• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eschatology and Global Warming

RetiredUSN said:
Only 36% of scientists believe in the man made global warming doomsday?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#70c3ca6b4c7c


It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
Click to expand...

The indoctrinated won't believe it.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The indoctrinated won't believe it.
Click to expand...

LOL.

The ‘indoctrinated’ recognize that this is a study from 2012, which surveyed engineers and geo scientists who were employed in fossil fuel industries.

It’s amazing what an educated man will not believe when his paycheck depends upon him not believing it.

But its even more amazing that an anonymous denier on a message board shills for this kind of bad survey while denying the dozen others out there that say the opposite.
 
Jack Hays said:
Many books are ballyhooed as "important." This one really is.
Click to expand...

Sadly it will only be read by the likes of you, serrious skeptical science types.

If you are going to communicate to a wider audience then you need to have an approachable writing style.

In our democracies idiots get the same vote as the clever. They need it explained in language they can cope with.
 
Surface Detail said:
Don't be so naive. It doesn't matter who your sources are if you don't have the scientific expertise needed to understand them; you've demonstrated that often enough yourself. Adding a bunch of famous names to the end of a pile of gibberish doesn't magically turn it into something worth of consideration!
Click to expand...

so you're saying there is consensus?
 
In pursuit of the millennium . . . .

"In this and other cases that were to follow, acceptance of unpublished new work was justified by claiming that the lead-author discussion -- even the debate about its very inclusion -- is an adequate substitute for the normal processes of scientific review. Whether or not this is true, the IPCC fell into a heavy reliance on work that had not undergone the normal processes of scientific scrutiny and which was also difficult for its own review processes to handle. At the stage of expert review, many of the key findings in the draft reports would be supported by papers that had not been, or not yet been, published in scientific journals. Many would be awaiting publication, and their contents therefore under embargo by the publisher. Some had not even been accepted for publication, and others were not yet written. This practice would only increase during the second assessment, where early criticism by one of its reviewers would be vindicated when three major controversies that subsequently arose all involved findings based on unpublished work by the lead-authors."

--Bernie Lewin, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal, p. 239.
 
In pursuit of the millennium . . .

". . . The existence of inconsistencies in Chapter 8 and between Chapter 8 and the summary is not the heart of the controversy. It is, rather, how the inconsistencies were dealt with and on whose advice. In Madrid, they could have been dealt with by changing the Summary for Policymakers, just as the Saudis had suggested. That would have preserved the scientific integrity of the chapter. However, the detection finding would have been lost. The tragedy is that it had been Houghton himself who had removed the intergovernmental panel from the writing of the assessments so that he could introduce an expert review process entirely independent of the potential political influence of country delegations. In the first assessment he followed this practice. For that assessment, acceptance by the delegations in his working group had been sufficient, and he sent the report off for printing so that commercially published copies could be distributed in Sundsvall, even before the report had been formally accepted by the IPCC plenary. However, this produced findings that did little to support the treaty process. For the second assessment, Working Group 3's attempts to conform to Houghton's independent expert review process caused its final approval plenary to collapse when chapter authors asserted their independence and refused to change their findings. The equivalent meeting of Working Group 1 in Madrid did not collapse, and the detection finding survived to support the treaty process, but only after the man [Houghton] who had instituted the assessment's scientific independence had successfully coordinated its violation."

--Bernie Levin, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal, ​p. 306
 
Religion trumps heating.

[FONT=&quot]Climate FAIL[/FONT]
[h=1]Massachusetts residents get to “freeze in the dark” for “social justice”![/h][FONT=&quot]Guest ridicule by David Middleton From the folks who brought us the #ExxonKnew fraud… Nearly 9,000 households in eastern Massachusetts have had to make do without natural gas since mid-September, when an aging natural gas pipeline failed and set off a series of explosions and fires across the cities of Lawrence, Andover and North Andover.…
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Religion trumps heating.

[FONT=&quot]Climate FAIL[/FONT]
[h=1]Massachusetts residents get to “freeze in the dark” for “social justice”![/h][FONT=&quot]Guest ridicule by David Middleton From the folks who brought us the #ExxonKnew fraud… Nearly 9,000 households in eastern Massachusetts have had to make do without natural gas since mid-September, when an aging natural gas pipeline failed and set off a series of explosions and fires across the cities of Lawrence, Andover and North Andover.…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Yep. The deniers sure do love that old time religion.

Who We Are
 
Threegoofs said:
Yep. The deniers sure do love that old time religion.

Who We Are
Click to expand...

That page timed out on me so I don't now your point. Heat pumps work great and are cheaper than electric heat. I don't know if the are cheaper than natural gas heat.

Have to have modern designs for as cold as it gets in Massachusetts though. Many older designs don't work well, and some not all in freezing temperatures.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
That page timed out on me so I don't now your point. Heat pumps work great and are cheaper than electric heat. I don't know if the are cheaper than natural gas heat.

Have to have modern designs for as cold as it gets in Massachusetts though. Many older designs don't work well, and some not all in freezing temperatures.
Click to expand...

Heat pumps need supplemental heating (like from natural gas or something) in most winter weather. They are great in the summer for the air conditioning they supply though, and they DO cut down on use of natural gas (or other furnace fuel) a bit in the winter.
 
Into the Night said:
Heat pumps need supplemental heating (like from natural gas or something) in most winter weather. They are great in the summer for the air conditioning they supply though, and they DO cut down on use of natural gas (or other furnace fuel) a bit in the winter.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that argument. Heat is heat, and the costs are involved in how much heat is being exchanged.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't buy that argument. Heat is heat, and the costs are involved in how much heat is being exchanged.
Click to expand...

Heat is indeed heat. The costs differ in producing the same heat in different ways.

Heat pumps are essentially air conditioners that can operate in reverse. There is a lot more heat available in the outside air than most people realize. By moving it into a house, you can reduce the amount of fuel you have to burn to produce the necessary heat. Heat pumps can concentrate the energy already available in the outside air and put it into your home. They actually can save money, depending on the costs for the fuel you would otherwise have to burn.

Heat pumps have the added benefit of providing air conditioning in the summer.

Modern heat pumps are also very quiet. My next door neighbor installed one. I can barely hear it when it's running. Larger buildings use them to heat that building. Those are the units you see mounted on the roof of the building. They work, and quite well.
 
Into the Night said:
Heat is indeed heat. The costs differ in producing the same heat in different ways.

Heat pumps are essentially air conditioners that can operate in reverse. There is a lot more heat available in the outside air than most people realize. By moving it into a house, you can reduce the amount of fuel you have to burn to produce the necessary heat. Heat pumps can concentrate the energy already available in the outside air and put it into your home. They actually can save money, depending on the costs for the fuel you would otherwise have to burn.

Heat pumps have the added benefit of providing air conditioning in the summer.

Modern heat pumps are also very quiet. My next door neighbor installed one. I can barely hear it when it's running. Larger buildings use them to heat that building. Those are the units you see mounted on the roof of the building. They work, and quite well.
Click to expand...

Mine is about 2 years old now, dead quiet, and very efficient. My power bill went down substantially for both summer cooling and winter heating.
 
Surface Detail said:
All pure supposition on your part. You have provided no evidence at all to support your claim that the sources were happy with, or even aware of, Lewin's book. Where are the glowing endorsements, the recommendations? It's all just your usual :bs
Click to expand...

I followed this thread to here. 100% agreement. No evidence whatsoever. Just suppositions.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Mine is about 2 years old now, dead quiet, and very efficient. My power bill went down substantially for both summer cooling and winter heating.
Click to expand...

I currently don't have one. Used to with a different house. I miss it. Thinking about putting one in on this house.
 
The catastrophe narrative

Posted on November 14, 2018 by curryja | 38 comments
by Andy West
A narrative propagated by emotive engagement, not veracity.
Continue reading →

Within the public domain, there is a widespread narrative of certainty (absent deep emissions cuts) of near-term (decades) climate catastrophe. This narrative is not supported by mainstream science (no skeptical views required), and in the same manner as an endless sequence of historic cultural narratives, propagates via emotive engagement, not veracity.
The catastrophe narrative is propagated by all levels of authority from the highest downwards, granting it huge influence, and differentially via favored functional arms of society, plus at the grass roots level. Over decades, various forms via which the catastrophe narrative best propagates have become established via selection, and can be categorized. While covering a large range, these forms typically feature powerful emotive cocktails (mixed emotions invoked simultaneously) and great urgency, which are highly adapted to undermining objectivity.
This narrative elephant in the room not only tramples upon the mainstream output of science, but all other attempts at objectivity, at a minimum invoking bias wherever it propagates, and at maximum a complete disconnect from domain realities. While the catastrophe narrative is sometimes acknowledged even by those on the orthodox side of the climate change issue, it is typically neither studied nor opposed (and not infrequently its propagation is praised). On the skeptic side, there is often misunderstanding regarding who propagates this narrative and who merely fails to oppose it, which leads to mis-labelling. These issues are discussed in more detail within a companion post to be released shortly. Below deals just with narrative propagation and the forms via which this occurs. . . .

 
[h=2]Another expert climate professor retires and becomes outspoken skeptic[/h]
[h=3]Look, another climate expert the BBC won’t be interviewing[/h]Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books. He is just retired, and finally able to speak his mind.
The overblown and misleading issue of global warming
Washington Times
Anastasios Tsonis
​
The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life.
Lives are not at risk, but careers sure seem to be. Not medieval times but perhaps modi-eval?
So how many of the 97% of climate science believers are actually skeptics? Even after they retire there are lots of reasons for them to stay quiet.
[h=3]He’s willing to debate[/h]Science is all about proving, not believing. In that regard, I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science.
All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics.
The models were wrong. If they can’t explain the pause, they don’t understand the cause. (h/t HockeySchtick for that phrase.)
All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled. If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.
My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.
Good on him for speaking out. Shame he didn’t feel he could when he was employed.
h/t Climate Depot and Pat.




 
‘Distinguished’ and UW-Milwaukee’ are not two things I’ve ever seen together in the same sentence.

Nuff said.

Edit:

Just looked the guy up. His major research contributions were a paper that stated the earth was going into a ‘cooling’ phase in 2001, and he reiterated this in 2013.

LOL.
594b6bbf411903dfe4f47e76766c0ad6.jpg
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
‘Distinguished’ and UW-Milwaukee’ are not two things I’ve ever seen together in the same sentence.

Nuff said.

Edit:

Just looked the guy up. His major research contributions were a paper that stated the earth was going into a ‘cooling’ phase in 2001, and he reiterated this in 2013.

LOL.
594b6bbf411903dfe4f47e76766c0ad6.jpg
Click to expand...

Cooling has begun.
 
Threegoofs said:
‘Distinguished’ and UW-Milwaukee’ are not two things I’ve ever seen together in the same sentence.
Click to expand...

Your own ignorance need not constrain others.

The university is categorized as an R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.[SUP][9][/SUP] In 2015, the university had research expenditure of $62 million.[SUP][6][/SUP]

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Wisconsin–Milwaukee



The University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee is a public urban research university located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States. It is the largest university in the ...
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Another expert climate professor retires and becomes outspoken skeptic[/h]
[h=3]Look, another climate expert the BBC won’t be interviewing[/h]Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books. He is just retired, and finally able to speak his mind.
The overblown and misleading issue of global warming
Washington Times
Anastasios Tsonis
​
The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life.
Lives are not at risk, but careers sure seem to be. Not medieval times but perhaps modi-eval?
So how many of the 97% of climate science believers are actually skeptics? Even after they retire there are lots of reasons for them to stay quiet.
[h=3]He’s willing to debate[/h]Science is all about proving, not believing. In that regard, I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science.
All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics.
The models were wrong. If they can’t explain the pause, they don’t understand the cause. (h/t HockeySchtick for that phrase.)
All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled. If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.
My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.
Good on him for speaking out. Shame he didn’t feel he could when he was employed.
h/t Climate Depot and Pat.
Click to expand...
My alma mater (-: Thanks for posting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom