

From the signs showing already, I personally am coming to the conclusion that it's too late to do what was needed to protect portions of our world and we are absolutely at the stage of mitigation. We should have had this conversation ten years before we did. Congrats, big fossil fuel industries, you won. I hope it was fcuking worth it.

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

To worry about climate change now is to call the people of the future dumbasses . It's only a matter of time before all fuels as we know it seize to exist and clean energy becomes normal.
I for one will not call the people of the future simple .

"To worry about hitting someone with the car I'm driving down the wrong side of the road is to call people further down the road dumbasses. I for one will not call the people further down the road simple," he comments, shifting gear and hitting the accelerator.

First off, what is your clean energy? How will it be used when the main push for it is changes to the world's systems which people are arrogantly refusing to acknowledge? Secondly, will that be in time? Or is it just an excuse to floor the accelerator and put the responsibility on someone else?

Austria!

ardinn wrote: »

No - Where did i say the cant? They just tend to stick with the standard order. Changing habits is the most dificult thing to do!

Fine

Do you think it's only climate science and dating objects where scientists can't change their beliefs tend to stick wit the established order or is it all of science in your opinion? And if you don't trust scientists on issues who can you possibly trust? Non-scientists? Is that what you're saying?

1 ice core?? you serious?

That's what he says around the 14min mark. Ice core from summit of greenland ice sheet drilled in the 90s.

Let me ask again though, when he says at 17.30 about oscillating back and forth by 2-4 degrees every 10 20 30 years, do you think he's talking about the global climate? He certainly talks as if it's representative of the global climate but clearly the graph I linked contradicts that very strongly

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

And also you'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that's what was happening. It's absolutely ridiculous.

See my first point - consensus - from scientists brought up with old teaching models

Do you whole heartedly believe then general consensus to be totally true and that my point on aging research and the lack of interest in accepting new studies not to have an effect here?

I wholeheartedly believe that the general consensus is the most reliable thing and that non-experts are not in a position to question it.

Thats not his description of himself!

It is directly from his own website.

so if you dont want to even consider that that consensus is old and biased and there may be a fresh outlook on things then thats grand - I dont really care.

Of course it could be wrong but none of us could possibly evaluate it because we don't have the expertise. And if someone did put in the work to gain expertise and had an argument against it they would publish their findings in the scientific literature. You'll notice Randall Carlson has never written a scientific article.

The problem is with the consensus, if scientist go against the grain, they get ostracized, lose funding, lose work, livlihoods - going against the grain and challenging what is in every case multi billion dollar industries isnt very easy - most people just keep going, stay quiet and get paid

If you have evidence to back up what you're saying going against the grain is the absolute best thing you can ever do for your scientific career. You'll notice Randall Carlson has never written a scientific article.

And about your billion dollar industry comment
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

daheff

Just to reiterate my first point - I agree that we are polluting the earth too much and should reduce the amounts of Co2/methane etc that we are expelling into the atmosphere.

Wibbs wrote: »

We can see temperature and carbon dioxide levels going way back. For example with ice cores. Even art can tell us a lot, EG the paintings of the "little ice age" in Europe. The archaeological and paleontological record also shows us good indicators of average temperatures when we look at the flora and fauna of times past.

Ice cores are only valid for where they are...its not appropriate to say that because the core samples show X&Y to attribute that to the whole of the planet. similarly you cant take temperature readings in the Sahara and say the planet is hot,dry arid & dusty. Same for cave paintings. They are only valid for where they are (and the point in time in which they are done).

And remember that they only go back so far -Because they weren't there before that...why not...because the Earth's temperature was too high for ice to exist.

LordSutch wrote: »

, but what I am pointing out is that man is only partially responsible, while the rest is down to non man made factors, like the natural cycle of the planet.

Question 4u: Does the scientific community specify that man is 100% responsible for climate change?

A very valid point -which I agree with.

ardinn wrote: »

Nope - he isnt - but go on explain how he is wrong?
It is very hard to get scientists who have studied and taught for 30 - 60 years in one particular pattern to change their beliefs or accept contrary
evidence as it would invalidate their whole lives work

Again a valid point -on one hand another poster says we should only listen to scientists because they have carried out a lot of studies...but on the other hand another refers us to some crackpot. So should we believe Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth or not? Hes not a scientist last time I checked.

V_Moth wrote: »

Randall Munroe did a good illustration of temperature changes in the last 22,000 years:
http://xkcd.com/1732/

How many times in this has non-human related issues changed the temperature?

Nidom

How much responsibility does the scientific community credit to human activity as the cause of climate change? Just curious if anyone has figures