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

[placeholder]

36 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That what I said, clearly the only people we can trust are the people that make their living from climate change hysteria. 

 

 

Just another silly cheap shot from you. No they don't make their living from climate change Hysteria. Unless you're calling the findings of the ipcc Hysteria.They are climatologists and, surprisingly enough to some, make their living from studying the climate.

[Danderman123]

25 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Is the pot calling the kettle black?  Me thinks so.

I find it odd that you make it a point to distance yourself from two of the key individuals who fomented this movement who believe exactly as you do.  It's odd and that is all.  And no, to distance one's self from someone does not necessitate being a follower first.  You're employing a fallacy of logic here.  For A to be true does not necessitate that condition B must exist.  You can distance yourself from someone without being a follower.

 

Why should I implicitly trust the IPCC?  Is the IPCC infallible?  Is the IPCC beyond questioning?  You certainly question climatologists and institutions who are counter to your belief.  Is questioning a one way street?

 

Are you using the argumentative fallacy of argumentum ab auctoritate as you subtly suggest that the climatologists, specifically those at the IPCC, who also coincidentally happen to agree with your beliefs, and the IPCC itself as an authoritative organization, are "the science?"  Even science itself, as an authority, is not incapable of being wrong.  If you need examples feel free to ask.

An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam (argument against shame), is a form of fallacy when the opinion of a non-expert on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument or when the authority is used to say that the claim is true, as authorities can be wrong.

Now there may be a lot of others who aren't aware of the fallacies of argument and logic which you consistently use but those fallacious arguments don't work on me.  I understand quite well their flawed and deceptive nature.

 

"Several times you've claimed that all the predictions of climatologists are wrong."

Here you are outright sticking words in my mouth, hoping readers don't notice, then deceptively making it a statement of fact, when it is indeed false.  Where is the "all?"

  

Neither did I make any claim that any of the predictions made which you are putting forth are false.  Again, I find that your entire rationale within your arguments here are deceptive in nature for they're attempting to purposely paint a false picture.

 

That is not a statement of refutation.

 

"And, if so, where is your evidence to back up those claims?

"Basically, when confronted with the science you resort to deflections instead.

"And that's because you've got nothing."

I've already pointed out to you the futility in posting any information which opposes your belief.  You have not addressed my quite valid reasoning below and merrily continue to chastise me for not supplying you with "my" evidence.  You then furthermore employ more forms of fallacious logic to draw your own erroneous conclusions, such that I merely deflect and/or your trademark punchline, "And that's because you've got nothing."

  

The truth is, placeholder, that you cannot be searching for the truth if your entire effort is to merely "debunk" any and all information which does not fit into your belief system regarding climate change.  Anyone intent on knowing the real truth does not act in this manner.  They investigate all information as to it's validity, or not, with an open mind.  In my humble opinion you have already concluded what the truth is, nothing can and will change that (except yourself), and due to the fact that you are convinced of your truth then you will deny any all other information which is contradictory.  Whether any other information is true or not matters not to you.  For your mission objective seems to be singular, one thing and one thing only . . . nothing more than continually validating your truth.  That's it.

 

So again, do you understand why I do not post any information which contradicts yours?  Because it's futile.  Hell will freeze over before you would be wiling to accept any of it regardless of it's merits.  If merits be damned then so must you damn yourself to an echo chamber in which the knowledge contained within that echo chamber is vastly limited and incomplete.

Verbal diarrhea in place of facts.

 

Your filibustering informs no one.

 

The same question for you: Why is the Stratosphere cooling? Failure to explain this means you don't understand the science.

[Danderman123]

13 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

No, I'm not going to let you back out of answering, excusing yourself via deflection by raising and moving to an unrelated issue; that of Crichton's qualifications in weighing in on climate change.  Whether he is correct or incorrect in any of his views has zero bearing on the issue of whether or not consensus equates to fact, truth or proof of a theory.

In fact, I had raised the issue directly previous to Red Phoenix's post, which I'm sure he posted purely in support of what I had said.  And the issue of consensus is one of the central points to the article which this topic is about.

 

Not only is consensus central to the article, ii is central to the entire debate over climate change.  The use of consensus by the climate change movement is not only disingenuous and uses deceptive logic, it is flat out false.  Article after article after article about climate change makes mention of consensus to mislead people into believing that it equates to climate change being real.  "Scientists agree" and all of the variations in phrasing is meant purely to deceive for they are empty, irrelevant statements.

In fact, the argument of consensus is a recognised formal argumentative fallacy.  It's termed Argumentum ad populum and per Wiki:

Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][14] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[15][16] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[14][4][9] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[12] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.

BTW, you can throw in argumentum ad verecundiam as another logical fallacy which is, how shall I say it, liberally used in climate change articles and debates.  I will also mention that until climate change is definitively and incontrovertibly proven fact it is to that point mere belief.  Granted, that belief may have evidence to support the conclusion upon which the belief is based.  But regardless of the quantity of evidence nonetheless it is still only a belief.  For there always exists countering evidence.

So I'll ask you once more, Bkk Brian, do you agree that consensus does not equate to fact nor truth nor proof?  And if not then state your case.  And if you still refuse to answer then, as I've said, we can all assume the obvious.  Understand that I am in no way attempting to put you on the spot nor am I presenting this with any singular malicious intent to expose you but by failing to answer you must also understand that you will automatically expose yourself.

Now I will say that any climate change article that uses argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad verecundiam to sway the public's opinion is an article that is not to be trusted.  For if it knowingly relies on fallacious logic, with full awareness that it is false, then what other information may the article be conveying which might be false yet slipped in as the odds are gamed such that the uninformed public may not be perceptive enough to recognise the falsity of the information?  And when people do not have access to the full information it is very easy to dupe them.

Imagine now that the climate change movement would forever be denied the use of this deceptive argumentative tool.  They would then have to rely purely on their evidence and studies but they would no longer be able to make the claim that their evidence and studies are true and correct because "scientists agree."  Other information and theories, though they may not be in the majority, would then have equal standing.  After that the truth is determined strictly on the basis of merit.

Since you can't post any facts proving that climate change isn't real, all you have is sowing doubt:

 

"how does anyone know anything is real? So how can a scientist know they are right?"

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Verbal diarrhea in place of facts.

 

Your filibustering informs no one.

 

The same question for you: Why is the Stratosphere cooling? Failure to explain this means you don't understand the science.

The truth I speak informs many.  They're just smart enough to not enter into this viper's den.  Although there are others who speak the truth here now and again.  They don't stay long as they get their word in and exit shortly.  I've stayed much too long this go-around so I'll leave y'all to your carry on in your closed system.  Until the next climate change thread . . .    

[KhunLA]

I consider the warming climate change a good thing, in the long run.

 

We can manage and live in a warmer climate ....

... not so sure of humans success in the next ice age.

cooler or warmer ... hmm

 

 

[Rimmer]

Some baiting troll posts contravening our Community Standards have been removed.    

[Danderman123]

12 hours ago, Shmo said:

Canada removed arctic monitors that they base their average temperature on , less monitoring to work with = changes to the published averages. Science at its finest….

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/high-arctic-research-station-forced-to-close-1.1171728

 

This is just one ground station, mostly used for ozone research.

 

Your internet friends sent you that information, hoping you were gullible enough to believe their claim that the global temperature measuring system has degraded.

 

But global temperature is largely monitored by satellite, and ground stations are mostly used for calibration.

 

There are independent satellite networks operated by different countries, and their datasets are largely in agreement on global temperature increases.

 

Science 1

Your internet friends 0

[Danderman123]

30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

A "scientist" knows they are right when they get funded.

What a stupid post.

 

We get it: you think you know more than scientists, who publish fake papers to please their patrons.

 

 

[Danderman123]

28 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The truth I speak informs many.  They're just smart enough to not enter into this viper's den.  Although there are others who speak the truth here now and again.  They don't stay long as they get their word in and exit shortly.  I've stayed much too long this go-around so I'll leave y'all to your carry on in your closed system.  Until the next climate change thread . . .    

Please post facts, not soliloquies.

 

 

[Danderman123]

28 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I consider the warming climate change a good thing, in the long run.

 

We can manage and live in a warmer climate ....

... not so sure of humans success in the next ice age.

cooler or warmer ... hmm

 

Since you agree that the planet is warming, the question is what is the cost of slowing the warming vs the cost in human lives and money in dealing with future warming?

[Danderman123]

41 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

A "scientist" knows they are right when they get funded.

Your internet friends still haven't told you why the Stratosphere is cooling?

[KhunLA]

10 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Since you agree that the planet is warming, the question is what is the cost of slowing the warming vs the cost in human lives and money in dealing with future warming?

What I think is completely irrelevant, as I control nothing, but my life.

 

That the world hasn't gone solar, where possible, and is still controlled by fossil fuel corporations, sucking ever bit of profit out of the people, no matter what the effect to the climate is, is the problem.

 

Apparently most don't care enough, so why should I care about them.

 

Plenty of solutions, that should have been instituted decades ago.  Still not being used today.

