Jump to content

Do You Believe in Man-Made Climate Change?


Guest ProudConservative

Recommended Posts

On 1/26/2020 at 2:04 PM, ProudConservative said:

I'm starting to doubt that climate change is a hoax. We have had an usually warm winter in Kitchener, where many day's are above freezing. Although, I enjoy being able to walk outside without shivering, this is the dead of winter, and 75% of the time, it should be below freezing. I would like to contrast to the January averages from previous years

I use to build snowmans as a kid, and every winter we would get 10 to 15 days in a row, that were below freezing. Now, were lucky to have more than 4 days below freezing.

Source

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/kitchener/historic

Kitchener

 

January 2010

High & Low Weather Summary for January 2010

  Temperature Humidity Pressure
High 5 °C (Jan 25, 12:04 am) 100% (Jan 10, 7:00 am) 103.04 kPa (Jan 10, 7:00 am)
Low -21 °C (Jan 30, 7:00 am) 45% (Jan 30, 2:00 pm) 98.58 kPa (Jan 25, 9:05 am)
Average -6 °C 82% 101.59 kPa


January 2011

High & Low Weather Summary for January 2011

  Temperature Humidity Pressure
High 11 °C (Jan 1, 2:58 pm) 100% (Jan 1, 10:08 am) 103.61 kPa (Jan 1, 10:08 am)
Low -24 °C (Jan 24, 6:00 am) 43% (Jan 31, 12:00 pm) 99.31 kPa (Jan 6, 10:57 pm)
Average -8 °C 84% 101.51 kPa

 

January 2020

High & Low Weather Summary for January 2020

  Temperature Humidity Pressure
High 11 °C (Jan 11, 7:06 am) 100% (Jan 4, 5:21 am) 104.56 kPa (Jan 4, 5:21 am)
Low -18 °C (Jan 20, 4:02 am) 56% (Jan 23, 4:00 pm) 99.89 kPa (Jan 18, 6:24 pm)
Average -2 °C 85% 101.82 kPa

 

What are you thoughts? Do you remember having colder winters as a child?

 

Of course the climate changes.  That is agreed by most people.  But what causes it is the issue.  I don't think man causes climate change.  Climate has always changed.  It is driven by natural causes such as the changing radiation from the sun.  There are far greater things to worry about in the world such as the new cold war developing between the U.S. (including the west) and the Russia-China alliance.  China is a growing military and economic power and is doing whatever it can in the world to increase it's influence and power of western countries.  Putin in Russia is also doing what he can to make Russia a serious superpower that would surpass America and the west. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

  I don't think man causes climate change.  Climate has always changed.  It is driven by natural causes such as the changing radiation from the sun.  

You don't know enough about this to make a conclusion.

There are TWO main driving factors for the earth's temperature: radiation and CO2 in the atmosphere.  Humans have pumped CO2 into the atmosphere at an extreme rate and the temperature has gone up correspondingly.

It's a pretty safe conclusion that this round of change is being caused by humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

Of course the climate changes.  That is agreed by most people.  But what causes it is the issue.  I don't think man causes climate change.  Climate has always changed.  It is driven by natural causes such as the changing radiation from the sun.  There are far greater things to worry about in the world such as the new cold war developing between the U.S. (including the west) and the Russia-China alliance.  China is a growing military and economic power and is doing whatever it can in the world to increase it's influence and power of western countries.  Putin in Russia is also doing what he can to make Russia a serious superpower that would surpass America and the west. 

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of the atmosphere.   "The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance"  Figure out from that how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by humans. "That means humans contribute 0.0083 % of the CO2.  What is 0.0083 of 0.04?  It is so small it is almost immeasurable.  The amount of water vapour varies from a trace up to 4% of the atmosphere.  Water vapour is what causes global warming.   CO2 contributes very little to global warming.  Man's contribution is so infinitely small that it is impossible to prove man causes global warming.  The infinitesimally small amount man contributes would point to man not contributing to global warming.  It would appear man contributes 0.00032 % of the CO2 in the atmosphere which is nearly nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If we keep exceeding the planet's ability to absorb carbon one way we can try to deal with it is to pull more and more carbon out of the air.  If people make money doing that, more power to them.

