Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[Eleftheros]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Eleftheros, how is it that you understand my posts yet the climate change believers can't seem to?  Come on, tell us your secret to understanding plain English and logic. 

Simple. It's because I'm not scared of reading material that disagrees with what I currently believe.

[Danderman123]

6 minutes ago, positivevibes said:

That chart is a lie, along with the whole global warming agenda.

 

Biggest scam ever.

Can you post data demonstrating that NASA satellite observations of Arctic Sea ice are false?

 

https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/FutureEO/CryoSat/Sea_ice

 

Strangely, ESA's CryoSat supports the NASA data:

 

"Satellite records show a constant downward trend in the area covered by Arctic sea ice during all seasons, in particular in summer, with the minimum recorded occurring in the autumn of 2012."

 

Do you think that the Europeans are conspiring with NASA to fool people about Arctic sea ice going away?

 

Do you know how crazy that sounds?

 

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Just be careful in conversing with these people to make it clear it's about the consensus of research results, not about the opinions of individuals.

Eleftheros explains it perfectly.
 

37 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

That's exactly why consensus doesn't matter, in fact.  Consensus means agreement.

 

Because the idea of a consensus is used, always, to create some single fixed and sacred unchallengable narrative (as with global warming and many other topics), and is thus the opposite of science.

Twist it anyway you like via the creation of categories, or by made up exemptions, or any other rubbish logic you prefer to use for the sole and simple purpose of you being correct, placeholder.

 

Here's the definition of consensus:

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

Consensus, or agreement about anything, whether it's on evidence, conclusions, opinions, etc. does not make anything true or false.

[Danderman123]

5 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Simple. It's because I'm not scared of reading material that disagrees with what I currently believe.

Can you post any data that contradicts the Global Warming Hypothesis?

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

That depends on what you think the "Global Warming Hypothesis" is.

 

If you mean the 97% consensus view that the earth has warmed since 1850 and that human activity can change the climate, then none of it has been disproven.

 

On the other hand, if it includes predictions by people like Al Gore that the Arctic will be ice-free by 2013, or the UN's prediction that "nations would be wiped off the face of the earth by the year 2000 by rising sea levels" then there is an entire book that could be written about failed apocalyptic predictions.

 

 

Cherry picking much? What do the climatologists project in the latest IPCC report? What have climatologists projected in previous IPCC reports that turns out to be incorrect?

Were they wrong about the rate of the climate warming?

The massive net loss of water in glaciers?

The lowering of the PH in the seas?

The more rapid warming of the polls?

The decline of sea ice in the arctic?

The rising of the seas?

The warming of the seas?

[Danderman123]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Eleftheros explains it perfectly.
 

Twist it anyway you like via the creation of categories, or by made up exemptions, or any other rubbish logic you prefer to use for the sole and simple purpose of you being correct, placeholder.

 

Here's the definition of consensus:

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

Consensus, or agreement about anything, whether it's on evidence, conclusions, opinions, etc. does not make anything true or false.

This topic is about Global Warming, not the definition of scientific consensus.

 

Can you post any data that contradicts the Global Warming hypothesis?

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You agree that human produced greenhouse gases are warming the planet?

I think a large consensus agrees that the Sun warms the planet.

[Eleftheros]

Just now, Danderman123 said:

This topic is about Global Warming, not the definition of scientific consensus.

 

Can you post any data that contradicts the Global Warming hypothesis?

For the second time, define what you mean by the "Global Warming Hypothesis", because otherwise it is a meaninglessly broad and vague question.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

Can you post any data that contradicts the Global Warming Hypothesis?

Hypothesis?  Did you just admit it's all hypothesis?  It's the closest I've seen you come to any truth thus far, Danderman123.  Congratulations!  Better late to the party than never. 

[placeholder]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Eleftheros explains it perfectly.
 

Twist it anyway you like via the creation of categories, or by made up exemptions, or any other rubbish logic you prefer to use for the sole and simple purpose of you being correct, placeholder.

 

Here's the definition of consensus:

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

Consensus, or agreement about anything, whether it's on evidence, conclusions, opinions, etc. does not make anything true or false.

I will admit that I am using consensus wrongly but only because I haven't been able to come up with a single word or phrase to show that the results of scientific research overwhelmingly agree about ACC.  And that agreement is what is relevant. Of course, climatologists, being familiar with the results of said research, would naturally share an opinion about the reality of ACC. But that is not dispositive. The results of the research are.

[Danderman123]

12 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

 

 

If you mean the 97% consensus view that the earth has warmed since 1850 and that human activity can change the climate, then none of it has been disproven.

 

On the other hand, if it includes predictions by people like Al Gore that the Arctic will be ice-free by 2013, 

 

 

Al Gore quoted a scientist who stated that there would be a 75% probability that the Arctic would be ice free in the summer of 2015.