 

I've done all I can willingly, realistically do, the rest is up to everyone else.  You are either part of the solution, or the problem.

 

Hypocrisy - the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

Edited August 22, 2023 by KhunLA

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

What I think is completely irrelevant, as I control nothing, but my life.

 

That the world hasn't gone solar, where possible, and is still controlled by fossil fuel corporations, sucking ever bit of profit out of the people, no matter what the effect to the climate is, is the problem.

 

Apparently most don't care enough, so why should I care about them.

 

Plenty of solutions, that should have been instituted decades ago.  Still not being used today.

 

I've done all I can willingly, realistically do, the rest is up to everyone else.  You are either part of the solution, or the problem.

 

Hypocrisy - the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

You care so little about global warming that you make long posts about how little you care.

 

 

[KhunLA]

17 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You care so little about global warming that you make long posts about how little you care.

Do I care ...

... not really, as don't believe GW is a threat to humans within the next 200-500 yrs, if ever.   Me & mine will be long gone be then.  The idiots that remain may have solved it by then ... or not.

 

Am I doing everything I can to prevent or add to it GW ...

... NO, as I enjoy my AC, and O&As using the facilities that don't have solar.  Not that I think anything needs to be done.

 

Am I doing more than most to prevent or add to GW ...

... definitely, by being off grid with solar and driving EVs exclusively.

 

What are you doing ?

... still driving ICEVs ?

... do you have solar, or alternative, or still rely exclusively on the grid ?

... still flying in jet, locally or internationally ?

,,, using ICEV public transportation ?

... still voting for the same type of idiots to make the world a better place, and actually think anything will change doing so ?

 

Hypocrisy - the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Your internet friends still haven't told you why the Stratosphere is cooling?

I have not commented on the stratosphere one way or another, and (again) I agree the planet is warming. 

 

The stratosphere is cooling because of the Sun, surly you know that, why do you keep asking? 

 

 

[Danderman123]

12 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Do I care ...

... not really, as don't believe GW is a threat to humans within the next 200-500 yrs, if ever.   Me & mine will be long gone be then.  The idiots that remain may have solved it by then ... or not.

 

Am I doing everything I can to prevent or add to it GW ...

... NO, as I enjoy my AC, and O&As using the facilities that don't have solar.  Not that I think anything needs to be done.

 

Am I doing more than most to prevent or add to GW ...

... definitely, by being off grid with solar and driving EVs exclusively.

 

What are you doing ?

... still driving ICEVs ?

... do you have solar, or alternative, or still rely exclusively on the grid ?

... still flying in jet, locally or internationally ?

,,, using ICEV public transportation ?

... still voting for the same type of idiots to make the world a better place, and actually think anything will change doing so ?

 

Hypocrisy - the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

I took my house in the US off the grid.

 

I have solar panels outside my condo here.

 

No car, no moto. Take mass transportation when possible.

 

Have a nice day.

[placeholder]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

I have not commented on the stratosphere one way or another, and (again) I agree the planet is warming. 

 

The stratosphere is cooling because of the Sun, surly you know that, why do you keep asking? 

Why would the stratosphere be cooling because of the sun? Why would it be cooling while the troposphere is warming?

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I have not commented on the stratosphere one way or another, and (again) I agree the planet is warming. 

 

The stratosphere is cooling because of the Sun, surly you know that, why do you keep asking? 

 

 

How does the Sun cool the Stratosphere?

 

Are you saying that solar output is declining? If so, why is Earth warming?

 

[Danderman123]

17 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Do I care ...

... not really, as don't believe GW is a threat to humans within the next 200-500 yrs, if ever.   Me & mine will be long gone be then.  The idiots that remain may have solved it by then ... or not.

 

Meanwhile, tropical storms are now hitting Southern California, Indonesia has to move its capitol because Jakarta is sinking, glaciers are disappearing, all of this must be a big surprise to you.

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

How does the Sun cool the Stratosphere?

 

Are you saying that solar output is declining? If so, why is Earth warming?

 

stratospheric-cooling-ESPHERE-encyclopedia.pdf (harvard.edu)

[KhunLA]

Just now, Danderman123 said:

Meanwhile, tropical storms are now hitting Southern California, Indonesia has to move its capitol because Jakarta is sinking, glaciers are disappearing, all of this must be a big surprise to you.

Nope, natural weather phenomena have been happening for centuries.

 

That people still built and live in areas affected by them is a head scratcher.

 

You can't fix stupid.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Meanwhile, tropical storms are now hitting Southern California, Indonesia has to move its capitol because Jakarta is sinking, glaciers are disappearing, all of this must be a big surprise to you.