Problem here: the technological approaches for carbon sequestration are turning out to be very ineffective. There's not much point to expending a lot of energy to capture carbon from the atmosphere if most of it ends up being released back again.

And the natural methods applied so far...like planting thousands of trees, have backfired several times when long term droughts dry out forests, and new plantings just add more kindling and of course more carbon goes up with the smoke.

Quote

 

There is always the inventing new ways of living that eliminate the need for constant growth and put us back in harmony within the limits all life have to live with that you mention there, but until someone comes up with that, I'm happy to settle for something less ambitious.

Agreed on the growth.  I always figured only a program of forced sterilization, along with a massive push towards nuclear power generation, could save the planet. Nobody agreed with me though, and look where we are now.

 

No, forced sterilization contains the built in assumption that everybody -- rich or poor, American or African, has an equal carbon footprint...which is plainly false! It's the wealthier industrialized nations which consume the most energy, push the oil, coal and gas extraction around the world, and consume the most energy. 

And under a system of globalized capitalism, it is the rich nations who have the most economic power -- which quickly transforms into political power, and overruns the choices and goals of people living in the poorer nations of the global south. So, we end up with climate efforts that chip around the edges, but won't directly approach or deal with the 800 lb gorilla in the room -- capitalism! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of the atmosphere.   "The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance"  Figure out from that how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by humans. "That means humans contribute 0.0083 % of the CO2.  What is 0.0083 of 0.04?  It is so small it is almost immeasurable.  The amount of water vapour varies from a trace up to 4% of the atmosphere.  Water vapour is what causes global warming.   CO2 contributes very little to global warming.  Man's contribution is so infinitely small that it is impossible to prove man causes global warming.  The infinitesimally small amount man contributes would point to man not contributing to global warming.  It would appear man contributes 0.00032 % of the CO2 in the atmosphere which is nearly nothing.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions

 

6gt?  Maybe in the 50's.  The u.s. and Canada combined make that much. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions

 

6gt?  Maybe in the 50's.  The u.s. and Canada combined make that much. 

If if the total man contributes has gone up from 6GT, it is still miniscule compared with the total CO2 in the atmosphere and the total is still only 0.04% of the total atmosphere. Water vapour is the cause.  Far more water vapour in the atmosphere.   So it is logical to believe CO2 is not the cause of global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If if the total man contributes has gone up from 6GT, it is still miniscule compared with the total CO2 in the atmosphere and the total is still only 0.04% of the total atmosphere. Water vapour is the cause.  Far more water vapour in the atmosphere.   So it is logical to believe CO2 is not the cause of global warming.

I don't think that you responded to my post.  Your assertions are just incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If if the total man contributes has gone up from 6GT, it is still miniscule compared with the total CO2 in the atmosphere and the total is still only 0.04% of the total atmosphere. Water vapour is the cause.  Far more water vapour in the atmosphere.   So it is logical to believe CO2 is not the cause of global warming.

Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by 47% since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

 

Yeah 47% is miniscule in the grand scheme of things.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by 47% since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

 

Yeah 47% is miniscule in the grand scheme of things.  

  The total CO2 is still only 0.04% of atmospheric gases, and of that man's contribution is insignificant.  Almost all of the 0.04% is natural CO2, not from man-made fossil fuels.   You haven't addressed that.   This is all just a U.N. political scheme to bring in U.N. control of the populations.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Still only 0.04% of atmospheric gases, and of that man's contribution is insignificant.  You haven't addressed that.

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/

 

Both water vapor and CO2 are responsible for global warming, and once we increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans warm up, which inevitably triggers an increase in water vapor. But while we have no way to control water vapor, we can control CO2. And because we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by continuing to burn fossil fuels, even in relatively small amounts compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere, we are disturbing the entire heat balance of the planet.

 

Its been addressed before but deniers say its because of solar radiation fluctuating.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of the atmosphere.   "The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance"  Figure out from that how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by humans. "That means humans contribute 0.0083 % of the CO2.  What is 0.0083 of 0.04?  It is so small it is almost immeasurable.  The amount of water vapour varies from a trace up to 4% of the atmosphere.  Water vapour is what causes global warming.   CO2 contributes very little to global warming.  Man's contribution is so infinitely small that it is impossible to prove man causes global warming.  The infinitesimally small amount man contributes would point to man not contributing to global warming.  It would appear man contributes 0.00032 % of the CO2 in the atmosphere which is nearly nothing.