 

It indeed was close to ice free during the summer.

 

And since that prediction, Arctic sea ice has been declining.

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Danderman123

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I will admit that I am using consensus wrongly but only because I haven't been able to come up with a single word or phrase to show that the results of scientific research overwhelmingly agree about ACC.  And that agreement is what is relevant. Of course, climatologists, being familiar with the results of said research, would naturally share an opinion about the reality of ACC. But that is not dispositive. The results of the research are.

The available dataset supports the Global Warming hypothesis.

 

The Deniers here waste their time attacking the concept of the scientific consensus, while they ignore the data underlying the consensus.

[Danderman123]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Hypothesis?  Did you just admit it's all hypothesis?  It's the closest I've seen you come to any truth thus far, Danderman123.  Congratulations!  Better late to the party than never. 

Its pretty obvious that you are clueless about science.

 

The available data supports the hypothesis that the planet is warming, due to human produced greenhouse gases.

 

Do you disagree?

[Danderman123]

42 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think a large consensus agrees that the Sun warms the planet.

And what is producing the additional warming we have seen over the last decades, increased solar activity or human produced greenhouse gases?

[Danderman123]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Eleftheros explains it perfectly.
 

Twist it anyway you like via the creation of categories, or by made up exemptions, or any other rubbish logic you prefer to use for the sole and simple purpose of you being correct, placeholder.

 

Here's the definition of consensus:

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

Consensus, or agreement about anything, whether it's on evidence, conclusions, opinions, etc. does not make anything true or false.

And you can further reduce your position to:

 

it's impossible to know what is real.

 

That works for inmates of lunatic asylums.

 

Meanwhile, the available dataset supports the Global Warming hypothesis so well that you can't disagree, you can only change the subject. Which you will do in 1....2....3....

[positivevibes]

One positive from the last few years is that those who never think critically are easy to identify and avoid. Wearing N95s basically tells the world that you believe most government propaganda and lies, including global warming.

 

Wearing two masks is mental illness.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, positivevibes said:

One positive from the last few years is that those who never think critically are easy to identify and avoid. Wearing N95s basically tells the world that you believe most government propaganda and lies, including global warming.

 

Wearing two masks is mental illness.

 

 

You've posted enough dis info on climate change, lets not go way off topic with covid eh, all your doing is peeking out of that cozy little bunker to see how much you can get away with.

[Eleftheros]

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The available data supports the hypothesis that the planet is warming, due to human produced greenhouse gases.

That's it? That's the Global Warming Hypothesis?

 

Oh, well, in that case we better ban fossil fuels immediately, or humanity will be extinct by 2030.

 

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The available dataset supports the Global Warming hypothesis.

 

The Deniers here waste their time attacking the concept of the scientific consensus, while they ignore the data underlying the consensus.

Before Tippaporn gloats over another semantic issue, at this point in time, it's graduated to be called the Theory of Global Warming.

[Danderman123]

8 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

That's it? That's the Global Warming Hypothesis?

 

Oh, well, in that case we better ban fossil fuels immediately, or humanity will be extinct by 2030.

 

Since you agree "that the earth has warmed since 1850 and that human activity can change the climate", it looks like our differences are about how bad it's going to be.

 

Like you, I don't believe the more alarmist claims.

 

But, unlike you, I believe that there are some very real consequences from this human caused warming. Like my ruined vineyard, which is due to overly mild winters, starting about 10 years ago. 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I will admit that I am using consensus wrongly but only because I haven't been able to come up with a single word or phrase to show that the results of scientific research overwhelmingly agree about ACC.  And that agreement is what is relevant. Of course, climatologists, being familiar with the results of said research, would naturally share an opinion about the reality of ACC. But that is not dispositive. The results of the research are.

Thanks you for that admission, placeholder.  Truly.  And I am not at all being facetious.

Let me ask you this question.  Can you name me a single instance in the modern age of science in which there was unanimous or near unanimous consensus of some established scientific fact or evidence which at some point in the future was overturned?  Any such instance you can find would serve as a poster child example of why consensus, or agreement, no matter the degree of it, does not make something true.  Or false.  Only proof can do this.  And even then it will always be open to the possibility that one day it may be disproved.  That is the true nature of science.  Science is not about "Hey, everybody, here's what we found to be true so everybody else shut the f up."  That is what we have here on this thread now.

Another question.  Is that what you want to be part of?

The reason I have so focused on consensus is, as I've stated several times, it is used maliciously and deceptively to give the illusion to an ill-informed and thus susceptible public that consensus makes something true.  It affords the ability to create studies about this, that, and the other - on any issue someone may wish to benefit from - tout the consensus line that "the majority of scientists agree" and thus God has spoken.  Once God has spoken then anyone who speaks against God is a heretic, an idiot - you're well aware of what is done to dissenters so I don't have to make a complete list.  And then the policy makers take over to implement exactly what they want to do.  And they have "the science" to back them.

Now I wish we lived in a world in which devious people did not exist.  But ours is not such a world  So I do not fool myself in the least and therefore look with a very discerning eye whenever policies are driven and backed by "science."  Especially . . . especially when you are not allowed to even question the "science."  Now either I'm conspiratorial or I'm just making an accurate assessment of the real world but I have noticed that there are great sums of money involved in all issues.  Climate change is most certainly, most definitely one of those issues.

Eleftheros gets it.  Many others here get it, too.

Because the idea of a consensus is used, always, to create some single fixed and sacred unchallengable narrative (as with global warming and many other topics), and is thus the opposite of science.

[Tippaporn]

30 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Its pretty obvious that you are clueless about science.

 

The available data supports the hypothesis that the planet is warming, due to human produced greenhouse gases.

 

Do you disagree?

I thought it was fact.  The science is settled, isn't it?  I thought you got the memo.

[Tippaporn]

27 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

And you can further reduce your position to:

 

it's impossible to know what is real.

 

That works for inmates of lunatic asylums.

 

Meanwhile, the available dataset supports the Global Warming hypothesis so well that you can't disagree, you can only change the subject. Which you will do in 1....2....3....

Sorry, Danderman123, but you're not very good at what you do.  You're not much of a challenge.   

[Yellowtail]

48 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

And what is producing the additional warming we have seen over the last decades, increased solar activity or human produced greenhouse gases?

Virtually all warming comes from the Sun. Are you really going to argue this? 

[Eleftheros]

21 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Since you agree "that the earth has warmed since 1850 and that human activity can change the climate", it looks like our differences are about how bad it's going to be.

 

Like you, I don't believe the more alarmist claims.

 

But, unlike you, I believe that there are some very real consequences from this human caused warming. Like my ruined vineyard, which is due to overly mild winters, starting about 10 years ago. 

 

 

Fair enough.

 

Unfortunately, our political overlords - who generally speaking have no scientific training, poor critical thinking skills, and their own political careers at the forefront of their thinking -  always tend to believe the most alarmist worst-case scenarios and act on those.

 

So in their minds, a possible problem becomes a potential grand catastrophe, they enact policies to deal with that grand catastrophe that they have convinced themselves of, and so their policies are wildly at odds with the actual problem that exists.

 

We saw that to ruinous effect in early 2020 over the Covid thing, and we have been seeing it for a long time on the climate front, for example with initiatives such as green taxes which punish poor families the most. It's only going to get worse.

 

[Danderman123]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Virtually all warming comes from the Sun. Are you really going to argue this? 

Trolling.

 

I asked about what is causing the recent additional warming, but you gave an unresponsive answer.

 

It's almost as if you know that human caused pollution is causing the planet to warm, and you can't deny it, so instead you troll.

 

Sad. Why would anyone do that?

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Virtually all warming comes from the Sun. Are you really going to argue this? 

Seriously? This debaate taking a new low! 

 

Whats in the atmosphere would decide how warm our planet will bee, and for more local systems (that also affects us globally), the diversity of greens on land, and sea, our ice caps on the poles, Greenland, glaciers (Himalayas to mention one), the streams in water (also affected by the poles, cold water from the glaciers as well, how methan is leaking, and much more! 

 

And of course the sun cycles as one smaller part, but, not the sun alone! 

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, Eleftheros said:

Fair enough.

 

Unfortunately, our political overlords - who generally speaking have no scientific training, poor critical thinking skills, and their own political careers at the forefront of their thinking -  always tend to believe the most alarmist worst-case scenarios and act on those.

 

So in their minds, a possible problem becomes a potential grand catastrophe, they enact policies to deal with that grand catastrophe that they have convinced themselves of, and so their policies are wildly at odds with the actual problem that exists.

 

We saw that to ruinous effect in early 2020 over the Covid thing, and we have been seeing it for a long time on the climate front, for example with initiatives such as green taxes which punish poor families the most. It's only going to get worse.

 

Please give an example of our political overlords responding to global warming with an act that made things worse.

[Danderman123]

30 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Sorry, Danderman123, but you're not very good at what you do.  You're not much of a challenge.   

You are right. Your main challenge is the data that proves that Global Warming is real. You have nothing to disprove that, so you go on and on about random things as a distraction.

 

It's pretty obvious to everyone that your lack of knowledge of basic science forces you to engage in diversions rather than substantial discourse on science.

[Danderman123]

38 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Eleftheros gets it.  

Eleftheros says "that the earth has warmed since 1850 and that human activity can change the climate".

 

Do you disagree?