The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! human caused climate change makes most sense, and should be concerningin Politics

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42

Science law should have a mathematic proof describing directly a beginning point for a principle of study as a goal reached by research. The math proof sets the focus of scientific study to be explored by experimentation, documentation, and practical application, something like this. “For all Carbon dioxide there exists additional energy stored as heat.” “For all planets with climate there exists a consistent level of carbon dioxide.” “For all thermal energy there exists a gas element that measures thermal properties correctly over solid element.” What the theory of climate changes does is make an accusation that is not held by a constitutional balance of two type principles. Nor does it have type of mathematic proof as a goal. 

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42
 Now, I wonder but highly doubt that Akhenaten can provide any credible scientific information with a high degree of evidential support backing the absurd notion that AGW is a far-left political movement and that it has been substantially 

Reply -  Extract - The group operates the publication PR Watch and a related Wiki-platform SourceWatch, which present the group’s hostile view of free-market organizations.

Note - PR Watch is your source of information. Go back and check. 

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Maurice_Strong

Akhenaten

@piloteer

Note - You are representing other scientists. So where's your qualifications? 
Thus, using your own logic or lack of logic. Any person who is not a qualified scientist is unable to quote other scientists. This is pure horse manure.

John_C_87

Akhenaten said:

@piloteer

Note - You are representing other scientists. So where's your qualifications? 
Thus, using your own logic or lack of logic. Any person who is not a qualified scientist is unable to quote other scientists. This is pure horse manure.

The underlying issue is climate change is a filed grievance it is not a scientific study.

piloteer

 @Akhenaten

Where did you get the idea that I can't quote a scientist?  Where in your world of logic did you come up with the idea that you can quote a backwoods cloud watcher, but I can't quote a legitimate climatologist?(which I haven't actually quoted any climatologists on this thread) Since you or Anthony aren't educated in climatology, I don't trust anything you have to say on the matter. It's nice to see you trying to make a valid point though. Keep at it, maybe you'll get it some day.

piloteer

John_C_87 said:

The underlying issue is climate change is a filed grievance it is not a scientific study.

@John_C_87

Ahhh nope. It's not a filed grievance, and it is a scientific study.

Akhenaten

@piloteer

So, according to your logic or lack thereof, a "backwoods cloud watcher" can't quote scientific evidence from other sources but you can. lol
I think you had better take a basic course in logic and how to apply them in debating. 

John_C_87

piloteer said:

John_C_87 said:

The underlying issue is climate change is a filed grievance it is not a scientific study.

@John_C_87

Ahhh nope. It's not a filed grievance, and it is a scientific study.

Okay them what, and where is the mathematic proof  you follow that the scientist independently confirmed by their study? When scientist's gathering by Constitutional first Amendment  standard as a group, that democratic group's information they present public is a filed grievance. So you understand in whole truth it has cost by debt and a portion of that debt can be found to be illegal and uncollectable. The right to file a grievance does not make a scientific finding a whole truth, it makes them a witness as a united state. What is the principle to be argued and found by mathematic proof in the study. Scientist has confirm the mathematic principle of this grievance, For all ___________? there is___________ ?

Its a study with a finding, what was the target of the study made, was it effects of warming or cause of warming? As of right now the mathematic proof shared is, for all carbon dioxide there is man made change in climate. Is this what the study is saying, or will say under oath as whole truth?

Akhenaten

Still waiting for a response to evidence that IPCC's predictions of sea levels rising in 2010 which didn't eventuate.
Still waiting for a response to climate-gate email where the words "decline" and "real temps" appear in the same sentence but were said to be not related to one another.
Still waiting for a response to the Earth being like a thermostat and not like a greenhouse.
Still waiting for a response to the fact that Maurice Strong was a communist sympathiser and hater of capitalism.
Still waiting for a response to the fact that CO2 reaches it's saturation point at 80 parts per million and reduces it's refraction exponentially after that.

John_C_87

Akhenaten said:

Still waiting for a response to evidence that IPCC's predictions of sea levels rising in 2010 which didn't eventuate.
Still waiting for a response to climate-gate email where the words "decline" and "real temps" appear in the same sentence but were said to be not related to one another.
Still waiting for a response to the Earth being like a thermostat and not like a greenhouse.
Still waiting for a response to the fact that Maurice Strong was a communist sympathiser and hater of capitalism.
Still waiting for a response to the fact that CO2 reaches it's saturation point at 80 parts per million and reduces it's refraction exponentially after that.

Okay there are several issues.
Co2 is not held as the only blame on temperatures movement in human climate manipulation it is scientific note as a value which is rising along with the change shift in averages in weather patterns. A great deal of mathematic  for all temperature movement there is manmade influence in climate. Direct, induction, contraposition, contradiction, construction, exhaustion, Probabilistic, Combinational, Nonconstructive, is it Statistical, and computer-assisted proof's are all applicable to providing evidence. Would you be able to understand that evidence as it is set in math equation?

piloteer

@Akhenaten

Any backwoods freak can quote climatologists, or use their graphs, but if they don't have a degree in climatology, they probably won't get any of the information correct. You can't get any more logical than that!!!!

ZeusAres42

@piloteer

I am now beginning to know why Oxford Professor and medical physician Ben Gold Acre once said: "I'd rather slam my bleep in a door than have a full-on debate with a climate science denialist." It is honestly that painful. You don't have to say or infer anything about their mentality; their own words demonstrate that quite clearly:

Akhenaten said:

"Climate change is a total nonsense. It is just a political game which is played by communist governments that want to disrupt and damage the capitalist society."