That is an old argument from the denial side, and I don't even think it is worth consideration anymore, because your bull-in-a-china-shop approach is to compare raw numbers from an unlisted source and use a gap in size to imply that the human component is not worth considering. BUT, if our  contributions to GHG increases is enough to tip the balance of nature and throw the earth's carbon cycle out of whack, then whatever the percentage of human sources is....it's enough to push beyond what nature can handle. 

  • *let me add another factor rarely mentioned in climate change debates: an examination of paleoclimate is inexact, but clearly shows a long progression over vast stretches of time, with much higher carbon atmospheric levels in the deep past, near the beginning of life on earth. We do know that the sun burned with about 2/3rds of the intensity back then as it does now, so before 2 billion years ago, there was little oxygen in the atmosphere, and a lot of heat-trapping methane, along with carbon dioxide. 
  • The early deoxygenated atmosphere was adapted for producing high levels of heat-trapping gases to prevent the earth from freezing. As the sun slowly increased intensity, the earth warmed, and the quantity of oxygen-producing plant life increased. During times when too much oxygen was being created, temperatures plunged and ice sheets covered all of the land surfaces of the planet, causing mass extinctions of life. 
  • Once everything balanced out to turn earth into a world where earth would have to prevent carbon buildup, more oxygen in the atmosphere eliminated methane almost entirely and cut the amount of CO2 down to a fraction of what it had been before. During the Pleistocene Epoch that ended 10,000 years ago, CO2 levels fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm for the past 2.5 million years. The only periods where CO2 levels exceeded 400 ppm since the Cenozoic era began have been accompanied by extinctions. So, in our time right now, we have set the dials for all of the ice on the planet to melt...except possibly for the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, and for marine species to migrate to northern waters because...according to a recently released study, fish are leaving the tropics because oxygen levels are declining to a point where they have trouble absorbing oxygen with their gills. Algae also die off and that will leave deoxygenated tropical oceans that will turn into anoxic swamps, and kill off marine life as it expands towards the poles. Land species have migrated north and south also to escape the heat and become extinct...but all the shit we have built in the past 2 or 3 centuries, plus our large populations and fenced off agribusiness leaves barriers for animals trying to escape the tropics already.
  • Because whatever the human contribution is for AGW (I'm assuming it's much higher than your dubious oil-funded sources will tell us) the natural environment was able to absorb and sequester the additional carbon being added by humans to keep atmospheric CO2 from rising above 300 ppm.

So, where do we go from here? And can this road to disaster be stopped in time to prevent the mass extinction from taking all of us out with it?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

So, where do we go from here? And can this road to disaster be stopped in time to prevent the mass extinction from taking all of us out with it?

 

No, it cannot be stopped, for several reasons.  Just file this into another chapter for "climate change".

It is this kind of alarmist rhetoric that invites even more distrust and "denier" backlash.   99% of all species that have ever existed went extinct long before "anthropogenic warming".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Problem here: the technological approaches for carbon sequestration are turning out to be very ineffective. There's not much point to expending a lot of energy to capture carbon from the atmosphere if most of it ends up being released back again.

Maybe, but I don't think it is inefficient and costly enough for governments to get involved on a large scale, so as long it results in a net reduction who cares?   I said I was okay if people make money doing that.  I'm okay if they lose money too.  I'm sure the cream will rise to the top.

 

2 hours ago, Right To Left said:

And the natural methods applied so far...like planting thousands of trees, have backfired several times when long term droughts dry out forests, and new plantings just add more kindling and of course more carbon goes up with the smoke.

Sure, but that's the chicken and the egg.  I'd like to see billions of trees planted.  I'd like to see the deforestation for such crops as palm trees stop too, but that's just a fantasy right now.  A boy can dream.

 

2 hours ago, Right To Left said:

No, forced sterilization contains the built in assumption that everybody -- rich or poor, American or African, has an equal carbon footprint...which is plainly false! It's the wealthier industrialized nations which consume the most energy, push the oil, coal and gas extraction around the world, and consume the most energy. 

I never said who should be sterilized.  Do you think those who come from nations other than the wealthier industrialized nations should stop their progress towards joining the club?

 

2 hours ago, Right To Left said:

quickly transforms into political power, and overruns the choices and goals of people living in the poorer nations of the global south. So, we end up with climate efforts that chip around the edges, but won't directly approach or deal with the 800 lb gorilla in the room -- capitalism!

I suppose so, if one assumes that under communism everyone would still be wearing animal pelts and burning dung for heat.  A reasonable enough assumption.  I'm sure the forests would have been able to keep up.

I prefer to blame humans in general, though, because I don't care how low a carbon footprint the poor have, if you offer them a bigger one they won't turn you down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Right To Left said:

That is an old argument from the denial side, and I don't even think it is worth consideration anymore, because your bull-in-a-china-shop approach is to compare raw numbers from an unlisted source and use a gap in size to imply that the human component is not worth considering. BUT, if our  contributions to GHG increases is enough to tip the balance of nature and throw the earth's carbon cycle out of whack, then whatever the percentage of human sources is....it's enough to push beyond what nature can handle. 

  • *let me add another factor rarely mentioned in climate change debates: an examination of paleoclimate is inexact, but clearly shows a long progression over vast stretches of time, with much higher carbon atmospheric levels in the deep past, near the beginning of life on earth. We do know that the sun burned with about 2/3rds of the intensity back then as it does now, so before 2 billion years ago, there was little oxygen in the atmosphere, and a lot of heat-trapping methane, along with carbon dioxide. 
  • The early deoxygenated atmosphere was adapted for producing high levels of heat-trapping gases to prevent the earth from freezing. As the sun slowly increased intensity, the earth warmed, and the quantity of oxygen-producing plant life increased. During times when too much oxygen was being created, temperatures plunged and ice sheets covered all of the land surfaces of the planet, causing mass extinctions of life. 
  • Once everything balanced out to turn earth into a world where earth would have to prevent carbon buildup, more oxygen in the atmosphere eliminated methane almost entirely and cut the amount of CO2 down to a fraction of what it had been before. During the Pleistocene Epoch that ended 10,000 years ago, CO2 levels fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm for the past 2.5 million years. The only periods where CO2 levels exceeded 400 ppm since the Cenozoic era began have been accompanied by extinctions. So, in our time right now, we have set the dials for all of the ice on the planet to melt...except possibly for the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, and for marine species to migrate to northern waters because...according to a recently released study, fish are leaving the tropics because oxygen levels are declining to a point where they have trouble absorbing oxygen with their gills. Algae also die off and that will leave deoxygenated tropical oceans that will turn into anoxic swamps, and kill off marine life as it expands towards the poles. Land species have migrated north and south also to escape the heat and become extinct...but all the shit we have built in the past 2 or 3 centuries, plus our large populations and fenced off agribusiness leaves barriers for animals trying to escape the tropics already.
  • Because whatever the human contribution is for AGW (I'm assuming it's much higher than your dubious oil-funded sources will tell us) the natural environment was able to absorb and sequester the additional carbon being added by humans to keep atmospheric CO2 from rising above 300 ppm.

So, where do we go from here? And can this road to disaster be stopped in time to prevent the mass extinction from taking all of us out with it?

Take a look at this graph.  Shows man contributes very little CO2.

Carbon_Cycle.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

Take a look at this graph.  Shows man contributes very little CO2.

Carbon_Cycle.gif

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

 

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

 

?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2021 at 8:13 AM, Michael Hardner said:

You don't know enough about this to make a conclusion.

There are TWO main driving factors for the earth's temperature: radiation and CO2 in the atmosphere.  Humans have pumped CO2 into the atmosphere at an extreme rate and the temperature has gone up correspondingly.

It's a pretty safe conclusion that this round of change is being caused by humans.

The issue for most people is to what degree is man responsible for any changes.  That's hard to quantify.  It's also hard to quantify any potential reverses that might happen with any reductions in CO2.  But the crux of the issue is that alarmists continue to preach that climate change is a urgent issue, but at the same time, allow the biggest CO2 emitter on the planet to continue to produce C02 unabated until 2030.  It can't be both an urgent issue, and China allowed to continue to massively produce C02 for another 10 years.  Either alarmists have to start addressing China in a meaningful way, or STFU.  We continue to damage our economy, put in place policies that affect our jobs, and wages and standards of living, while the biggest polluter on the planet continues to pollute at will for the next 10 years.  It's more than absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Shady said:

1. The issue for most people is to what degree is man responsible for any changes.  That's hard to quantify.  It's also hard to quantify any potential reverses that might happen with any reductions in CO2. 
2. But the crux of the issue is that alarmists continue to preach that climate change is a urgent issue,
3. but at the same time, allow the biggest CO2 emitter on the planet to continue to produce C02 unabated until 2030.  It can't be both an urgent issue, and China allowed to continue to massively produce C02 for another 10 years.  Either alarmists have to start addressing China in a meaningful way, or STFU.  We continue to damage our economy, put in place policies that affect our jobs, and wages and standards of living, while the biggest polluter on the planet continues to pollute at will for the next 10 years.  It's more than absurd.

1. Agreed, but there is still enough evidence for us to gather a response.
2. Alarmists are taking about political action and I agree that people have to be ready for a political response at this time.  I don't agree with anyone making extreme and dishonest claims but to my mind we have seen far more of those from the Climate DENIAL camp - and I use that term expressly here as opposed to skeptists.
3. Yes, China has to be reined in but they are able to move so much more quickly than democratic countries also, and politics are not a concern for them.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


2. Alarmists are taking about political action and I agree that people have to be ready for a political response at this time.  I don't agree with anyone making extreme and dishonest claims but to my mind we have seen far more of those from the Climate DENIAL camp - and I use that term expressly here as opposed to skeptists.

Deniers of what?

Deniers that the evidence of an unavoidable climate catastrophe caused by man's emissions of fossil fuels is unimpeachable science and demands an upheaval of political systems to supposedly fix the problem they imagine?

I deny that. I suggest the catastrophe some claim to know is coming not only can be challenged by science but should be because real science is meant to be challenged by the scientific method, not by mindlessly accepting hypotheses as unimpeachable fact. And even if you could predict a climate catastrophe, it would be naive to think politicians could change the climate with available solutions or that there wouldn't be larger consequences where problems created would outweigh any solutions. 

For example, I hear a suggestion warmiacs are putting forward lately of climate "lockdowns." A little "denial" is required there, I think. More than a little.

For now man has been more than a little successful at adapting to problems and for multiple reasons that would be a more rational reaction to possible problems than thinking politicians can fix the weather. If that way of thinking is "denial" sign me up for your new definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

 

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

 

?

 

No, I don't think so.  You need to study the Bible.  Genesis says God created the earth.  It doesn't give the date but it is believed the earth (and universe) was created 12 to 15 thousand years ago.  You probably don't believe that or the Bible,  So you need to study the reasons why the Bible is authoritative and what many scientists believe about creation.  If you study that you will be in a better position to make an informed decision about the issue.  There are many articles on the internet and some are at creation.com website.   Man is believed to have been created six to ten thousand years ago.  The point is God created man and gave him dominion over all creatures a relatively short time ago.  So that means God is in control.   Atheist scientists who believe in the millions or billions of years theory think creation is some kind of cosmic accident and that there is no Creator in control.  That is fiction.  Creation could not have happened by accident.  Do you really think that God, who knows the future and everything that is going to happen, would not be in control of the climate?  I can tell you almost all climate alarmists and doom sayers do not believe the Bible and think man can control the climate.  That is the reason they look at the figures around CO2 and the atmosphere and come to the climate alarmism conclusion.  There is no proof man causes global warming.  It is purely speculation.  Speculation is not proof.  They have a tendency to automatically blame man for everything that is happening in the weather or climate.  It is ludicrous.  There are a lot of things prophesied that will happen in the future, but the Bible says nothing about CO2 or global warming as a result.  There are major calamities coming on the world but I don't think it has anything to do with burning fossil fuels.  Many of the climate alarmists are worshiping mother earth, a false god.  They would sacrifice mankind to save the planet in their mind.

You can read the article on anthropogenic global warming at:

A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

Part of the article says:

"Correlation does not mean causation: That the temperature has been increasing along with the level of CO2 does not mean that one caused the other. For example, between June and December of 2008 both the temperature in Calgary AB Canada and the Toronto Stock Exchange Index decreased dramatically. However, one did not cause the other. Thus, the observation that the atmospheric temperature and CO2 concentration are both increasing does not mean that one is causing the other—either one may, indeed, be causing the other, or both could be being caused by something else, or they could be completely unrelated.

Science is often captured by a ‘ruling paradigm’: A paradigm is a framework used by default for the interpretation of data. It is just assumed to be true. Sometimes this is done explicitly when scientists do not have a better idea and so they just run with the best idea they have, anticipating that they could be wrong. At other times, the ruling paradigm is subliminal or is being hidden by certain players in the game. In the latter cases, data that are inconsistent with the paradigm are treated as errors by the researcher or dismissed because the researcher is judged not to have appropriate credentials, unacceptable political leanings, any sort of religious beliefs, or funding sources deemed inappropriate. Or, if none of these applies, the errors are accommodated within the ruling paradigm by introducing ancillary hypotheses. The Ptolemaic geostationary model of the solar system is a well-known (false) paradigm that ruled the interpretation of astronomical observations for about 1,500 years. The big bang and biological evolution are two modern ruling paradigms in cosmology and biology/paleontology respectively. Thus, it should not surprise us that climate science has been captured by the ruling paradigm that anthropogenic CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change. Nothing else is considered.

Peer-review does not ensure truth: Peer review, especially when coupled with publication in ‘prestigious’ scientific journals, has come to be taken as the ‘gold standard’ of science. And the contents of scientific papers are often treated as beyond question. There are numerous examples of failure in the peer review process. A prominent incident prompted one academic to write a scathing critique of peer review that was published in The Guardian:23 “At its worst, it [peer review] is merely window dressing that gives the unwarranted appearance of authority, a cursory process which confers no real value, enforces orthodoxy, and overlooks both obvious analytical problems and outright fraud entirely.” The Climategate emails (see later) showed that this problem afflicts climate science."

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

You need to study the Bible.  Genesis says God created the earth.  

I have seen people put such snippets into discussions on science policy.

I try to explain to you people that others don't believe in your metaphysics, so you are wasting your time and frankly looking a little naive by thinking it's relevant to discussion of policy that includes all Canadians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

No, I don't think so.  You need to study the Bible.  Genesis says God created the earth.  It doesn't give the date but it is believed the earth (and universe) was created 12 to 15 thousand years ago.  You probably don't believe that or the Bible,  So you need to study the reasons why the Bible is authoritative and what many scientists believe about creation.  If you study that you will be in a better position to make an informed decision about the issue.  There are many articles on the internet and some are at creation.com website.   Man is believed to have been created six to ten thousand years ago.  The point is God created man and gave him dominion over all creatures a relatively short time ago.  So that means God is in control.   Atheist scientists who believe in the millions or billions of years theory think creation is some kind of cosmic accident and that there is no Creator in control.  That is fiction.  Creation could not have happened by accident.  Do you really think that God, who knows the future and everything that is going to happen, would not be in control of the climate?  I can tell you almost all climate alarmists and doom sayers do not believe the Bible and think man can control the climate.  That is the reason they look at the figures around CO2 and the atmosphere and come to the climate alarmism conclusion.  There is no proof man causes global warming.  It is purely speculation.  Speculation is not proof.  They have a tendency to automatically blame man for everything that is happening in the weather or climate.  It is ludicrous.  There are a lot of things prophesied that will happen in the future, but the Bible says nothing about CO2 or global warming as a result.  There are major calamities coming on the world but I don't think it has anything to do with burning fossil fuels.  Many of the climate alarmists are worshiping mother earth, a false god.  They would sacrifice mankind to save the planet in their mind.

You can read the article on anthropogenic global warming at:

A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

Part of the article says:

"Correlation does not mean causation: That the temperature has been increasing along with the level of CO2 does not mean that one caused the other. For example, between June and December of 2008 both the temperature in Calgary AB Canada and the Toronto Stock Exchange Index decreased dramatically. However, one did not cause the other. Thus, the observation that the atmospheric temperature and CO2 concentration are both increasing does not mean that one is causing the other—either one may, indeed, be causing the other, or both could be being caused by something else, or they could be completely unrelated.

Science is often captured by a ‘ruling paradigm’: A paradigm is a framework used by default for the interpretation of data. It is just assumed to be true. Sometimes this is done explicitly when scientists do not have a better idea and so they just run with the best idea they have, anticipating that they could be wrong. At other times, the ruling paradigm is subliminal or is being hidden by certain players in the game. In the latter cases, data that are inconsistent with the paradigm are treated as errors by the researcher or dismissed because the researcher is judged not to have appropriate credentials, unacceptable political leanings, any sort of religious beliefs, or funding sources deemed inappropriate. Or, if none of these applies, the errors are accommodated within the ruling paradigm by introducing ancillary hypotheses. The Ptolemaic geostationary model of the solar system is a well-known (false) paradigm that ruled the interpretation of astronomical observations for about 1,500 years. The big bang and biological evolution are two modern ruling paradigms in cosmology and biology/paleontology respectively. Thus, it should not surprise us that climate science has been captured by the ruling paradigm that anthropogenic CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change. Nothing else is considered.

Peer-review does not ensure truth: Peer review, especially when coupled with publication in ‘prestigious’ scientific journals, has come to be taken as the ‘gold standard’ of science. And the contents of scientific papers are often treated as beyond question. There are numerous examples of failure in the peer review process. A prominent incident prompted one academic to write a scathing critique of peer review that was published in The Guardian:23 “At its worst, it [peer review] is merely window dressing that gives the unwarranted appearance of authority, a cursory process which confers no real value, enforces orthodoxy, and overlooks both obvious analytical problems and outright fraud entirely.” The Climategate emails (see later) showed that this problem afflicts climate science."

12-15,000 years ago? ?

The Sudbury Basin, also known as Sudbury Structure or the Sudbury Nickel Irruptive, is a major geological structure in Ontario, Canada. It is the third-largest known impact crater or astrobleme on Earth, as well as one of the oldest. The crater formed 1.849 billion years ago in the Paleoproterozoic era.  

 

That's just one example that I find interesting.  There are millions of other examples of evidence all around us.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I have seen people put such snippets into discussions on science policy.

I try to explain to you people that others don't believe in your metaphysics, so you are wasting your time and frankly looking a little naive by thinking it's relevant to discussion of policy that includes all Canadians.

All Canadians do not think the same way.  There are many varied opinions.  I think God and the Bible is central.  God created everything and made science what it is.  He gave man knowledge.  What you do with it or don't is up to you and anyone else.  We don't live in a Communist system where only one line of thinking is permitted.  Isn't that what democracy and freedom of speech is all about. 

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

12-15,000 years ago? ?

The Sudbury Basin, also known as Sudbury Structure or the Sudbury Nickel Irruptive, is a major geological structure in Ontario, Canada. It is the third-largest known impact crater or astrobleme on Earth, as well as one of the oldest. The crater formed 1.849 billion years ago in the Paleoproterozoic era.  

 

That's just one example that I find interesting.  There are millions of other examples of evidence all around us.  

The thing is that God created the earth with apparent age at the time he created it.  The Bible says he created trees and all creatures.  Then he created man.  So at the time everything was created, they had to have an age built in.  So the rocks and earth would have had an age which may appear old, but actually was created that way in an instant.  So that crater you mentioned would likely have been created with the appearance it was 1.849 billion years old.  You underestimate the power of God.  When he created things, they would have to have an appearance of an age.  The alternative is where did everything come from?  There is no explanation apart from a Creator.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The thing is that God created the earth with apparent age at the time he created it.  The Bible says he created trees and all creatures.  Then he created man.  So at the time everything was created, they had to have an age built in.  So the rocks and earth would have had an age which may appear old, but actually was created that way in an instant.  So that crater you mentioned would likely have been created with the appearance it was 1.849 billion years old.  You underestimate the power of God.  When he created things, they would have to have an appearance of an age.  The alternative is where did everything come from?  There is no explanation apart from a Creator.

Big bang theory.  Just because someone tells you something that doesn't mean you must believe it. 

Would you believe me if I told you I once caught a leprechaun?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,765
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CouchPotato
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Five of swords earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Mentor
    • Matthew went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Matthew earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • User went up a rank
      Veteran
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...