Antarctic base records hottest temperature ever

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.  You MUST doubt the experts.

 

As far as I know consensus just means agreement.

Really? So when a scientist does an experiment they must doubt everything that came before? Start from scratch? That's a surefire way of getting nowhere slowly.

[rabas]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Really? So when a scientist does an experiment they must doubt everything that came before? Start from scratch? That's a surefire way of getting nowhere slowly.

If he simply believed what everyone had said, why would he do an experiment?  Even in daily life, when we test something it's usually because we doubt something.

[thaicurious]

12 minutes ago, Catoni said:

“Science is not politics” 555

 

And yet all the solutions for your “global warming/Climate Emergency” do indeed involve total politics. And in a massive authoritarian dictatorial extreme socialist fashion. 

    Thank you for making me laugh so much today. And do have a nice day also....comrade.

 

I hadn't in that statement said anything about the application or the implementation of the science. I said simply that science is not politics. It is not. My statement stands, your attempt to bash science with perverted notions of consensus notwithstanding.

 

The application of science can indeed be political and this is a dilemma currently. For to stop the world from turning (no more burning fuel, etc) would stop the world from heating which would prevent pain down the road, but that would create more pain now.

 

So in coming to political consensus, which is not scientific consensus, the path might be to reduce suffering on both ends. To work towards reducing carbon emissions now but not in a way that throws economies off the deep end but while working towards reducing our footprint so that the world has a chance to recover should better technologies come available. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, rabas said:

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.  You MUST doubt the experts.

 

As far as I know consensus just means agreement.

I posted what is scientific consensus above. It is not formed by mere agreement, rather by evidence based on scientific method.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

True. You consistently raise the possibliity that it's very small but every time I asked you to come up with a percentage, you've ignored the question. Why so coy? 

Because it's an idiotic question, as you well know.

 

Firstly, nobody knows or can compute a figure. Even the IPCC doesn't attempt that. Second, the figure changes over time, not least because the relationship between CO2 levels and climate forcing is not a linear one.

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, Catoni said:

“Science is not politics” 555

 

And yet all the solutions for your “global warming/Climate Emergency” do indeed involve total politics. And in a massive authoritarian dictatorial extreme socialist fashion. 

    Thank you for making me laugh so much today. And do have a nice day also....comrade.

 

 

I know what you mean. Those evil socialistic capitalists who would impose renewable energy upon us just for the sake of delivering lower cost power at a profit. Good thing there are folks like you wise to their evil machinations.

 

Wind And Solar Gaining Edge Over Natural Gas

"A new U.S. Dept. of Energy study shows that the cost of generating more power through wind turbines is cheaper now than buying fuel at an expected price from an equivalent natural gas plant.

 

That means wind will become even more competitive in capturing more power capacity in coming years with natural gas expected to lose share. Solar power is on the same playing field as wind, and is also expected to see real growth.

The report shows that wind hardware prices are dropping, even as new turbine designs are increasing power generated by each turbine that typical in its usage."

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Wind-And-Solar-Gaining-Edge-Over-Natural-Gas.html

 

 

 

[rabas]

9 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

22 minutes ago, rabas said:

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.  You MUST doubt the experts.

As far as I know consensus just means agreement.

I posted what is scientific consensus above. It is not formed by mere agreement, rather by evidence based on scientific method.

Consensus means agreement. Scientific consensus means agreement among scientists based on whatever results or theory. But, scientific consensus does not ensure something is correct. In fact, one can argue that if something in known to be true, consensus is a moot point.

 

As the Earth's environment is the singularly most complex thing in existence with much still unknown, we must doubt the experts, as Richard Feynman famously said. It is how science works.

[bristolboy]

48 minutes ago, rabas said:

If he simply believed what everyone had said, why would he do an experiment?  Even in daily life, when we test something it's usually because we doubt something.

I got news for you. Most of science isn't about questioning what has been said before. If that were the case progress would be glacially slow. It's about exploring new phenomena. And it builds on past discoveries and work. We are no longer in the Renaissance where old unscientific ideas about how nature works were being rapidly overturned by modern science. Occasionally old ideas get overthrown. But that's rare. But when it does happen it hypnotizes the attention of the scientifically illiterate. Much like  news of someone winning a lottery makes it seem like investing in a lotter is a financially sensible plan.

