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

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Now you can argue against the consensus that sex causes pregnancy.

Consensus may be true or it may be false.  Only a fool would deny that truth.  But I understand.  For you the science is settled.  Therefore the consensus about climate change is a case where consensus is due to proof, therefore consensus and truth are one and the same.

One small factoid which I'll use to throw a monkey wrench in your pristine flow of logic . . . the science has not been settled.  Which brings us back to square one.  If a thing has not been definitively proven to be true then one cannot use consensus as proof that the thing is true.

Now if you call those who disagree with climate change believers Deniers then you can be called a Denier of the science being settled.

One other point for you to remember.  As there continue to be plentiful opposing arguments and the battle rages you don't get to step into the middle of the fray and declare, as if you have some God given ultimate authority, that your side won.  You would get a resounding <self-deleted> as a reply.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, owl sees all said:

Wiki is edited by people like me and you.

 

I have edited many subjects. It is sometimes difficult to keep one's opinions away. In saying that, a good deal of the 'facts/truth' is opinion, and not nearly objective enough.

Then moderated if those edits are found to be false and without verifiable and credible links. I have also added to wiki with credible links. However that is pure deflection from the point of my post.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, BE88 said:

I note that it is more humid this year and consequently hotter with temperatures also generally lower than in recent years.

I have read in recent months that solar activity has increased and therefore it can be assumed that the heat of the sun hitting the earth has increased.

If it increases more as the sorcerer Gutierrez predicts, we could ask for political asylum in Finland where it seems that so far all Finns pray every evening for it to get warmer.

Your first sentence shows that you don't understand the difference between climate and weather.

 

Increased solar activity is  about sunspots. It's true that when the activity of sunspots is at its peak, solar radiation of the earth increases by 0.1%. And there has been observed a very small positive correlation between solar activity and climate. But the thing his, for the last several solar cycles, solar activity had been unusually low. Despite which, the rate of temperature change accelerated. So, increased solar activity now, may slightly raise the average global temperature. But its contribution is insignificant when compared to the effect of greenhouse gasses.

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You place a lot on wiki based on Consensus, in which case here's something else from Wiki for you:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

 

Oh and here's another wiki entry for you.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Brilliant, there Bkk Brian.  You deserve a gold star for posting a Wiki article defining Scientific Consensus in which nowhere equating consensus as definitive proof that something is true or false.

Further on in the article:

Perception of whether a scientific consensus exists on a given issue, and how strong that conception is, has been described as a "gateway belief" upon which other beliefs and then action are based.

Beliefs?  Huh?

As to the Wiki link "Scientific Consensus On Climate Change" everyone is more than well aware that Wiki is radically leftist, thus highly biased and not at all objective.  I love Wiki.  But I use it only for information on subject matter that is neutral and therefore of no interest to the left.

 

[Tippaporn]

22 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, here's my reply to your logorrhea

It if were just a case of arguing from authority, you might have a point. If this was a discussion of history, religion or literature where opinions necessarily play a part, your claims would be valid. But this is not about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or the role of irony in Jane's Austen novels, or how much did familial ties contribute to the decline of the Roman Empire. This is science, and it's not the authority of an individual per se that's being invoked, but the weight of their research. What's more, the major dissenters to this research have repeatedly failed in their predictions and have even resorted to blatantly misleading evidence to support their case. I have spent a lot of time here, showing how misleading or misled ACC denialists are. Given the overwhelming weight of the results of research, the odds that current basic understanding of major contribution of increased emissions of CO2, methane, nitrous oxide etc. is false,  are clearly statistically insignificant.

Of course, if someone is a conspiracy theorist and an ACC denialist, then they will claim that the scientific results are being faked, or that there's a worldwide conspiracy to keep contrary findings suppressed., or some other unproveable claim. Since arguing with conspiracy theorists is futile, that's a course I don't intend to follow. 

 

It's a simple question requiring only a yes or no answer, placeholder.  And you haven't answered.  You could have saved yourself the time it took you to write opinions that are completely irrelevant to a yes or no question.

So let's have it.  Does mere consensus prove a thing to be true or false?  Yes or no?

[Tippaporn]

26 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Wiki is edited by people like me and you.

 

I have edited many subjects. It is sometimes difficult to keep one's opinions away. In saying that, a good deal of the 'facts/truth' is opinion, and not nearly objective enough.

I've said it many times over the years.  I absolutely love Wiki on neutral subject matter.  Beyond that I wouldn't want to despoil my brain.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Again, are you serious, Danderman123, in consistently deny the truth of that statement?

I'm not ignoring any truth.  And here you're using another logical fallacy.  To disagree with a position does not infer that a position is ignored.  The conclusion does not follow the premise.

 

Are you saying that logic is abstract? 

You can pontificate about what is reality, but you can't explain why the Stratosphere is cooling.

[Danderman123]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's a simple question requiring only a yes or no answer, placeholder.  And you haven't answered.  You could have saved yourself the time it took you to write opinions that are completely irrelevant to a yes or no question.

So let's have it.  Does mere consensus prove a thing to be true or false?  Yes or no?

It's the proof behind the consensus that matters.

 

 

[Danderman123]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Brilliant, there Bkk Brian.  You deserve a gold star for posting a Wiki article defining Scientific Consensus in which nowhere equating consensus as definitive proof that something is true or false.

Further on in the article:

Perception of whether a scientific consensus exists on a given issue, and how strong that conception is, has been described as a "gateway belief" upon which other beliefs and then action are based.

Beliefs?  Huh?

As to the Wiki link "Scientific Consensus On Climate Change" everyone is more than well aware that Wiki is radically leftist, thus highly biased and not at all objective.  I love Wiki.  But I use it only for information on subject matter that is neutral and therefore of no interest to the left.

 

You are attacking the straw man of "consensus" without addressing the proof behind the consensus.

 

Classic troll maneuver.

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Brilliant, there Bkk Brian.  You deserve a gold star for posting a Wiki article defining Scientific Consensus in which nowhere equating consensus as definitive proof that something is true or false.

Further on in the article:

Perception of whether a scientific consensus exists on a given issue, and how strong that conception is, has been described as a "gateway belief" upon which other beliefs and then action are based.

Beliefs?  Huh?

As to the Wiki link "Scientific Consensus On Climate Change" everyone is more than well aware that Wiki is radically leftist, thus highly biased and not at all objective.  I love Wiki.  But I use it only for information on subject matter that is neutral and therefore of no interest to the left.

 

You missed out the context to your quote, ie the heading. Here it is in full.

 

 

Here is the link it bases that on [26]

 "(Note that the term“belief” is used here from a psychological perspective and is not necessarily equivalent to
“faith” in the religious sense. Rather, it indicates the degree of acceptance of a scientific
proposition such as climate change.)
In contrast, a number of studies have found overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that humans are causing global warming. The most comprehensive analysis of peer reviewed climate research to date found that among papers from 1991 to 2011 stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.1% endorsed the consensus."

 

Love the hypocrisy though, you only use wiki when it suits you and disregard any other of its entries......lol

 

Personally I tend to use source material so just to remind you of the scientific consensus on climate change with all links in the article.

 

 

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

 

 

[Danderman123]

38 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Consensus may be true or it may be false.  Only a fool would deny that truth.  But I understand.  For you the science is settled.  Therefore the consensus about climate change is a case where consensus is due to proof, therefore consensus and truth are one and the same.

One small factoid which I'll use to throw a monkey wrench in your pristine flow of logic . . . the science has not been settled.  Which brings us back to square one.  If a thing has not been definitively proven to be true then one cannot use consensus as proof that the thing is true.

Now if you call those who disagree with climate change believers Deniers then you can be called a Denier of the science being settled.

One other point for you to remember.  As there continue to be plentiful opposing arguments and the battle rages you don't get to step into the middle of the fray and declare, as if you have some God given ultimate authority, that your side won.  You would get a resounding <self-deleted> as a reply.

You are not addressing the data, because you cannot.

 

Instead you engage in trolling.

 

If the science isn't settled, what data disproves the Global Warming hypothesis?

[Danderman123]

45 minutes ago, BE88 said:

I note that it is more humid this year and consequently hotter with temperatures also generally lower than in recent years.