Well, Jakarta is sinking more because of excess water extraction from the soil.

Indonesia's giant capital city is sinking. Can the government's plan save it?

"Jakarta is now sinking at a truly alarming rate—a rate that varies around the city but is up to 11 inches a year in the northern areas. About 40 percent of Jakarta is below sea level.

By comparison, climate change is raising sea level by only a fraction of an inch a year...

Massive groundwater extraction is one of the main drivers of land subsidence in Jakarta, a sprawling concrete labyrinth that’s not supported by a reliable water supply network."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/indonesias-giant-capital-city-is-sinking-can-the-governments-plan-save-it#:~:text=Massive groundwater extraction is one,quarter of the city's total.

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What I stupid post troll. 

 

You don't get it. I know I know more than some scientists and less than others, and they don't publish fake papers to please their patrons, they publish real papers to please their patrons. 

in the sense that resarchers apply to foundations for funds to conduct research, and papers are the result of that research, the patrons are pleased. Unless the papers do not survive peer review, or errors are uncovered.

 

The oil industry funds scientists who scrutinize papers about climate change, rarely finding errors. If a scientist could disprove the Global Warming hypothesis, they would become very wealthy. No luck for them so far, the scientific consensus remains behind Climate Change.

 

Except for some oddballs and lunatics.

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

stratospheric-cooling-ESPHERE-encyclopedia.pdf (harvard.edu)

I would say "nice try" but given that the link in no way supports your claim about the sun causing stratospheric cooling, I'd say it was a complete failure. From the report you linked to:

"Cooling of the stratosphere isn't just the result of ozone destruction but
is also caused by the release of carbon dioxide in the troposphere.
Therefore, global warming in the troposphere and stratospheric cooling
due to ozone loss are parallel effects. As cooling increases, development
of the ozone layer can be affected because a cold stratosphere is
necessary for ozone depletion."

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Stratospheric-cooling/stratospheric-cooling-ESPHERE-encyclopedia.pdf

 

Nothing at all about the sun. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Edited August 22, 2023 by placeholder

[positivevibes]

The Earth has been cooling for 600 years. One swallow doesn't make an unexceptionally hot summer.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, positivevibes said:

The Earth has been cooling for 600 years. One swallow doesn't make an unexceptionally hot summer.

Actually there's some question about whether it's been cooling very gradually or warming very gradually over the past few thousand years.. But the last 40 years of a steep rise no one rational is questioning. And oddly enough, the rise agrees with the predictions of even most of the early climatological models. I'm guessing you'll put that down to coincidence?

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, positivevibes said:

The Earth has been cooling for 600 years. One swallow doesn't make an unexceptionally hot summer.

Welcome to the board newbie.

 

you got a link to that piece of disinformation?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_last_2,000_years

[Red Phoenix]

18 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

...

Still waiting for some credible peer reviewed scientific studies if you want to debate.

Not a peer reviewed scientific study, but attached a link to the 2015 Annual Lecture for the GWPF, delivered by dr Patrick MOORE.

> https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/Moore-2.pdf

or here the web-version

> https://www.netzerowatch.com/28155/

The lecture has the title Should we Celebrate CO2? and dr Moore makes the convincing case that instead of demonizing 'big bad' CO2 that we should celebrate it, as it is fundamental for all life on earth. 

It's a fascinating 13 page read filled to the brim with data backing up his claims, and he ends his lecture by stating: I hope you have seen CO2 from a new perspective and will join with me to Celebrate CO2! 

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Not a peer reviewed scientific study, but attached a link to the 2015 Annual Lecture for the GWPF, delivered by dr Patrick MOORE.

> https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/Moore-2.pdf

or here the web-version

> https://www.netzerowatch.com/28155/

The lecture has the title Should we Celebrate CO2? and dr Moore makes the convincing case that instead of demonizing 'big bad' CO2 that we should celebrate it, as it is fundamental for all life on earth. 

It's a fascinating 13 page read filled to the brim with data backing up his claims, and he ends his lecture by stating: I hope you have seen CO2 from a new perspective and will join with me to Celebrate CO2! 

 

 

 

No not a peer reviewed study but an opinion piece by Patrick Moore.

 

Greenpeace has criticized Moore, calling him "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry"[4] who "exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

stratospheric-cooling-ESPHERE-encyclopedia.pdf (harvard.edu)

Just because you posted a link doesn't mean that you understand or agree with the linked content. Could you provide a brief summary of the explanation for Stratospheric cooling? If not, can you tell us if you agree with the findings in that link?