Sharky Said:
"It has become obvious to open-minded and well-informed observers that the climate change issue is being exploited to consolidate power and control and to divert trillions of dollars into the pockets of people who support the leftist power base"

Sharky Said:
"True Believers have morphed into a band of religious fanatics and their beliefs are now based more on faith than on science."

Sharky Said:
"This is the same phenomenon you see with extreme leftists who advocate for socialism and communism. Despite the spectacular failure of leftist governments all over the world during the last century and the hundred million people that they murdered."

CYDharta Said:
"The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true."

Sharky Said:
These tactics have been in use by powerful people for centuries in their quest to exert control over the masses. They are very transparent to those of us who have studied history and their use in promoting AGW doomsday scenarios is so obvious as to be laughable.  

CYDharta Said:

GenericName said:

Hey TK, if it is that obvious, what reasoning do you suggest for why the overwhelming majority of the global scientific community cant see it?
If you are able to see how false it is so easily, why can't the people all over the world who spend their lives studying this not see it?

They start from the assumption that it's true and their jobs are simply to find proof.

CYDharta Said:

LOL, "science" by consensus is the opposite of science.  When you hire and fire people based on whether or not they believe in the global warming dogma, you're bound to get a high consensus.  Of course group-think is unavoidable.  If you open the question up to scientists in related fields, the "consensus" drops considerably;

As I said before

“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”

― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science

When I contemplate this and other things related to science and other stuff for that matter as of late I can't help but feel the same way that Hawking did:

"We are witnessing a global revolt against experts." - Stephen Hawking, Renowned physicist

piloteer

Akhenaten said:

Still waiting for a response to evidence that IPCC's predictions of sea levels rising in 2010 which didn't eventuate.
Still waiting for a response to climate-gate email where the words "decline" and "real temps" appear in the same sentence but were said to be not related to one another.
Still waiting for a response to the Earth being like a thermostat and not like a greenhouse.
Still waiting for a response to the fact that Maurice Strong was a communist sympathiser and hater of capitalism.
Still waiting for a response to the fact that CO2 reaches it's saturation point at 80 parts per million and reduces it's refraction exponentially after that.

@Akhenaten

In 1858, Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated how co2 absorbs heat. She did this by heating a tube with air in it, and another with co2, which demonstrated that co2 did retain the heat. In 1861, John Tyndal was able to identify all the gases that make up our atmosphere. He was able to find and isolate water vapor and co2, and could demonstrate that these gases cause a greenhouse effect which heats the earth surface. This also demonstrates why the moon is not warm at its surface, because it has no atmosphere. It also explains why mercury has a lower surface temperature than Venus, even though mercury is closer to the sun. In 1896, 
Svante Arrhenius was able to demonstrate why and how co2 levels acted as a fulcrum that affects global temperatures. More specifically, he was able to demonstrate how drastically water vapor levels change due to co2 levels. All of these findings have not been refuted since their discovery, and they most certainly demonstrate how the earths atmosphere works like a greenhouse, and not a waffle maker, or whatever you said it is!!!!!!
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

ZeusAres42

@piloteer

Akhenaten

@piloteer

Note - The electric thermostat was invented in 1883 by Warren Johnson which is 30 years after Eunice Newton discovered that CO2 had heat retention properties.
Thus, Eunice Newton's discovery was superseded by the discovery of the thermostat which shows that heat can be manipulated and controlled both by nature and by electrical power.
Thus, the old green house analogy has been replaced by a more logical analogy. 
Note - A green house works by trapping hot air but doesn't allow the air to cool itself in a circulating system. Thus, it is an inaccurate and faulty model. Whereas, the thermostat model more exactly mirrors the global Earth environment in how hot air is exchanged by cool air which is triggered by heat anomalies.
Well, that's one response out of 5 questions which is better than Dr Zeus who scored zero.

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42 ;

Quote - You do realize these are the kind of people that also probably think the sun goes up in the morning and goes down in the evening right? 

Reply - The universe in general doesn't have a north, south, east, west ,up, down or centre. Thus, your last statement is totally illogical. Neither the Earth nor the Sun goes around anything unless you use a reference point first. Then, when you have first nominated a reference point, then and only then, will the Sun or Earth will move according to that reference point.

In the case of your above statement. You have nominated the Earth as being the universe's sole reference point. Note - This is only your own personal opinion and doesn't apply to any other person except to yourself.

John_C_87

@Akhenaten ;

More importantly Co2 effects electric, the flow ability to conduct with less resistance and less harm to components that act like contacts. This is saying it is not the Co2 alone which holds the heat the co2 needs the glass tube creating an environment which did not expand with the heating of the Co2 and has insulation factors of silica.

Human climate manipulation makes most sense and should be alarming as it is describing a balance made aligning society with the forces of nature. A little For your information nature dictates the earth will end as the final mathematic proof. For all Planets there exists and end of the mass.

John_C_87

By law of motion the sun goes up and down by the season of the year which is not a mathematic distance of time it is a measurement of a change in environment. The last information I had read about calculating the sun's day came up with an answer of about 27 Earth days. Meaning one twenty-four-hour day in one sun rotation equals about twenty-seven earth rotations as Earth twenty-four hour day.

“For every sun rotation there exists a second rotation of mass.”

This would be the mathematic proof of time in the Universe and it has nothing to do with the description or idea of space-time.

ZeusAres42

Akhenaten said:

@ZeusAres42 ;

Quote - You do realize these are the kind of people that also probably think the sun goes up in the morning and goes down in the evening right? 