I have read in recent months that solar activity has increased and therefore it can be assumed that the heat of the sun hitting the earth has increased.

If it increases more as the sorcerer Gutierrez predicts, we could ask for political asylum in Finland where it seems that so far all Finns pray every evening for it to get warmer.

No, solar activity has not increased. Your internet friends have lied to you.

 

You can ask them why the Stratosphere is cooling. They won't answer.

 

And without their help, neither can you.

[placeholder]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's a simple question requiring only a yes or no answer, placeholder.  And you haven't answered.  You could have saved yourself the time it took you to write opinions that are completely irrelevant to a yes or no question.

So let's have it.  Does mere consensus prove a thing to be true or false?  Yes or no?

It's a silly loaded and irrelevant question. If, by consensus, you mean human opinion, then it does not. But if by consensus you mean agreement in the results of scientific research, then yes it does..

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's a silly loaded and irrelevant question. If, by consensus, you mean human opinion, then it does not. But if by consensus you mean agreement in the results of scientific research, then yes it does..

Average humans, yes.  Scientific community, no.  BS.  The scientific community is not exempt from what is truth.

 

[placeholder]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

BS

Wow, for someone who spills reams and reams of words on this topic, all you've got to say is BS?

You've got nothing.

[Danderman123]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Average humans, yes.  Scientific community, no.  BS.  The scientific community is not exempt from what is truth.

 

Once again, you attack the strawman of "consensus" instead of the data underpinning the consensus.

 

What data supporting the Global Warming hypothesis is invalid?

[Danderman123]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Wow, for someone who spills reams and reams of words on this topic, all you've got to say is BS?

You've got nothing.

He can't deal with the actual data, so all he has are abstract arguments about the consensus.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Wow, for someone who spills reams and reams of words on this topic, all you've got to say is BS?

You've got nothing.

Read my edit.  Not that it makes a difference to you.

You've got nothing.™ 

[owl sees all]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Then moderated if those edits are found to be false and without verifiable and credible links. I have also added to wiki with credible links. However that is pure deflection from the point of my post.

Many Wiki pages are nonsense. But that is in my opinion. What we read on the Wiki pages is often someone's opinion.

 

Same with fact-checkers. People read the script and half the time they don't realise it's  the guy they are sitting next to that has posted the piece.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Average humans, yes.  Scientific community, no.  BS.  The scientific community is not exempt from what is truth.

 

Your new reply is utterly irrelevant.

I guess because I've exploded your consensus nonsense. What you fail to understand is that there's a difference between polling scientists and polling their research. There have been studies of both kinds. And it's the polling of the scientific research that is ultimately dispositive.

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Many Wiki pages are nonsense. But that is in my opinion. What we read on the Wiki pages is often someone's opinion.

 

Same with fact-checkers. People read the script and half the time they don't realise it's  the guy they are sitting next to that has posted the piece.

What data supporting the Global Warming hypothesis is invalid?

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Many Wiki pages are nonsense. But that is in my opinion. What we read on the Wiki pages is often someone's opinion.

 

Same with fact-checkers. People read the script and half the time they don't realise it's  the guy they are sitting next to that has posted the piece.

Yep, there are thousand of pages on Wiki subjects that are mundane or have not been updated for years full of out dated opinions. The one I linked to is not one of them.

 

That's why its important to check links to any stated claims that are provided within the articles.

 

Your opinion on fact checkers is unverifiable but you are entitled to it.

[Danderman123]

The Deniers are attacking the concept of "consensus" and Wiki pages, but zero about the data supporting Global Warming.

 

Telling, isn't it?

[Eleftheros]

On 8/19/2023 at 9:32 AM, placeholder said:

As pointed out above, even in the '70's a big majority of scientific studies supported the fact that the global warming was in store due to the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gasses. 

As the CIA reported in a special report in 1974: "The Western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental climatic change. The world is returning to the type of climate which has existed over the last 400 years. That is, the abnormal [warm] culture of agriculture-optimism is being replaced by a normal climate of the neo-boreal [cold] era."

 

Or, as the NOAA wrote in its Volume 4, Number 4 issue of October 1974:

 

"Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an "ice age".