Edited February 12, 2020 by bristolboy

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Really? So when a scientist does an experiment they must doubt everything that came before? Start from scratch? That's a surefire way of getting nowhere slowly.

That’s not what he said. 

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, thaicurious said:

I hadn't in that statement said anything about the application or the implementation of the science. I said simply that science is not politics. It is not. My statement stands, your attempt to bash science with perverted notions of consensus notwithstanding.

 

The application of science can indeed be political and this is a dilemma currently. For to stop the world from turning (no more burning fuel, etc) would stop the world from heating which would prevent pain down the road, but that would create more pain now.

 

So in coming to political consensus, which is not scientific consensus, the path might be to reduce suffering on both ends. To work towards reducing carbon emissions now but not in a way that throws economies off the deep end but while working towards reducing our footprint so that the world has a chance to recover should better technologies come available. 

 

 

I posted what is scientific consensus above. It is not formed by mere agreement, rather by evidence based on scientific method.

So you would have believed and accepted the scientific consensus of the 1940’s that the continents do not move, and the scientific consensus of the 1970’s that peptic ulcers are created by stress. 

Okay.....

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, Catoni said:

    You’d better hope that we can keep it warm to prevent the next Glacial Period. We are moving through time towards it. The day will arrive when the world gets much colder, and next Glacial Period begins to advance. Hope we can prevent it. But not with those who want to make the planet cooler right now. 

    Or do you want to see many of our great cities flattened by vast ice sheets, sea level 400 feet lower exposing the continental shelves, and billions dead? 

This is a truly bizarre and outstanding instance of doublethink. The same people who accuse others of being alarmist about human caused climate change cite the peril of a resurgence of glaciation as a reason not to cut the production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. All this for an event that wouldn't be happening for another 50,000 years!

"In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.^[3] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene. The amount of heat trapping gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere are predicted to prevent the next glacial period, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles."

^[4][5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

 

 

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

I know what you mean. Those evil socialistic capitalists who would impose renewable energy upon us just for the sake of delivering lower cost power at a profit. Good thing there are folks like you wise to their evil machinations.

 

Wind And Solar Gaining Edge Over Natural Gas

"A new U.S. Dept. of Energy study shows that the cost of generating more power through wind turbines is cheaper now than buying fuel at an expected price from an equivalent natural gas plant.

 

That means wind will become even more competitive in capturing more power capacity in coming years with natural gas expected to lose share. Solar power is on the same playing field as wind, and is also expected to see real growth.

The report shows that wind hardware prices are dropping, even as new turbine designs are increasing power generated by each turbine that typical in its usage."

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Wind-And-Solar-Gaining-Edge-Over-Natural-Gas.html

 

 

 

Great...create more headaches for people living near the wind turbines from low frequency noise and kill more millions more birds and bats. That’s the ticket. 

    How much energy is used to mine the metals for the wind turbine generators and other other components. 

    How much energy for the huge battery storage facilities for when the wind doesn’t blow and for the hours of night when the sun doesn’t shine or it’s a cloudy day? 

     I hear that Germany is having some sort of problem with all of this not going the way people hoped. 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Because it's an idiotic question, as you well know.

 

Firstly, nobody knows or can compute a figure. Even the IPCC doesn't attempt that. Second, the figure changes over time, not least because the relationship between CO2 levels and climate forcing is not a linear one.

So you're claiming that the IPCC is on your side? The IPCC that is advocating mightily to reduce the production of greenhouse gases to get the average temperature increase down from 2 degrees to 1.5 degrees? The IPCC that thought the issue was so urgent that it published a special report? I think what you're doing here can safely be called "lying".

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Because it's an idiotic question, as you well know.

 

Firstly, nobody knows or can compute a figure. Even the IPCC doesn't attempt that. Second, the figure changes over time, not least because the relationship between CO2 levels and climate forcing is not a linear one.

And then there's this:

"The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming. Many media outlets have reported that this is an increase from the 90 percent certainty in the fourth IPCC report, but actually the change is much more significant than that. In fact, if you look closely, the IPCC says that humans have most likely caused all of the global warming over the past 60 years."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans

[rabas]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

I got news for you. Most of science isn't about questioning what has been said before. If that were the case progress would be glacially slow. It's about exploring new phenomena. And it builds on past discoveries and work. We are no longer in the Renaissance where old unscientific ideas about how nature works were being rapidly overturned by modern science. Occasionally old ideas get overthrown. But that's rare. But when it does happen it hypnotizes the attention of the scientifically illiterate. Much like  news of someone winning a lottery makes it seem like investing in a lotter is a financially sensible plan.