Reply - The universe in general doesn't have a north, south, east, west ,up, down or centre. Thus, your last statement is totally illogical. Neither the Earth nor the Sun goes around anything unless you use a reference point first. Then, when you have first nominated a reference point, then and only then, will the Sun or Earth will move according to that reference point.

In the case of your above statement. You have nominated the Earth as being the universe's sole reference point. Note - This is only your own personal opinion and doesn't apply to any other person except to yourself.

Need I say anymore?

piloteer

@Akhenaten

Sorry about the other questions. I'm not aware what climate-gate is, or what emails we're talking about. I don't know who Maurice Strong is, or how that person's supposed communist sympathies somehow disprove global warming. I also can't for the life of me figure out what the Insane Clown Posse and their predictions of rising sea levels has to do with this discussion. I'm not gonna be much help there, but as far as the other aspects of this discussion goes, I have this.

The idea of "steady-state circulation", in which the earths temperature is regulated by natural circulation of air and ocean currents, as well as absorption of carbon by the ocean and plant life, and "heat anomalies", is exactly what the greenhouse theory has disproved. The idea that you're presenting is an outdated atmospheric model that can't explain why Mercury has a lower surface temperature than Venus, or why the moon does not have any changes in climate. The greenhouse model easily explains those phenomena. Furthermore, the greenhouse effect can be proven by simple observation. When satellites measure the suns heat reaching the earth, and then that data is compared with the heat leaving the earth, it can be easily deduced that the heat leaving the earth is cooler(has less radiation). The steady state model cannot account for any of these circumstances. The greenhouse model can. 

The idea that when co2 reaches a "saturation point", then any added co2 beyond that has little effect on the atmosphere is a simple misconception of how co2 works. That argument doesn't account for the heat that is lost to outer space. The extra added co2 makes it more difficult for the atmosphere to emit radiation into space, thus throwing off the balance of heat kept in the atmosphere. If we pour water into a bucket with a hole in it, we can keep the level of the water in the bucket at a steady rate so long as the amount of water leaving the bucket is the same as is entering the bucket. The extra co2, effectively makes the hole in the bucket smaller. 

Akhenaten

@piloteer

Sorry to hear that your knowledge of this subject is very limited and uninformed. You don't know the person who initiated the IPCC. Shame. You haven't heard about the Climate-gate email scam which reveals the duplicity of the climate change scientists. Shame.
You haven't heard of the sea level rising predictions that didn't come true in 2010. Shame. What the hell do you know then? Nothing, I would say.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance

The final conclusion of this study suggests that the so called "extra heating" is absorbed by the ocean. Thus, if this imaginary "extra heating" is absorbed by the ocean then that would cause more cloud formation to occur. Note : When you heat water the water evaporates more quickly. Thus, this creates more cloud formation and more cooling of the Earth's surface will occur which is in direct line with the thermostatic principles and has nothing to do with the primitive and redundant greenhouse model.

Note - The stupid hole in the bucket analogy dear Liza dear Liza is ridiculous,  dear Liza, dear Liza. Ridiculous!
The holes don't get smaller because the CO2 properties of refraction diminish with increased saturation. Study CO2 properties again, you have missed something called evidence and logic.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42
 Need I say anymore. lol

piloteer

@Akhenaten

The cavity in your head where most people have a brain is what's ridiculous. If you read the first article you posted, you'd realize it's explaining how co2 throws the balance off in the atmosphere making harder for heat energy to leave the earth. And I quote:

"Any changes to the Earth’s climate system that affect how much energy enters or leaves the system alters Earth’s radiative equilibrium and can force temperatures to rise or fall. These destabilizing influences are called climate forcings. Natural climate forcings include changes in the Sun’s brightness, Milankovitch cycles (small variations in the shape of Earth’s orbit and its axis of rotation that occur over thousands of years), and large volcanic eruptions that inject light-reflecting particles as high as the stratosphere. Manmade forcings include particle pollution (aerosols), which absorb and reflect incoming sunlight; deforestation, which changes how the surface reflects and absorbs sunlight; and the rising concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, WHICH DECREASE HEAT RADIATED TO SPACE. A forcing can trigger feedbacks that intensify or weaken the original forcing. The loss of ice at the poles, which makes them less reflective, is an example of a feedback."

As you can see, I've highlighted all the fun stuff so everyone here can see that you didn't even read the article before you posted it. 

OHHHH, GO PILOT. GO PILOT. IT'S YOUR BIRFDAY.

Akhenaten

@piloteer

The amount of energy reaching the Earth from the sun equals the amount of energy leaving the Earth via radiation.
You need to address the facts that I have posted instead of just restating your own personal opinion.
You have already stated that your knowledge of this subject is very limited because you know nothing about the history of the IPCC and nothing about the properties of CO2.
Thus, you are just accepting the establishment nonsense without really knowing all the whys and hows of the matter.
The Earth's average temperature hasn't changed significantly for hundreds of years. The IPCC has a vested interest in creating false data so that they can gain extra power and funding from world governments.
The ice in the antarctic is increasing which is evidence that there is no general increase in global temperature.


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed   to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

Ampersand

So, throughout this thread it looks like through this the stable geniuses of climate-change denial have managed to put together a grand total of one poor argument to deny climate change denial along with a host of random unevidenced claims, conspiracy theories, etc.