 

"Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world.

 

Or you could watch the 1978 documentary "In Search of the Coming Ice Age", which intends to explain "how the human population is causing The Earth to Freeze."

 

I understand why modern-day politicians don't want to talk about this stuff, but even without the Internet back in the 1970s, the sources are still available to those who care to look.

 

 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

As the CIA reported in a special report in 1974: "The Western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental climatic change. The world is returning to the type of climate which has existed over the last 400 years. That is, the abnormal [warm] culture of agriculture-optimism is being replaced by a normal climate of the neo-boreal [cold] era."

 

Or, as the NOAA wrote in its Volume 4, Number 4 issue of October 1974:

 

"Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an "ice age".

 

"Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world.

 

Or you could watch the 1978 documentary "In Search of the Coming Ice Age", which intends to explain "how the human population is causing The Earth to Freeze."

 

I understand why modern-day politicians don't want to talk about this stuff, but even without the Internet back in the 1970s, the sources are still available to those who care to look.

 

 

How many times do I have to address this issue? I'm pretty sure that somewhere in this thread I posted some research that showed even back then, when climatology was in its infancy, more scientific papers supported warming than cooling. And as more evidence from research accumulated, the results of research showed that it is the case that continued warming was to be expected. It's bizarre that you think comments from almost 50 years ago have any current evidentiary value.

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

As the CIA reported in a special report in 1974: "The Western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental climatic change. The world is returning to the type of climate which has existed over the last 400 years. That is, the abnormal [warm] culture of agriculture-optimism is being replaced by a normal climate of the neo-boreal [cold] era."

 

Or, as the NOAA wrote in its Volume 4, Number 4 issue of October 1974:

 

"Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an "ice age".

 

"Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world.

 

Or you could watch the 1978 documentary "In Search of the Coming Ice Age", which intends to explain "how the human population is causing The Earth to Freeze."

 

I understand why modern-day politicians don't want to talk about this stuff, but even without the Internet back in the 1970s, the sources are still available to those who care to look.

 

 

You will note that all of these researchers stated that IF the cooling were to continue blah, blah, blah would happen.

 

There never was a theory of why there was a short dip in global temperature, nor a consensus that the cooling was a real trend.

 

Global warming was predicted many years ago, there is a demonstrated mechanism for it, and a global scientific consensus behind it.

 

Not the same as the global cooling idea that was a minor and transitory thought.

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

How many times do I have to address this issue? I'm pretty sure that somewhere in this thread I posted some research that showed even back then, when climatology was in its infancy, more scientific papers supported warming than cooling. And as more evidence from research accumulated, the results of research showed that it is the case that continued warming was to be expected. It's bizarre that you think comments from almost 50 years ago have any current evidentiary value.

The poster confuses public or policy statements as scientific data.

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

As the CIA reported in a special report in 1974: "The Western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental climatic change. The world is returning to the type of climate which has existed over the last 400 years. That is, the abnormal [warm] culture of agriculture-optimism is being replaced by a normal climate of the neo-boreal [cold] era."

 

Or, as the NOAA wrote in its Volume 4, Number 4 issue of October 1974:

 

"Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an "ice age".

 

"Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world.

 

Or you could watch the 1978 documentary "In Search of the Coming Ice Age", which intends to explain "how the human population is causing The Earth to Freeze."

 

I understand why modern-day politicians don't want to talk about this stuff, but even without the Internet back in the 1970s, the sources are still available to those who care to look.

 

 

Because I always go to the CIA for Climate matters but a link to that quote is required.

 

I found a link to the NOAA quote but of course totally out of context:

 

Google link

[Danderman123]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

You will note that all of these researchers stated that IF the cooling were to continue blah, blah, blah would happen.

 

There never was a theory of why there was a short dip in global temperature, nor a consensus that the cooling was a real trend.

 

Global warming was predicted many years ago, there is a demonstrated mechanism for it, and a global scientific consensus behind it.

 

Not the same as the global cooling idea that was a minor and transitory thought.

The point is,, that this was in the very early days of climatology. Questions that were legitimately asked back then have since been answered, thanks in large part to the huge advances in both computing power and in the ability of instruments to gather data.