Well maybe main stream media news, but not in the world of real science.

 

Granted earth shaking changes don't come everyday, such as the UV crisis, or one to come, dark matter. OTH, science is full of small, medium, and large problems and scientists are trained to deal with the unknown. Rather than listen to me just google "is half off all research is wrong".  It's long been known.

 

PLOS: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False-NCBI

Study: half of the studies you read about in the news are wrong

Believe It Or Not, Most Published Research Findings Are Probably False

Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The Literature Is False

+100s more.

 

Some even claim 90% of all medical research is wrong. No one knows exact numbers but the science literature is not a repository of factual information, it's man's struggle against wrong ideas and the unknown. That's how the science process works. BTW engineering is the complete opposite though the two are often confused.

 

But the question at hand is: would you blindly trust tons of new results and opinion in the most complex subject man has ever tried to address? My answer is, not unless you have too. And not if I will loose all my money.

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by rabas

[thaibeachlovers]

54 minutes ago, Catoni said:

Great...create more headaches for people living near the wind turbines from low frequency noise and kill more millions more birds and bats. That’s the ticket. 

    How much energy is used to mine the metals for the wind turbine generators and other other components. 

    How much energy for the huge battery storage facilities for when the wind doesn’t blow and for the hours of night when the sun doesn’t shine or it’s a cloudy day? 

     I hear that Germany is having some sort of problem with all of this not going the way people hoped. 

I heard on the radio that the cost of charging an EV in ( I think ) Europe has gone up significantly, which will have a major effect on new purchases. EV disadvantages were acceptable when cheaper to run than petrol/ diesel, but not when more expensive to run.

[RickBradford]

46 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So you're claiming that the IPCC is on your side? The IPCC that is advocating mightily to reduce the production of greenhouse gases to get the average temperature increase down from 2 degrees to 1.5 degrees? The IPCC that thought the issue was so urgent that it published a special report? I think what you're doing here can safely be called "lying".

Don't get your undies in a bunch.

 

I am not playing a schoolyard game of "my side" v "your side", but answering your "question" about what percentage of global warming can be attributed to human causes. And as I point out, even the IPCC has not attempted to put a percentage figure on it. Their best guess, after 20 years and billions of dollars, is "mainly".

 

So, yet again, do stop manufacturing arguments and attributing them to me. Especially if you are then going to accuse me of "lying", on that basis. It's childish and petty.

[Dumbastheycome]

Why is it  that the debate invariably centers  on dispute as to cause of "global warming"which is accepted  on  measurements of  oceanic averages over time rather than spikes in localized phenonoma one way or  other? Or even as to cause ?

It is the oceans that generate global weather and it is that which impacts life in general.

When I see those that choose to defy and deny I think about the occasions where  a Meteorological Service has observed  data suggesting a potential weather event but has chosen not to make public in favour of  not causing panic. And then it does occur. Immediate vilification and  abuse  follows due to the destruction and  ( loss of  revenue) !

Humanities  obsession with induced selfish desire based on materialist satisfactions which are deliberately ever set higher and higher in a  donkey and carrot  fashion has achieved less and less security in sustainability already.

We collectively  have poisoned the  oceans and the depleted fish socks  with heavy  metals that are also poisoning ourselves. We  have been duped into accepting the contamination of  basic  food crops by GMO which  can now never  be undone despite  the contamination induced primarily in monopolistic interests of ownership of basic  food.

We collectively have poisoned the atmosphere with  various industrial waste including  background  radioactive elements which has  had a  commercial offspin in the industry of providing symptomatic compensations which in reality extend the need due to incremental toxins.

We are  slaves to the illusion of the sophistication of modern life which is actually only made accessible to a minority of the global population while we make use of that majority of the deprived to extract those elements deemed necessary to bogus prove advanced intellect of a  minority.

As a species  which by whatever  process science or religions deem we have achieved it IMO we are singular only in the ignorance of self deception.

Deny it  or embrace it the course of nature will rule the outcome. It is how, not if, we continue to  survive and pretend all is well that is the  real question.

 

 

 

 

[thaicurious]

10 hours ago, rabas said:

Consensus means agreement. Scientific consensus means agreement among scientists based on whatever results or theory. But, scientific consensus does not ensure something is correct. In fact, one can argue that if something in known to be true, consensus is a moot point.

 

As the Earth's environment is the singularly most complex thing in existence with much still unknown, we must doubt the experts, as Richard Feynman famously said. It is how science works.

You've not successfully countered anything I've said about consensus which I defined according to science, but you have wrongly framed how science thinks about consensus, much like how lay people wrongly define how science thinks about "theory".

 

Terms like theory and consensus take on meaning in science differently than they do outside of science. You've wrongly conflated the two meanings which are dependent upon setting.

 

You say: "Scientific consensus means agreement among scientists based on whatever results or theory."

 

That is an incorrect understanding of consensus in this regard because the consensus of science, scientific consensus, isn't just about individual minds agreeing though they do and therefore there is nonscientific consensus involved in that aspect; but, rather, is about the results themselves agreeing with other results. That's where the consensus of scientific consensus lies. In the agreement of the evidence, the results -- one with the other -- of individually verifiable & reproducible study.

 

Not scientists in agreement with each other though there is that, not scientists in agreement with the data though there is that, but data in agreement with data is what determines scientific consensus.

 

“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
~~Richard Feynman

 

 

10 hours ago, Catoni said:

So you would have believed and accepted the scientific consensus of the 1940’s that the continents do not move, and the scientific consensus of the 1970’s that peptic ulcers are created by stress. 

Okay.....

Yikes. Your ignorant assertions about me are bizarre.

 

In a sense, there is no set scientific consensus before the data is in, or, better put, consensus can be challenged. But deniers misrepresenting data is not challenging. Deniers being contrarian without basis is not challenging. Deniers posting outliers as "evidence" is not challenging of scientific consensus. That's just deniers being annoying at best, delusional more likely, dangerous at worst.

 

Before we had ways to measure Earth spinning on its axis and revolving around the Sun, there were various consensuses about the Earth being the center of the Universe or whatever it is they thought. There was religious consensus. There was political consensus. And yes, there might even have been what then passed as scientific consensus because they could watch the sun rise east and set west as that was their data of the day, that is, until until man invented better tools to know better.

 

Turns out the sun didn't change location winter to summer, we revolved around it. The moon didn't rise, we spun. The sun, the moon, the constellations. It is not that people changed their minds which formed consensus but that in applying scientific method to inquiry, data matched data which is what forms scientific consensus.

 

Once the tools are developed and the data is in, the consensus stands. This is why we didn't know with such certainty until very late in the game (hopefully not too late to fix this mess) the carbon/climate connection. But now human fingerprints have been identified and measured independently, consistently, verifiably. The science is in.

 

Houston, we have consensus.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources...

 

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by thaicurious

[bristolboy]

14 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Don't get your undies in a bunch.

 

I am not playing a schoolyard game of "my side" v "your side", but answering your "question" about what percentage of global warming can be attributed to human causes. And as I point out, even the IPCC has not attempted to put a percentage figure on it. Their best guess, after 20 years and billions of dollars, is "mainly".

 

So, yet again, do stop manufacturing arguments and attributing them to me. Especially if you are then going to accuse me of "lying", on that basis. It's childish and petty.

This is from the IPCC  2018 report to policy makers:

Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5

 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence)

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

Since global warming is now estimated to be about 1 degree over pre-industrial levels, it sure looks to me like the IPCC is saying 100%. Or maybe you have a different idea of what 100 percent means?

Still to be fair it could be as low as 80%. Or as high as 120%

"Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C) higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). "

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

 

And this is from the IPCC 2018 report executive summary:

 "If all anthropogenic emissions (including aerosol-related) were reduced to zero immediately, any further warming beyond the 1°C already experienced would likely be less than 0.5°C over the next two to three decades (high confidence), and likely less than 0.5°C on a century time scale (medium confidence), due to the opposing effects of different climate processes and drivers.

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/"

 

And if that doesn't make your assertions about the IPCC's percentage of attribution of human activities as regards global warming irrational, ponder this: How could the IPCC define a carbon budget that would keep global warming below 1.5 percent unless it had a very clear idea about what percentage of global warming is due to greenhouse gas emissions? Ya think they just used a dartboard?

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 "If all anthropogenic emissions (including aerosol-related) were reduced to zero immediately, any further warming beyond the 1°C already experienced would likely be less than 0.5°C over the next two to three decades (high confidence), and likely less than 0.5°C on a century time scale (medium confidence), due to the opposing effects of different climate processes and drivers.

Seriously? Stop all man made CO2 producing activities immediately- LOL.

As most people would then die, the problem wouldn't exist anymore. However, I think most people would have a problem with that solution.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seriously? Stop all man made CO2 producing activities immediately- LOL.

As most people would then die, the problem wouldn't exist anymore. However, I think most people would have a problem with that solution.

Has you bothered to read this small section of the report, you would know that it wasn't a recommendation but an illustration of the effect of CO2 on global temperature.

[Orton Rd]

Man made co2 has almost no impact on warming, co2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere and 97% of that is natural, man made is miniscule

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, thaicurious said:

"

 

That is an incorrect understanding of consensus in this regard because the consensus of science, scientific consensus, isn't just about individual minds agreeing though they do and therefore there is nonscientific consensus involved in that aspect; but, rather, is about the results themselves agreeing with other results. That's where the consensus of scientific consensus lies. In the agreement of the evidence, the results -- one with the other -- of individually verifiable & reproducible study.

 

Not scientists in agreement with each other though there is that, not scientists in agreement with the data though there is that, but data in agreement with data is what determines scientific consensus.

 

“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
~~Richard Feynman

 

I wish I had written that. Which is why denialists so often resort to conspiracy theories about faked data and conclusions. It's the only logical (but not rational) counter explanation.

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Man made co2 has almost no impact on warming, co2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere and 97% of that is natural, man made is miniscule

So what's the natural source of CO2 that has made its levels so sharply from pre-industrial levels?

As for your point about CO2's potency, I guess the same could be said of cyanide. How could such a tiny quantity of something be fatal?

[rabas]

7 hours ago, thaicurious said:

You say: "Scientific consensus means agreement among scientists based on whatever results or theory."

 

That is an incorrect understanding of consensus in this regard because the consensus of science, scientific consensus, isn't just about individual minds agreeing though they do and therefore there is nonscientific consensus involved in that aspect; but, rather, is about the results themselves agreeing with other results. That's where the consensus of scientific consensus lies. In the agreement of the evidence, the results -- one with the other -- of individually verifiable & reproducible study.

Your argument reminds of quantum superposition, is it evidence or what they think of the evidence? Answer: Yes.

 

But actually I am not the one defining consensus.

 

Scientific consensus is what most scientists in a particular field of study agree is true on a given question, when disagreement on the question is limited and insignificant. The consensus may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

 

I will leave you with a thought. Everyone using the Ptolemaic astronomy system got the same correct answers. Yet incredibly, it turned out the Earth was not at the center of the Universe.

 

Climate models? Not so good.

Edited February 13, 2020 by rabas

[rabas]

8 hours ago, thaicurious said:

Not scientists in agreement with each other though there is that, not scientists in agreement with the data though there is that, but data in agreement with data is what determines scientific consensus.

 

“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
~~Richard Feynman

I already showed that consensus is the agreement of scientists.

 

Feynman was a theoretical physicist. His quote says if you make a theory that predicts the answer is 7, and flawless experiments say is is 3.0 +/- 0.1, then your theory is wrong, or has a flaw. This is not related to consensus.

 

Though your discussions about the validity of results is of course right.

 

Unfortunately we can't measure the future. And there is question how well we can predict it.

Edited February 13, 2020 by rabas

[Catoni]

21 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And then there's this:

"The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming. Many media outlets have reported that this is an increase from the 90 percent certainty in the fourth IPCC report, but actually the change is much more significant than that. In fact, if you look closely, the IPCC says that humans have most likely caused all of the global warming over the past 60 years."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans

Oh boy. Here we go. “The Guardian”

   Britain’s largest socialist rag. 

[Catoni]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seriously? Stop all man made CO2 producing activities immediately- LOL.

As most people would then die, the problem wouldn't exist anymore. However, I think most people would have a problem with that solution.

But that’s their goal. To reduce Earth’s population to 500,000,000 or even less. 

For example, the first of the “new 10 commandments” on the infamous Georgia Guidestones states the following….

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

CNN Founder Ted Turner would go even farther….

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First, says that reducing our population down to 100 million is one of his three main goals….

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Piankaonce wrote the following….

I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.

Mikhail Gorbachev thinks that reducing the global population by 90 percent would be just about right….

“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

But most of the time, the way that the global elite speak of population control is much more “politically correct”.  They tend to use terms such as “sustainable development” and “reduction of fertility rates” and “quality of life” when discussing the need to reduce our population.

https://www.infowars.com/from-7-billion-people-to-500-million-people-–-the-sick-population-control-agenda-of-the-global-elite/

[Catoni]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

So what's the natural source of CO2 that has made its levels so sharply from pre-industrial levels?

As for your point about CO2's potency, I guess the same could be said of cyanide. How could such a tiny quantity of something be fatal?

Nah....bad analogy. How about this one?

    Would it be horrible if five tiny salt crystals were added to your bowl of porridge?   

    CO2 is not cyanide. 800ppm CO2 is not going to kill anyone. 

   Do you live or work indoors? You’re probably breathing CO2 at least at a level of 600ppm. And probably much higher. 

    In the Greenhouse flower and vegetable industry in my region, workers regularly work in levels 800ppm - 1300ppm, depending on the crop. 

    I’ve toured the greenhouses at that level, spending hours breathing at 1000ppm.  Actually it felt a bit refreshing. Perhaps it was the warm humidity, and not the 1000ppm CO2. But it was refreshing. 

Certainly it is nothing like your cyanide. 

   Try another analogy. 

By the way....we’re still relatively close to the lowest level CO2 has ever been on this planet if you look at the past 600 million years. 

   And life exploded into existence when CO2 levels were close to 7,000 ppm. Not a very effective poison to life if you ask me. 55555 ????

Edited February 13, 2020 by Catoni
Addition

[thaicurious]

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I wish I had written that. Which is why denialists so often resort to conspiracy theories about faked data and conclusions. It's the only logical (but not rational) counter explanation.

 

Thank you. I believe that if you were to MRI their brains you'd find an overabundance of white matter. The same condition Trump suffers (& why he ought to be 25th Amendment(ed). Too much white matter works in the opposite way insufficient white matter works in those who suffer autism. In autism we observe those who have trouble with falsehoods. In pathological liars we find people who have trouble with truths. The reason for this is that an overabundance of white matter causes the brain to make associations which do not exist in reality. But that's their reality because the mind requires as much coherence as it can muster. Thus their understandable penchant for conspiracy theory.

 

They see this happening and that happening and their brain tells them these two things are connected. If you tell them it is not connected then paranoia sneaks in because the white matter in their brain forces them to think otherwise. From there it snowballs. Psychiatry does not yet have a way to fix this. Even therapy is mostly ineffective because they so quickly convince themselves that they are all better and then they stop therapy. And the therapy would never fix the physical problem anyway but could if adhered to give them better tools to recognize when they are being influenced by the brain they were born with.

 

They used to be more isolated and less dangerous but given the internet where they can see their thoughts on their computer screen and their thoughts match others with the same overabundance of white matter issue, they think their distorted sense of reality is reality. Raising someone like this, you try to give them as many tools to succeed as they can handle. You pray they do not get into a position of power because while they can function well enough in reality they never have a true grasp of it. This is why there is science. Stringent rules of thinking impeccably. Scientific consensus dependent upon scientific method of evidence, peer review, etc., weeding out the frauds.

 

14 hours ago, rabas said:

I already showed that consensus is the agreement of scientists.

No. What you said and what I commented upon was: "Scientific consensus means agreement among scientists based on whatever results or theory."

 

And, again, that is still an incorrect understanding of scientific consensus BECAUSE besides that theory generally is built upon consensus, not the other way around, it isn't their agreement upon any ol' "WHATEVER" but upon data arrived at by scientific method which is why I over-stressed the point of data in my explanation of why your statement expressed a misunderstanding, unknowingly, deceptively or otherwise.

 

By YOUR statement it would follow that if 3% of shotty "scientists" with more than 2% of those not even specialized in the climate field agreed upon their own kooky denial "theory" (in your word) then that "agreement of scientists" also would be its own scientific consensus which it absolutely is not. Nice try though.

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by thaicurious