To answer the issue of CO2 reaching infrared saturation at 80 parts per million, that would only be true is there were a single consistent sheet of CO2 of standard surface level density. In fast as we indisputably know there are many miles of atmoosphere with different gas compositions and decreasing density (causing the same amount of CO2 per million to have a smaller effect and reach saturation later). The actual science behind this has been known for coming close to 100 years now: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.38.1876

Not only that but we can actually test the competing hypotheses (I'm being generous and labelling the climate denial POV as a hypothesis rather than BS here) by empirically testing it. If the denier hypothesis is right we would see no change in the radio emitted at the CO2 spectra, while if the climate change scientsistrs and experts are right we would see a change. So what do we see? that the climate change experts and scientists are right and more radiation is being absorbed by CO2, compeltely contrary to the deniers false claims: https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

Also just got to shout out to @Akhenaten for being willing to lie through his teeth rather then debate honestly.



If you look at his "evidence" you'll note he's showing the temperature specifically for Perth. Now at that point any sensible person would disregard it anyway, because we measure the temperature across the world and he's specifically going out of his way to ignore 99.99% of the data.

However why Perth specifically? It turns out Perth has had it's weather stations moved a number of times in a way that disrupts the record and doesn't show the climate change effect unless you account for those changes: http://www.waclimate.net/perth-temperature-history.html

That of all the places in the world they happened to pick this one by chance is incredibly unlikely. The only answer is that Akhenaten purposely chose to lie and falsify data bacause they couldn't make an argument relying on the truth.

Ampersand

Oh, and just picking up a thread earlier in the topic about climate change consensus, the agreement among experts is actually as high as 100%. 

Despite the baseless claims to the contrary by deniers earlier in the thread, there are in fact a host of studies showing that there is a ~97% consensus amongst experts on climate change being manmade. The exact percentage will vary a bit depending on how strictly you define an expert. The more expertise you need to qualify as an expert, the higher the percentage that will agree which can be up to 100%: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

I'd not normally go out of my way to point out the lies behind every baseless climate change denier claim, but that's a common one and an important one because acknowledgement of a scientific consensus is a key determiner in people accepting any scientific reality.

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

Oh, and just picking up a thread earlier in the topic about climate change consensus, the agreement among experts is actually as high as 100%. 

Despite the baseless claims to the contrary by deniers earlier in the thread, there are in fact a host of studies showing that there is a ~97% consensus amongst experts on climate change being manmade. The exact percentage will vary a bit depending on how strictly you define an expert. The more expertise you need to qualify as an expert, the higher the percentage that will agree which can be up to 100%: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

I'd not normally go out of my way to point out the lies behind every baseless climate change denier claim, but that's a common one and an important one because acknowledgement of a scientific consensus is a key determiner in people accepting any scientific reality.

Actually, the 97% consensus is based on a lie, so it certainly isn't 100%.  Not that it matters.  As one of the climatologists who's work was misrepresented in that 97% statistic puts it,

Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Ampersand said:

Oh, and just picking up a thread earlier in the topic about climate change consensus, the agreement among experts is actually as high as 100%. 

Despite the baseless claims to the contrary by deniers earlier in the thread, there are in fact a host of studies showing that there is a ~97% consensus amongst experts on climate change being manmade. The exact percentage will vary a bit depending on how strictly you define an expert. The more expertise you need to qualify as an expert, the higher the percentage that will agree which can be up to 100%: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

I'd not normally go out of my way to point out the lies behind every baseless climate change denier claim, but that's a common one and an important one because acknowledgement of a scientific consensus is a key determiner in people accepting any scientific reality.

Actually, the 97% consensus is based on a lie, so it certainly isn't 100%.  Not that it matters.  As one of the climatologists who's work was misrepresented in that 97% statistic puts it,

Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2

I've already posted evidence that consensus as high as 100% is accurate (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002) and if you look at your own link critically and think it through, you'll see that although it tries to reject the consensus it actually doubly supports the 97% consensus of Cook et al.

Although it's a biased hit piece, even if you mindlessly accept every single change it only moves the consensus figure  in the first half of the study from 97.1% to 96.9% - still rounding to 97%.

Moreover by accepting the reasoning of self-reporting in your link, you then have to accept the reasoning of self-reporting in the second step of Cook's study which showed a similar but even higher level of consensus at 97.2%!

You've shot yourself in the foot - twice - but even if you link didn't have these errors and was actually anti-consensus  it would be irrelevant. There is no methodology, no way of checking the data or claims, etc. You don't have to be a scientist to make claims, but you do have to be scientific. There is no reason beyond ideological bias to trust you link and if you're interested in the facts you should look at actual evidence like the kind I've posted.

ZeusAres42

Interestingly, the same kind of denial you see with climate change can also be seen about a hundred plus years ago and some years after thereof, about the case of a causal relationship between tobacco and lung cancer.

"The shameful past

The history of the discovery of the cigarette–lung cancer link: evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll

Free

Abstract

Lung cancer was once a very rare disease, so rare that doctors took special notice when confronted with a case, thinking it a once-in-a-lifetime oddity. Mechanisation and mass marketing towards the end of the 19th century popularised the cigarette habit, however, causing a global lung cancer epidemic. Cigarettes were recognised as the cause of the epidemic in the 1940s and 1950s, with the confluence of studies from epidemiology, animal experiments, cellular pathology and chemical analytics. Cigarette manufacturers disputed this evidence, as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to salvage cigarette sales. Propagandising the public proved successful, judging from secret tobacco industry measurements of the impact of denialist propaganda. As late as 1960 only one-third of all US doctors believed that the case against cigarettes had been established. The cigarette is the deadliest artefact in the history of human civilisation. Cigarettes cause about 1 lung cancer death per 3 or 4 million smoked, which explains why the scale of the epidemic is so large today. Cigarettes cause about 1.5 million deaths from lung cancer per year, a number that will rise to nearly 2 million per year by the 2020s or 2030s, even if consumption rates decline in the interim. Part of the ease of cigarette manufacturing stems from the ubiquity of high-speed cigarette making machines, which crank out 20 000 cigarettes per min. Cigarette makers make about a penny in profit for every cigarette sold, which means that the value of a life to a cigarette maker is about US$10 000."

