• 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

Threegoofs said:
Ugh!

If only the scientists who specialize in this area and have devoted their careers to it knew as much as you do!
Click to expand...

Still no contributions to the discussion, I see!
 
Northern Light said:
Only a psychopath would try to gaslight a trained scientist into believing that a scientifically-understood phenomenon is only in their heads and somehow a result of a mere psychological problem.

It's laughable that you also try to compare consensus level findings with religion just because scientists who have read the evidence call you out on your repeated non-sense.

With you, the dogma is never ending. That's why you have to continue creating strawmen and mischaracterizations. That's all pundits really have in their ideological repertoire because the people doing the real work think you're wacko.

Maybe if you want to really get epistemological, you should take this discussion to the philosophy section, rather than pretend it has any relevance whatsoever to climate science.
Click to expand...

Please note the thread title and OP.
 


Climate Change’s Ugly Sister Exposed: The ‘Air Pollution Crisis’ Scam

Posted on 15 Jan 19 by JAIME JESSOP • 3 Comments
The government has published its Clean Air Strategy 2019 and the media yesterday was awash with the news of how Michael ‘Blue Planet 2’ Gove is going to ban the worst polluting log burning stoves in 2022, after his pioneering plastic straw and plastic bag bans have been so spectacularly successful in protecting the … Continu

. . . But this isn’t the half of it. The scam goes deeper even than this. Gove admits that air pollution “has improved significantly in recent years”. What he doesn’t tell you is that, according to his government’s own figures, particulate matter pollution has declined drastically since 1970. Emissions of PM10 in 2016 have fallen by 73 per cent since 1970, to 170 thousand tonnes. Emissions of PM2.5 in 2016 have fallen by 78 per cent since 1970, to 108 thousand tonnes. Not only that, emissions are still falling:
PM10 emissions decreased by 1.9 per cent from 2015 to 2016. PM2.5 emissions decreased by 3.7 per cent between 2015 and 2016. The trend for both pollutants has been fairly static in recent years, but PM2.5 emissions in 2016 reached their lowest level in the time series. . . .

 


[h=1]Hayhoe, Who Cares?[/h]Posted on 15 Jan 19 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 4 Comments
In a comment to Tom Fuller’s excellent article Paul Matthews (14 Jan 19 at 9.47am) mentions an article in Psychology Today which, as Paul says, is full of falsehoods and inventions, illustrating Tom’s point about the denial of mainstream science by those who claim to defend “the science” against “the deniers.” Psychology Todayis a popular magazine, so … Continue rea
 
Threegoofs said:
You mean the imaginary conversation where you’ve proved all the published scientists are wrong?
Click to expand...
It seems that you are the one imagining a conversation.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It shows his capacity level of understanding the sciences in my view.
Click to expand...

You confuse not understanding with not bothering to correct your misconceptions.

I’ve given up reasoning someone out of something they have no intention of being reasoned out of.

You’re an anonymous poster.

I’m going with the Royal Society over you.

And if you don’t understand that, your capacity level in understanding science is extremely lacking.
 
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 pumps do need supplemental heat in the winter, how much depends on where you live. In AZ where winters are mild, they work fine with little or no assist.. In areas where winters are COLD, forget the standard heat pump. However, if the soil in your area is moist, you can use an earth coupled heat pump. Where the soil is dry, heat transfer is minimal. Your heat SINK, or source, will be tubing buried deep (8 ft or so and long enough to do the job) that you run water through to extract heat from the moist soil. Or, a well if you don't have enough acreage to put in enough tubing. The "outside" unit will be a water tank with heat exchanger, and can be installed in your basement if you have one, and will not have a noisy outside fan. Air is no longer your heat sink.
 
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...

Once the outside temperature drops into the low 20's then (air source) heat pumps require supplemental (back-up) heat. Most heat pumps are equipped with electric resistance "back-up" heating elements (glorified toasters) which are quite expensive to run.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Once the outside temperature drops into the low 20's then (air source) heat pumps require supplemental (back-up) heat. Most heat pumps are equipped with electric resistance "back-up" heating elements (glorified toasters) which are quite expensive to run.
Click to expand...

Well... Mine works just fine for years now, even into the 20's the few times we see it. Are you up with the latest tech?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, your article shows the BTU capacity is reduced. They don't stop working. Now an old one I had would stop working, but modern ones fair quite well.
Click to expand...

