Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Marc1

Considering that the global warming fraud, rebaptised climate change is but a method to confiscate taxpayers money for personal gain, the propaganda method for advancing the fraud must be based on capturing the emotions of the public in any way shape or form.

So it is relatively easy to manipulate emotions. Each individual walks about with baggage and values that will decide and select what they want to believe and what they discard. Negative and pessimistic views are far more likely to be accepted than the opposite. "Proving" that the world is going to end in a short period of time due to human activity is being indoctrinated by lefty teachers into primary school kids that are now suffering from widespread depression about their own future.

The left who has adopted and is the main force behind the global warming fraud, has as objective the destruction of capitalism and uses AGW as a tool.

The best part of this state of affairs is that the fraud was invented and benefits exclusively the mega rich, that are using the left and the greens, the idle and those in search of a cause,using their blind enthusiasm for the destruction of capitalism for their own elitist purposes.

We live in interesting times.

something like this quote

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Exile

Well anyway, my neighbor was "alarmed" after hearing or reading some "news," that dutifully cited the "science" of course, claiming that ice covering Antarctica was melting at an increasingly rapid pace, and that if all the ice covering Antarctica melted it would raise sea level worldwide by 23 feet. When I asked what the report claimed the chances of this happening were, my neighbor said he didn't know.

Choosing the future of Antarctica - AntarcticGlaciers.org

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Choosing the future of Antarctica - AntarcticGlaciers.org

a rather fantastical work of fiction there

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

https://www.noaa.gov/news/july-2019-...ord-for-planet

Hottest month ever on record and record low extent of ice. Where is the ice age that newhaul predicts ? [emoji3]

Originally Posted by newhaul

where have you been we have already hashed this lie out several times .

It was the 4th warmest. July.

July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record « Roy Spencer, PhD

Explained by the difference in the datasets being used?

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

where have you been we have already hashed this lie out several times .

It was the 4th warmest. July.

July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record « Roy Spencer, PhD

This is a new report from noaa. It confirms the report the earlier report from the European agency who use different datasets than noaa. Interestingly Spencer is always an outlier.

Also from the report "Average Antarctic sea-ice coverage was 4.3% below the 1981-2010 average, making it the smallest for July in the 41-year record."

And

"Average Arctic sea ice set a record low for July, running 19.8% below average – surpassing the previous historic low of July 2012"

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The Yale Environment 360 article:
“Polar Warning: Even Antarctica’s Coldest Region Is Starting to Melt” ~ by Nicola Jones
➥ https://e360.yale.edu/features/polar...arting-to-melt

Includes the statement:
“The Antarctic contains about 90 percent of the planet’s ice, enough to raise global sea levels 200 feet.”
It does NOT predict any such thing, at any level of probability.

* * *

Yes, I'm aware it does not predict any such thing. But the point of the story was that my neighbor apparently was not. And the larger point of the story is how effective the constantly repeated alarmism really is, whether it has legitimate basis in science or not. In fact, it seems as though all people have to hear about is the increased level of CO2 (not a "pollutant") and then the leap is made from there directly to all of the alarmism. Ditto for these threads and many other (non-science) threads I'm sure. A dramatic looking graph of spiking CO2 levels is presented and, presto, abnormal levels of warming (consistent with the CO2 spike) is simply assumed, along with all the bad things the "evidence" is "proving" flow from there.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

Yes, I'm aware it does not predict any such thing. But the point of the story was that my neighbor apparently was not. And the larger point of the story is how effective the constantly repeated alarmism really is, whether it has legitimate basis in science or not. In fact, it seems as though all people have to hear about is the increased level of CO2 (not a "pollutant") and then the leap is made from there directly to all of the alarmism. Ditto for these threads and many other (non-science) threads I'm sure. A dramatic looking graph of spiking CO2 levels is presented and, presto, abnormal levels of warming (consistent with the CO2 spike) is simply assumed, along with all the bad things the "evidence" is "proving" flow from there.

"Pollutants are the contaminants that get introduced into the natural environment, beyond permitted limits, and cause deleterious effects to the inhabitants in a visible way.".

Sure seems like a 40% increase of CO2 checks all the boxes of the definition of a pollutant.

[catsketcher]

As someone whose job it is to teach science, threads like this make me wonder about whether education works for some.

Would anybody who doesn't weld question an eminent high pressure welder with years of experience? Or question ignition problems in a Range Rover with a designated Range Rover mechanic with 20 years of experience? Would you listen to them rather than the expert, or even better a whole team of experts.

Yet within this thread we have people who can't accept any evidence from well accepted scientific papers. It seems like scientists are now immune to acceptance of expertise and anyone with a computer can reject hard won conclusions from people who spend years doing research - year after year to come up with conclusions.

There is appeal in being the person who saw through the emperors clothes, but you know when you are not arguing science anymore. It is when the person you are talking with cannot answer the question.

"What data would it take to change your mind?"

That is pretty much it in a nutshell. I have been at conferences where scientists show years of data in reducing shell thickness of tiny plankton with calcium carbonate shells. I have listened to climate change scientists with a wealth of data who would really love to be wrong about the conclusions the data is forcing them to make. To read the bad science brought up by those who cannot understand the mechanism of peer review and combine politics with science is in some ways distressing.

Then you have idealogues say - oh they do it (change data) for the money - oh please. No one goes into science for the money! It is a terrible profession for long term security. If you want money you go into something like software or engineering. My kids have science degrees and one now works out of science and the other is getting out. You don't do it for the cash, you do it because it counts.

So I now have to teach my kids about reverse snobbery, how non scientists do not deserve valued opinions on data, about how you can tell whether someone is a scientist or troll, and I have to teach the science too. I teach how in science you can't hide good data, and how you credit peer reviewing, even if takes some time to get there - eg plate tectonics or Hectopylori and ulcers. Science got there in 20 years in the worst case scenario.

So remember to ask - "What data would it take to change your mind?" This is something climate deniers, Moon landing hoaxers, vaccination idealogues and creationists can't answer. So they do not practise science. They are arguing a type of religion.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

In his article article, "The Relativity of Wrong."
Asminov wrote,
"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”

“The Relativity of Wrong” ~ by Isaac Asimov
➥ https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScie...ityofWrong.htm

***

False balance is the media phenomenon of presenting two sides of an argument equally, in disregard of the merit or evidence on a subject (a form of argument to moderation). Journalists use false balance, when comparing two sides of a story (especially in science) by making it appear that both sides of the “debate” have equivalent authority and evidence supporting it.
The application of the fallacy leads to major problems:
Firstly, it can lead to equal exposure an argument despite it’s lack of merit or relevance.
Secondly, it can lead to the belief that the truth must lie somewhere in-between the two opposing sides (appeal to moderation), when it's very much possible that one side is completely wrong.
Avoiding the balance fallacy requires objective criteria for assessing arguments, and cannot rely on just giving all arguments equal exposure for the sake of equality (often mistaken for fairness).

The environmental debate has provided perhaps the most egregious examples of why balance is failing journalism and the public. In spite of overwhelming scientific evidence linking humans to global warming, news media eager to provide balance to the debate continue to challenge this notion.
Like everyone, journalists have every right to challenge scientific knowledge. But simply challenging it, or presenting dubious assertions for the sake of balance can skew the debate – against public interest. Journalists should aim for truth over neutrality. Much of the media gets itself into knots trying to differentiate between balance, objectivity, neutrality, and crucially, truth.
Journalists should aim for truth over neutrality. Much of the media gets itself into knots trying to differentiate between balance, objectivity, neutrality, and crucially, truth.

See also: “BLINDED BY SCIENCE: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality” ~ by Chris Mooney
➥ "Blinded by Science: How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality" - The Intersection : The Intersection

Have I previously shared this opinion? If so, I apologise for the redundancy.

Isaac Asimov would probably say that alarmists are in the spherical Earth camp and the deniers are in the flat Earth camp. This would leave only Skeptics to mingle within the oblate spheroid crowd.

Originally Posted by GordMay

I don't know why we bother discussing a subject that was decisively "solved" about 40 years ago.

Campaigning in September 1980, Ronald Reagan said: "Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.''
~ Ronald Reagan, September 10, 1980.

A month later, he denied what he had said:
"I know Teddy Kennedy had fun at the Democratic convention when he said that I said that trees and vegetation caused 80% of the air pollution in this country. ... Well now, he was a little wrong about what I said. I didn't say 80%. I said 92%—93%, pardon me. And I didn’t say air pollution, I said oxides of nitrogen. Growing and decaying vegetation in this land are responsible for 93% of the oxides of nitrogen. ... If we are totally successful and can eliminate all the manmade oxides of nitrogen, we’ll still have 93% as much as we have in the air today."
~ Ronald Reagan, Oct. 9, 1980.

“It has come to my attention, that air pollution is polluting the air!” ~ George W. Bush


There we have it: Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do, and pollution causes pollution.

One could only wonder where all the carbon from all the cleared forests of the globe been distributed. Any funded research on that? Paging ImaginaryNumber.

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

https://www.noaa.gov/news/july-2019-...ord-for-planet

Hottest month ever on record and record low extent of ice. Where is the ice age that newhaul predicts ? [emoji3]

By a whopping 0.04 degrees Celcius. I wonder what the limits of the error bars are?

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Choosing the future of Antarctica - AntarcticGlaciers.org

Move over, SailOar. All hail the new "King of the Links".

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

This is a new report from noaa. It confirms the report the earlier report from the European agency who use different datasets than noaa. Interestingly Spencer is always an outlier.

Also from the report "Average Antarctic sea-ice coverage was 4.3% below the 1981-2010 average, making it the smallest for July in the 41-year record."

And

"Average Arctic sea ice set a record low for July, running 19.8% below average – surpassing the previous historic low of July 2012"

Except that all the datasets, incl. Spencer's (UAH), show a warming trend, do they not? By definition, a warming trend is one which increases over a period of time, does it not? So why is it such an apparent revelation that the latest data would show the warmest temperatures from this warming trend? Or the 4th warmest depending on which dataset is used?

Newhaul opines that the past few years' data which undisputedly shows some cooling may be the start of a new cooling trend, but that's another issue for which we'll have to wait & see. In the meantime, if he's wrong and we still remain in a warming trend, then wouldn't increasingly warmer temperatures be expected? At best, this only demonstrates GW; how much of it is AGW is what's controversial.

[Marc1]

As someone whose job it is to teach science, threads like this make me wonder about whether education works for some. etc etc

Mate, you are most certainly a nice guy or you wouldn't be a teacher ... the problem with your post is that it exposes a big level of gullibility and belief in the status quo, and an obvious disregard for alternative views and what many label conspiracies.

I suggest to stick to the scientific method and use a valuable tool that is being misrepresented and discredited, namely skepticism. Don't be so quick in considering those who don't agree with you as uneducated. I for starters am probably (please correct me if I'm wrong) the only person here who has ever studied formally climatology in a university degree.

Yet despite this formal studies, or rather thanks to them, i consider the present global warming scare campaign a fraud of gargantuan proportions, mounted for political and economic reasons that are far removed from the environment cause as a butcher can be from being Vegan.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by catsketcher

As someone whose job it is to teach science, threads like this make me wonder about whether education works for some.

Would anybody who doesn't weld question an eminent high pressure welder with years of experience? Or question ignition problems in a Range Rover with a designated Range Rover mechanic with 20 years of experience? Would you listen to them rather than the expert, or even better a whole team of experts.

Yet within this thread we have people who can't accept any evidence from well accepted scientific papers. It seems like scientists are now immune to acceptance of expertise and anyone with a computer can reject hard won conclusions from people who spend years doing research - year after year to come up with conclusions.

There is appeal in being the person who saw through the emperors clothes, but you know when you are not arguing science anymore. It is when the person you are talking with cannot answer the question.

"What data would it take to change your mind?"

That is pretty much it in a nutshell. I have been at conferences where scientists show years of data in reducing shell thickness of tiny plankton with calcium carbonate shells. I have listened to climate change scientists with a wealth of data who would really love to be wrong about the conclusions the data is forcing them to make. To read the bad science brought up by those who cannot understand the mechanism of peer review and combine politics with science is in some ways distressing.

Then you have idealogues say - oh they do it (change data) for the money - oh please. No one goes into science for the money! It is a terrible profession for long term security. If you want money you go into something like software or engineering. My kids have science degrees and one now works out of science and the other is getting out. You don't do it for the cash, you do it because it counts.

So I now have to teach my kids about reverse snobbery, how non scientists do not deserve valued opinions on data, about how you can tell whether someone is a scientist or troll, and I have to teach the science too. I teach how in science you can't hide good data, and how you credit peer reviewing, even if takes some time to get there - eg plate tectonics or Hectopylori and ulcers. Science got there in 20 years in the worst case scenario.

So remember to ask - "What data would it take to change your mind?" This is something climate deniers, Moon landing hoaxers, vaccination idealogues and creationists can't answer. So they do not practise science. They are arguing a type of religion.

A controlled lab experiment that demonstrates indisputably the relationship of CO2 content and heating at atmospheric compositions.

I can hear the bemoaning already from certain quarters.

But, if your science guys in which you bestow such faith can tell us in great detail the dates when trees are going to start growing in Antarctica I'm sure they can come up with what is, in essence, a pretty simple lab experiment.

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

"Pollutants are the contaminants that get introduced into the natural environment, beyond permitted limits, and cause deleterious effects to the inhabitants in a visible way.".

Sure seems like a 40% increase of CO2 checks all the boxes of the definition of a pollutant.

That is a rather lousy definition of pollutant and one that does your cause no favours.
A) who decides what the "permitted" (please! ) levels are?
B) What are the "deleterious effects" and who decides when they are deleterious and when not?
C) "In a visible way" what does that even mean and how do you discriminate from other causes or natural causes?

The only real effect and visible effect of increased levels of CO2 are better crops and the increased capacity of plants to make better use of water.
Hardly "deleterious".
The effects of CO2 on temperatures is minimal compared to other greenhouse gases like water, and the effect of the sun, not to mention the non linear effect of it's concentration.

Scam is the only word that comes to mind.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

"Pollutants are the contaminants that get introduced into the natural environment, beyond permitted limits, and cause deleterious effects to the inhabitants in a visible way.".

Sure seems like a 40% increase of CO2 checks all the boxes of the definition of a pollutant.

Sure, according to Skeptical Science, especially since it translates to the general public as something that's harmful in its own right. How many people have you talked to confuse it with CO? They both come out of automobile tailpipes after all. Except that CO2 has no comparison to CO or any other actual "pollutant" that is known to be harmful to human beings in their own right. How can this possibly apply when only a tiny percentage of the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is thought to be producing a warming effect? Instead, it's a convenient way to both propagandize & regulate its claimed harmful effects, which is exactly why the EPA officially designated it a pollutant in 2009. But as one commentator noted at the time,

"The Environmental Protection Agency's decision to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health is the latest twist in a debate that has raged for decades among politicians, scientists and industry: whether a natural component of the earth's atmosphere should be considered a pollutant."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975.

So the issue is not as simple as your definition would suggest.

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by Exile

Sure, according to Skeptical Science, especially since it translates to the general public as something that's harmful in its own right. How many people have you talked to confuse it with CO? They both come out of automobile tailpipes after all. Except that CO2 has no comparison to CO or any other actual "pollutant" that is known to be harmful to human beings in their own right. How can this possibly apply when only a tiny percentage of the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is thought to be producing a warming effect? Instead, it's a convenient way to both propagandize & regulate its claimed harmful effects, which is exactly why the EPA officially designated it a pollutant in 2009. But as one commentator noted at the time,

"The Environmental Protection Agency's decision to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health is the latest twist in a debate that has raged for decades among politicians, scientists and industry: whether a natural component of the earth's atmosphere should be considered a pollutant."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975.

So the issue is not as simple as your definition would suggest.

One of the reasons that CO2 and it's alleged "deleterious" effects are rebaptised "CARBON"
In my conversations with members of the public, in another life when i was conducting personal development courses and folks showed signs of deep depression due to "environmental concerns", I remember people convinced that any more rise in CO2 levels would make the air irrespirable. Only data from submarines would put their mind at easy, only to bring up that CO2 was "dirty" because as you know coal is black and stains your hands so it must be dirty for sure! etc etc.

it is funny how the previous post talks about education and how whoever disagrees with the poster must be uneducated. yet the global warming fraud has done exactly that.
Spreading false information to misdirect and misguide and mislead the public into believing wat is false, using a known and very effective strategy that exploits one very powerful cognitive bias, the bandwagon effect.

Look it up, it is like most cognitive bias, a powerful tool. He is cool and believes it, so it must be true. If I believe it I may become cool like him ...

Or words to that effect.


Not that I am cool ... far from it if you ask my daughters.
The lady next door however ...