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87

I'd have to contend this is the same kind of phenomena that we're now seeing with climate change denialism.  You can see the similarity in the highlighted bold text in the abstract above.  Pretty much now, however, the idea that there is a causal link between the smoking and lung cancer is never disputed almost by all members of the public as well as the medical science; it's pretty much a given now!

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

I've already posted evidence that consensus as high as 100% is accurate (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002) and if you look at your own link critically and think it through, you'll see that although it tries to reject the consensus it actually doubly supports the 97% consensus of Cook et al.

Although it's a biased hit piece, even if you mindlessly accept every single change it only moves the consensus figure  in the first half of the study from 97.1% to 96.9% - still rounding to 97%.

Moreover by accepting the reasoning of self-reporting in your link, you then have to accept the reasoning of self-reporting in the second step of Cook's study which showed a similar but even higher level of consensus at 97.2%!

You've shot yourself in the foot - twice - but even if you link didn't have these errors and was actually anti-consensus  it would be irrelevant. There is no methodology, no way of checking the data or claims, etc. You don't have to be a scientist to make claims, but you do have to be scientific. There is no reason beyond ideological bias to trust you link and if you're interested in the facts you should look at actual evidence like the kind I've posted.

Yep, I read the article.  You obviously haven't.  it is far from a hit piece, it's merely a means for authors who's works were misrepresented to correct the record. A bunch of authors who's works were falsely included in the "97% consensus" and which concludes

Conclusion: The Cook et al. (2013) study is obviously littered with falsely classified papers making its conclusions baseless and its promotion by those in the media misleading.

certainly proves your made-up 100% stat wrong.  The real stat is definitely below the 97% falsely reported.  As for methodology, your "study" was so poorly constructed, methodology was never a concern.  "We picked a bunch of articles non-randomly, then we decided, incorrectly, whether they support of do not support global warming".  It was a joke to begin with.  The fact that I can prove a number of the authors of studies that were included in your "study" dispute your "study's" conclusions further undermines any legitimacy or value it might have had.

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Ampersand said:

I've already posted evidence that consensus as high as 100% is accurate (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002) and if you look at your own link critically and think it through, you'll see that although it tries to reject the consensus it actually doubly supports the 97% consensus of Cook et al.

Although it's a biased hit piece, even if you mindlessly accept every single change it only moves the consensus figure  in the first half of the study from 97.1% to 96.9% - still rounding to 97%.

Moreover by accepting the reasoning of self-reporting in your link, you then have to accept the reasoning of self-reporting in the second step of Cook's study which showed a similar but even higher level of consensus at 97.2%!

You've shot yourself in the foot - twice - but even if you link didn't have these errors and was actually anti-consensus  it would be irrelevant. There is no methodology, no way of checking the data or claims, etc. You don't have to be a scientist to make claims, but you do have to be scientific. There is no reason beyond ideological bias to trust you link and if you're interested in the facts you should look at actual evidence like the kind I've posted.

Yep, I read the article.  You obviously haven't.  it is far from a hit piece, it's merely a means for authors who's works were misrepresented to correct the record. A bunch of authors who's works were falsely included in the "97% consensus" and which concludes

Conclusion: The Cook et al. (2013) study is obviously littered with falsely classified papers making its conclusions baseless and its promotion by those in the media misleading.

certainly proves your made-up 100% stat wrong.  The real stat is definitely below the 97% falsely reported.  As for methodology, your "study" was so poorly constructed, methodology was never a concern.  "We picked a bunch of articles non-randomly, then we decided, incorrectly, whether they support of do not support global warming".  It was a joke to begin with.  The fact that I can prove a number of the authors of studies that were included in your "study" dispute your "study's" conclusions further undermines any legitimacy or value it might have had.

You seem to have fallen into a common error where you think repeating your opinion makes you right. In future please provide actual evidence.

For instance if you'd bothered to read the study I provided (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002) you'd have noted not only is it not Cook et al, It's also not a single study that happens to agree with Cook's findings and present a slightly higher figure. In fact it's actually a meta-analysis of all studies into the consensus on climate change. Meta-analyses are a powerful tool because they combine the findings of numerous individual peices of research, providing far more statistical validity than any single study. It shows the consensus is consistent and valid across a whole host of seperate .

For Cook's study, as already explained the number of studies is so huge that even if the few "false inclusions" you allege were all changed to suit your whims, it still results in a 97% consensus.

Not only that but you and the blog post you use as evidence are lying about half of Cook's work, because the procedure of checking with the authors to see if the they have a different view of their work was already carried out as part of Cook's very study. The key difference is Cook et al contacted all authors - those who accepted AGW, those who were in the middle and those who were against. When misallocations from both sides (AGW accepters being mistakenly labelled as neutral or deniers AND vice versa) it turned out the consensus was almost spot on but actually even higher than originally thought - the exact opposite of your claims!

Conclusion: Your blog post with no methodology or data to support ignores the half of the paper where they ensure papers were classified correctly due to the massive bias inherent in it being a non-scientific anti-global warming blog. It then does a rudimentary copy of Cook's checking while  acting as if this is some shocking new insight and only performs the half of the checks which show the papers which need to be reclassified as AGW denial, not the half which would show the greater amount fhwihc need to be classified as supporting AGW. You go along with this presumably because you're biased or have no idea what you're talking about.

My claims can all be backed up by the fully laid out methodology in Cook's work becaue this is something they fully accounted for at the time:

" In some cases, ambiguous language made it difficult to ascertain the intended meaning of the authors. Naturally, a short abstract could not be expected to communicate all the details of the full paper. The implementation of the author self-rating process allowed us to look beyond the abstract. A comparison between self-ratings and abstract ratings revealed that categorization based on the abstract alone underestimates the percentage of papers taking a position on AGW."

In summary:

"The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et a 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW."

Akhenaten

@Ampersand

Amazing Ampersand. You managed to discus everything except the fact that the Antarctic is increasing it's overall ice volume which was my main point.
The Antarctic is the ultimate test as to whether the climate is changing or not. This is  because it is a long way away from any industrial pollution and the effects of soot and dust would have on ice melting. The North Pole is subject to close proximity to Europe and it's abundant industrial pollution. Thus, the North Pole may have a small amount of extra melting occurring due to industrial soot falling on the surface of the ice which acts like a heat trap or blanket for solar radiation. Note -The Earth is like a thermostat. Thus, the South Pole takes up the slack of the North Pole's extra melting and compensates by extra cooling in the South Pole.

Your argument about there being many layers of CO2 is nonsense.
The atmosphere consists of 78.084% nitrogen, 20.946 % oxygen, 1.0 % water vapour, 0.93 % argon and 0.04 % carbon dioxide.
As we can plainly see water vapour outnumbers CO2 by 100: 1
Now, if the IPCC wants to measure CO2 in the atmosphere it's funny how they always choose Mauna Loa Observatory as there first place of choice.
Note - Hawaii is a volcanic region and Mauna Loa is a volcano. Now, how stupid is that!
Now, if the IPCC wants to show pictures of sea levels rising then the first place they go to is Venice where flood waters are engulfing the city of Venice. (shock horror!!!!!!!)
Note - Venice has been built on a swamp and is slowly sinking into the mud.
Naaaaahh! Let's not bother those climate change fanatics with inconvenient facts like that. lol

Note - Avoidance of facts is not called debate, it's called deceit.

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42

Clearly a diversionary tactic by Dr Zeus.
To take the heat off the argument. (excuse the pun), Dr Zeus has decided to introduce a red herring distraction about the tobacco industry,  while at the same time, avoiding having to address many embarrassing questions about the climate change issue.

Still waiting for a response to evidence that IPCC's predictions of sea levels rising in 2010 which didn't eventuate.
Still waiting for a response to climate-gate email where the words "decline" and "real temps" appear in the same sentence but were said to be not related to one another.
Still waiting for a response to the Earth being like a thermostat and not like a greenhouse.
Still waiting for a response to the fact that Maurice Strong was a communist sympathiser and hater of capitalism.
Still waiting for a response to the fact that CO2 reaches it's saturation point at 80 parts per million and reduces it's refraction exponentially after that.

Still waiting Dr Zeus???????

ZeusAres42

@Akhenaten

So why are you waiting for evidence for claims that I've never even made???? lol.

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42

You are supporting climate change hysteria. Thus, you have to defend it don't you?
Otherwise why don't you just go away and hide somewhere. What are you doing here then?

ZeusAres42

Akhenaten said:

@ZeusAres42

You are supporting climate change hysteria. Thus, you have to defend it don't you?
Otherwise why don't you just go away and hide somewhere. What are you doing here then?

I am not supporting hysteria or denialism, nor have I claimed there is no such thing of both. What is it that gives you that impression?

ZeusAres42

@Akhenaten

FYI, for more of a comprehensive understanding of what a red herring and other fallacies for that matter actually are this is a great source I think: https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#RedHerring

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42

More diversions.

ZeusAres42

@Akhenaten

Just to help you out, the "red herring" label you attached to my post about the causal relationship between lung cancer and smoking was not justifiably a fallacy as it was a relevant analogy to this debate.  It was about the same kind of denialism that we're now witnessing with climate change can also be seen with the medical science of smoking and lung cancer that was seen some many years ago.  In its whole entirety, the epitome of the definition of that analogy I gave would be this one: A thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects. Hope that helps.

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42

There is only one human disease which is called vitamin deficiency disease. Smoking may cause a blockage in the lungs as do many food items such as grain, sugar, dairy, alcohol and fat. 
All these items will shorten your life and none are less dangerous than the other. The larger fallacy is that grain, sugar, dairy and fat are not considered dangerous to human health.
I consider myself now truly diverted. Mission accomplished. Now, you can get back to the questions that I have asked in regards to climate change. lol

Ampersand

Akhenaten said:

@Ampersand

Amazing Ampersand. You managed to discus everything except the fact that the Antarctic is increasing it's overall ice volume which was my main point.

Well I've proven you're a liar who manipulates evidence, so any further discussion is really just kicking a man when he's down - but if you insist. 

Contrary to your claims, the Antarctic is melting. Please see the numerous studies which have shown large ice loss e.g. 

Martín-Español, A., et al. 2013 - "The total mass loss of the AIS is −84 ± 24 Gt yr−1" e.g. 84,000,000,000 tonnes over year over over 2003–2013

Rignot, E, et al 2018 - "We use updated drainage inventory, ice thickness, and ice velocity data to calculate the grounding line ice discharge of 176 basins draining the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1979 to 2017. We compare the results with a surface mass balance model to deduce the ice sheet mass balance. The total mass loss increased from 40 ± 9 Gt/y in 1979–1990 to 50 ± 14 Gt/y in 1989–2000, 166 ± 18 Gt/y in 1999–2009, and 252 ± 26 Gt/y in 2009–2017."

The Antarctic is the ultimate test as to whether the climate is changing or not. This is  because it is a long way away from any industrial pollution and the effects of soot and dust would have on ice melting. Note -

There is no "ultimate test" because this isn't a game and science is about looking at all the information, not trying to ignore 99% of the evidence and try and claim that only the 1% you care about matters.

Of course, seeing as the ice mass in Antarctica is decreasing, feel free to concede.

The North Pole is subject to close proximity to Europe and it's abundant industrial pollution. Thus, the North Pole may have a small amount of extra melting occurring due to industrial soot falling on the surface of the ice which acts like a heat trap or blanket for solar radiation. 

Not interested in fan fiction.

Your argument about there being many layers of CO2 is nonsense.

The atmosphere consists of 78.084% nitrogen, 20.946 % oxygen, 1.0 % water vapour, 0.93 % argon and 0.04 % carbon dioxide.
As we can plainly see water vapour outnumbers CO2 by 100: 1
Now, if the IPCC wants to measure CO2 in the atmosphere it's funny how they always choose Mauna Loa Observatory as there first place of choice.
Note - Hawaii is a volcanic region and Mauna Loa is a volcano. Now, how stupid is that!
Now, if the IPCC wants to show pictures of sea levels rising then the first place they go to is Venice where flood waters are engulfing the city of Venice. (shock horror!!!!!!!)
Note - Venice has been built on a swamp and is slowly sinking into the mud.
Naaaaahh! Let's not bother those climate change fanatics with inconvenient facts like that. lol

Note - Avoidance of facts is not called debate, it's called deceit.

You seem to just be rambling.

Do you think there is some effect of water vapour being more numerous than CO2 in the atmospehre that hasn't been taken into account in climate change models? If so then you have to actually say it, not just make vague hints.

Similarly if you think there is an issue with Mauna Lao Observatory being used, please feel free to explain why preferably using actual evidence rather than more rambling or baseless claims.

Akhenaten

@Ampersand

It appears that your studies cherry pick certain areas of Antarctica where melting exceeds ice gains. Whereas my study views the whole Antarctic region and doesn't cherry pick. That's the difference.
I guess that's what happens when you rely on IPCC sponsored science reports. So, do you think that NASA is a trusted organisation which provides reliable information? 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

https://principia-scientific.org/climate-bombshell-audit-exposes-ipcc-data-as-careless-and-amateur/ 

“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”  Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

Note - Just send me your total capitulation message via text. Thanks Akhey.

John_C_87

@Akhenaten ;

There is a question that science needs to be asked. Which side of the Earth is Up?  (A) North pole (B) South Pole (C) Equator is both up and down. 
Why is this mathematic question important in the discussion of climate manipulation?

Ampersand

Akhenaten said:

@Ampersand

It appears that your studies cherry pick certain areas of Antarctica where melting exceeds ice gains. Whereas my study views the whole Antarctic region and doesn't cherry pick. That's the difference.
I guess that's what happens when you rely on IPCC sponsored science reports. So, do you think that NASA is a trusted organisation which provides reliable information? 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

https://principia-scientific.org/climate-bombshell-audit-exposes-ipcc-data-as-careless-and-amateur/ 

“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”  Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

Note - Just send me your total capitulation message via text. Thanks Akhey.

Do you even understand what you are typing?

You have said your study is special because only it views the entire region. You then quote the study specifically talking about how other studies have measured the same regions he did - it's just your study is the outlier that found completely different results. You've already disproven your own claim.

Not only that but even if you didn't want to take the 10 seconds it would have taken to check my citations and find out you were wrong, the very quotes I provided talk about the Antarctic Ice Sheet in it's entirety and show you are wrong! It's normal for people's points to be disproven after they post them, but somehow you've managed to have your point disproven before you posted it (my prior post), after you posted it (this post) and simultaneously at the very moment you posted it (your own post contradicting yourself). That's quite an achievement in showing that you have no idea what you're talking about - I can't think of the last time someone was so comprehensively rebutted.

In fact of over 25 studies in to the Antartic Ice Sheet Regions, the one you reference was the only one that found a net gain of ice loss while the evidence for the others showns a net loss of ice. We expect scientists like Zwally to make mistakes which is why experiments are repeated again and again so that people don't stupidly mistake a failed outlying study for actual reality. There is no excuse for you cherrypicking the data to ignore 99% of available studies and pretend that the failed study you are referencing is accurate.

By the way, if you still insist that Zwally's study is accurate then please explain how his ice accumulations magically weight a third of what they're supposed to according to graviometric tests. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if you tried to claim it was magic.

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

@ZeusAres42

Science law should have a mathematic proof describing directly a beginning point for a principle of study as a goal reached by research. The math proof sets the focus of scientific study to be explored by experimentation, documentation, and practical application, something like this. “For all Carbon dioxide there exists additional energy stored as heat.” “For all planets with climate there exists a consistent level of carbon dioxide.” “For all thermal energy there exists a gas element that measures thermal properties correctly over solid element.” What the theory of climate changes does is make an accusation that is not held by a constitutional balance of two type principles. Nor does it have type of mathematic proof as a goal. 

I think I understand you now. There are mathematical models used by climate scientists that take into account all factors that influence the Earths Climate. See the following for reference:

By 

Chris Budd

Submitted by Marianne on June 13, 2016

Mathematical models of weather and climate: some details

A climate model Here are the equations that make up a basic climate model.


The symbols denote = time
= velocity of the air
= air temperature
= air pressure
= air density
= moisture content
= solar heating
= coriolis parameter (due to the Earth’s rotation)
= viscosity of the air
= acceleration due to gravity
= specific heat of the air
= universal gas constant
= latent heat of water
and are the diffusivities of air and water
= heat available for heating water vapour.

Mathematicians around the world are heavily involved with constructing, studying and solving, models for the future climate. Many of these work in climate centres, such as the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK. The basis of all of these models are mathematical equations. These take Newton's laws of motion applied to the pressure and movement of the air and the oceans, combined with the laws of thermodynamics, which were discovered by Lord Kelvin and which describe how heat is transported around and how water is turned into vapour and then back into rain. Many other great mathematicians have contributed to these equations including Leonhard Euler, and Claude Navier and George Stokes who discovered the laws of fluid motion, which are also used to predict the weather and even to design aircraft.

Source: https://plus.maths.org/content/climate-change-does-it-all-add

ZeusAres42

@John_C_87

Furthermore, for a more specific math model in relation to anthropogenic global warming see here:

Mathematical model to calculate the sensitivity of anthropogenic CO2 on global earth temperature

4th World Conference on CLIMATE CHANGE
Tino Redemann, Eckehard Specht and Roman Weber Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Germany Clausthal University of Technology, Germany ScientificTracks Abstracts: J Earth Sci Clim Change DOI: 10.4172/2157-7617-C1-036


Abstract

There are countless climate models, which predict the impacts of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions on the global earth temperature. Because of the large number of influencing parameters used, these models are mostly very complex, so the influences of the particular parameter can hardly be comprehended, i.e. the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Due to this fact, the greenhouse effect is described with simple analytical resolvable equations. Therefore, a simplified uniform surface temperature of the earth is assumed. The radiation exchange between earth, clouds, space and the layers of gas between is calculated with these equations, which were developed for the analogue radiation exchange in industrial furnaces. With this model, the temperature profile in the atmosphere can be described relatively well. The CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a radiation shield, which increases the heat resistance against the outgoing long-wave radiation from the earth surface. The known average temperature of the Earth was used to validate this model. When the CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled, the absorptivity increases slightly. Because of this increase, the temperature of the earth surface has to increase about 0.4 Kelvin to compensate the increased heat transport resistance. Since 1860, the Earth's temperature has already risen due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions by 0.2 Kelvin. The measured increase of about 0.9 Kelvin is attributed to side effects caused by the CO2 related temperature increase. Therefore, a temperature increase of more than 0.4 Kelvin is predicted for the future. Without CO2, the temperature of the Earth would be 4 K colder.



Source for further reading of: https://www.omicsonline.org/proceedings/mathematical-model-to-calculate-the-sensitivity-of-anthropogenic-co2-on-global-earth-temperature-76310.html

John_C_87

 

@ZeusAres42 ;
Thank you ……...In being direct. I would think a couple small things are missing. Also this is a math model and not a math proof to be proven. Over all it may simply just be part of a mathematic stage so that results of a testing unrelated to the mathematics can actual be past off as an answer to math questions be use of algebra.

At first glance:

 t - time is not clearly defined mathematically as the principle of solar season or time they are not the same.

g - acceleration by gravity is a limitation the evaluation of the models is series of fixed equation. This does not work in favor to establish human climate manipulation. 

There is use of R:

 R - universal gas constant without temperatures of gas like Co2 in outer space, which is stored as ice, that is at least as cold as -56.4 C the temperature at which co2 freezes to solid. 

if I have time I will play with it a little over the next few weeks...……….I hate mathematics and much of my time is now spent on calculus in relationship to time itself.

Akhenaten

@Ampersand

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/

Extract from your reference- 

Figure 3.1 Ice sheet mass balance data sets submitted to the second IMBIE assessment. Some participants did not encompass the ice sheets in their entirety. 

Your previous statement - "10 seconds it would have taken to check my citations and find out you were wrong, the very quotes I provided talk about the Antarctic Ice Sheet in it's entirety and show you are wrong"

Yeah, you are right about the 10 seconds. It took me 10 seconds to find out that you were wrong yet again and you provided the evidence yourself.
Thanks for providing me with your own rebuttal. You have saved me a lot of time and trouble. lol

ZeusAres42

@John_C_87

Math models or any models for that matter are not completely accurate representations of the real world; they simply give us inferences about the real world. 

Furthermore, I wouldn't say there is a math proof yet in relation to AGW but it does appear there is a mathematical probability in relationship with AGW; (not a possibility), which I think is kind of informal math proof.

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

 

@ZeusAres42 ;
Thank you ……...In being direct. I would think a couple small things are missing. Also this is a math model and not a math proof to be proven. Over all it may simply just be part of a mathematic stage so that results of a testing unrelated to the mathematics can actual be past off as an answer to math questions be use of algebra.

At first glance:

 t - time is not clearly defined mathematically as the principle of solar season or time they are not the same.

FYI t- was for = air temperature; not time.