OK, I should have stated that better. Most of the year, where I live, the unit will serve as an air conditioner to cool the building and for a few weeks it will be used to help heat the building. The BTU rating of a unit (thus affecting its cost and power consumption) required to adequately cool the building may not be sufficient to heat the building without a back-up heating source during very cold weather.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, I should have stated that better. Most of the year, where I live, the unit will serve as an air conditioner to cool the building and for a few weeks it will be used to help heat the building. The BTU rating of a unit (thus affecting its cost and power consumption) required to adequately cool the building may not be sufficient to heat the building without a back-up heating source during very cold weather.
Click to expand...

True. You simply don't plan for average weather, unless you prefer to do that.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, your article shows the BTU capacity is reduced. They don't stop working. Now an old one I had would stop working, but modern ones fair quite well.
Click to expand...

Also keep in mind, for example my climate. We sometimes see summers that top 100 F maximum daytime. Normally just the the 90's though. However, our winters almost always dive into the 20's. So if I design a unit with cooling in mind, I have a temperature differential of 30 degrees for cooling, for 70 F. However, if I want to maintain the same 70 F in the winter, I have to pump as much as 50 degrees difference. You simply need a unit capable of mixing twice the heat in the winter than the summer. Size it for the worse differential.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please note the thread title and OP.
Click to expand...

You're not really responding to anything I'm saying though, except to make sociopathic analyses of my character, as though I have a mental health problem that prevents me from interpreting science properly. The thread premise of eschatology is kind of laughable in the first place, but you're not even on topic anymore.

You're crazy. :shrug: Glad I took the time to participate in this thread, I'll know to avoid your threads in the future since you exhibit sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies. Trying to disguise gaslighting as science is a big red flag. Thank goodness the science world doesn't kowtow to people such as yourself.
 
Northern Light said:
You're not really responding to anything I'm saying though, except to make sociopathic analyses of my character, as though I have a mental health problem that prevents me from interpreting science properly. The thread premise of eschatology is kind of laughable in the first place, but you're not even on topic anymore.

You're crazy. :shrug: Glad I took the time to participate in this thread, I'll know to avoid your threads in the future since you exhibit sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies. Trying to disguise gaslighting as science is a big red flag. Thank goodness the science world doesn't kowtow to people such as yourself.
Click to expand...

When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science. Post #1 repeated for your convenience.

I have long been intrigued by the incongruity of anthropogenic global warming's surprisingly thin evidence base and the adamancy of its advocates. Their use of the term "denier" to describe those skeptical of AGW suggests a state of mind outside that commonly associated with scientific inquiry. I was recently struck by a juxtaposition which may explain (at least in part) this phenomenon.

One side is a book I first encountered fifty years ago, The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. The other is a new (2017) book, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. There is a long tradition of millenarian thought in western civilization, and it's not surprising that chiliastic yearning has survived the decline in formal religious practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. This may be the key to understanding the psychology of AGW advocacy. Replace the biblical "end times" with a postulated hothouse Earth and present a millennium of renewable, carbon-free energy sources, and it all fits together pretty snugly.

Nothing but absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause can really explain the maneuvers of AGW advocates in the early IPCC. Even more to the point is their continuing pride in those maneuvers -- several of them are among Lewin's most important sources.
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
Yawn. More denial thinly disguised as academic study. You're not fooling anyone, Jack.



Bernie Lewin
Click to expand...

In an effort to refute the claim you should probably avoid looking like a Scientologist distributing Dead Agent files in the process...
 
Jack Hays said:
When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science. Post #1 repeated for your convenience.

I have long been intrigued by the incongruity of anthropogenic global warming's surprisingly thin evidence base and the adamancy of its advocates. Their use of the term "denier" to describe those skeptical of AGW suggests a state of mind outside that commonly associated with scientific inquiry. I was recently struck by a juxtaposition which may explain (at least in part) this phenomenon.

One side is a book I first encountered fifty years ago, The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. The other is a new (2017) book, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. There is a long tradition of millenarian thought in western civilization, and it's not surprising that chiliastic yearning has survived the decline in formal religious practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. This may be the key to understanding the psychology of AGW advocacy. Replace the biblical "end times" with a postulated hothouse Earth and present a millennium of renewable, carbon-free energy sources, and it all fits together pretty snugly.

Nothing but absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause can really explain the maneuvers of AGW advocates in the early IPCC. Even more to the point is their continuing pride in those maneuvers -- several of them are among Lewin's most important sources.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Jack, but you've burned your bridges with me by trying to assert that my scientific experience is actually just some kind of inner delusion.

The only one talking about the UN here is you. The UN is a political organization. That's irrelevant to what the body of peer reviewed research is saying. If the IPCC is faulty in its assessment, then it's perhaps because of how it interpreted the research. You can fault politics but you can't fault science.

The world of science agrees. I am at least qualified to speak to the scientific body of biology, and I can tell you that biologists agree that mass extinction is happening directly because of humanity. You don't even have to look at climate science to confirm this. Our economic level activities are killing life wholesale on the planet through massive habitat destruction, industrial pollution, expansion of human cities and settlements, plastics, the list goes on.

I support carbon-free energy sources, not because the UN tells me to, but because it's morally wrong to pollute the environment and kill other life if we have the means not to. We should also stop creating consumer materials that don't break down in the environment, like plastics.

Like I said, you've burned your bridges. You attacked my character with sociopathic intrigues, which makes me question if you're a scientist at all. Intellectualism can be cold and dispassionate, but gaslighting isn't part of that. Have a nice day.
 
Northern Light said:
. . . Like I said, you've burned your bridges. You attacked my character with sociopathic intrigues, which makes me question if you're a scientist at all. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

I have no interest in the burned bridges. I'm indifferent to your reaction. I did not attack your character; I attacked the foundation of your convictions.
The IPCC's political manipulation of the research is the point of Lewin's book. As I've pointed out before, the striking thing is how proud some people are of their own trickery. They are quoted on the record.
I'm not a scientist and never claimed to be one. I am however a historian, and that includes the history of science.
There is no mass extinction.
Earth Is Not in the Midst of a Sixth Mass Extinction
“As scientists we have a responsibility to be accurate about such comparisons.”
NASA / Reuters
PETER BRANNEN JUN 13, 2017
At the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Smithsonian paleontologist Doug Erwin took the podium to address a ballroom full of geologists on the dynamics of mass extinctions and power grid failures—which, he claimed, unfold in the same way.
…
Erwin is one of the world’s experts on the End-Permian mass extinction, an unthinkable volcanic nightmare that nearly ended life on earth 252 million years ago. He proposed that earth’s great mass extinctions might unfold like these power grid failures: most of the losses may come, not from the initial shock—software glitches in the case of power grid failures, and asteroids and volcanoes in the case of ancient mass extinctions—but from the secondary cascade of failures that follow. These are devastating chain reactions that no one understands. Erwin thinks that most mass extinctions in earth’s history—global die-offs that killed the majority of animal life on earth—ultimately resulted, not from external shocks, but from the internal dynamics of food webs that faltered and failed catastrophically in unexpected ways, just as the darkening eastern seaboard did in 2003.
…
I had written to Erwin to get his take on the contemporary idea that there is currently a sixth mass extinction under way on our planet on par with the so-called Big Five mass extinctions in the history of animal life. Many popular science articles take this as a given, and indeed, there’s something emotionally satisfying about the idea that humans’ hubris and shortsightedness are so profound that we’re bringing down the whole planet with us.
…
Erwin says no. He thinks it’s junk science.
“Many of those making facile comparisons between the current situation and past mass extinctions don’t have a clue about the difference in the nature of the data, much less how truly awful the mass extinctions recorded in the marine fossil record actually were,” he wrote me in an email. “It is absolutely critical to recognize that I am NOT claiming that humans haven’t done great damage to marine and terrestrial [ecosystems], nor that many extinctions have not occurred and more will certainly occur in the near future. But I do think that as scientists we have a responsibility to be accurate about such comparisons.”
…
“People who claim we’re in the sixth mass extinction don’t understand enough about mass extinctions to understand the logical flaw in their argument,” he said. “To a certain extent they’re claiming it as a way of frightening people into action, when in fact, if it’s actually true we’re in a sixth mass extinction, then there’s no point in conservation biology.”
This is because by the time a mass extinction starts, the world would already be over.
“So if we really are in the middle of a mass extinction,” I started, “it wouldn’t be a matter of saving tigers and elephants—”
“Right, you probably have to worry about saving coyotes and rats.
…
“So you can ask, ‘Okay, well, how many geographically widespread, abundant, durably skeletonized marine taxa have gone extinct thus far?’ And the answer is, pretty close to zero,” Erwin pointed out. In fact, of the best-assessed groups of modern animals—like stony corals, amphibians, birds and mammals—somewhere between 0 and 1 percent of species have gone extinct in recent human history. By comparison, the hellscape of End-Permian mass extinction claimed upwards of 90 percent of all species on earth.
​
Read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-ends-of-the-world/529545/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom