Understanding The Weather (extracted from) Privilege and Critical Race Theory

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The conclusion of Allan M.R. MacRae's paper is:

CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING:

 

Do you have a link to this? Also, climate science acknowledges the feedback loop that happens and time lags and so on as described above...

It's carbon and radiation that drives temperature on Earth.

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you have a link to this? Also, climate science acknowledges the feedback loop that happens and time lags and so on as described above...

It's carbon and radiation that drives temperature on Earth.

Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature Drives Atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature – Watts Up With That?

[blackbird]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That looks like a blog. Is there peer review there? This guy is well known as a populist blogger.  It's not real science, and has been criticised (in the press ) as inaccurate.

 

His name is reportedly on the 650 list, a list of 650 scientists who dispute the man-made claims of global warming.

650 List: The names on the 650 list

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

His name is reportedly on the 650 list, a list of 650 scientists who dispute the man-made claims of global warming.

So 650 scientists... and not one peer-reviewed paper published in the last 25 years or so ?

I know you think that peer-reviewed papers (that drive all of our science, from math, to pharmacology, to chemistry, engineering..) are a conspiracy to limit viewpoints but they're the opposite: a forum for qualified people to discuss the science and produce the best result.

So I'll acknowledge that you don't accept conventional science and stop asking you for evidence.

[blackbird]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

So I'll acknowledge that you don't accept conventional science and stop asking you for evidence.

"A peer-reviewed article is published in a peer-reviewed journal only after it has been subjected to multiple critiques by scholars in that field. Peer-reviewed journals follow this procedure to make sure that published articles reflect solid scholarship and advance the state of knowledge in a discipline."

In other words, a peer-reviewed article must be one that has been reviewed and approved by the majority in a particular discipline.  Since the question of man-made climate change is disputed by a segment of professionals, I don't see how someone with an opinion at odds with the majority would fit into the peer-review process.  Obviously, their opinion will not be accepted. So it is pointless to claim that as any kind of useful process where opinions are in opposition.  You may be able to find debates on the subject where you would hear both points of view and you can make up your own mind which one you believe.

But you obviously are trying to isolate professionals who disagree with the majority by saying their opinion does not count.  In the case of climate change, since there are people for and people against the consensus opinion, there would be few peer-reviewed papers on the subject which disagree with the consensus.

Edited October 29, 2021 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. In other words, a peer-reviewed article must be one that has been reviewed and approved by the majority in a particular discipline. 

2. Since the question of man-made climate change is disputed by a segment of professionals, I don't see how someone with an opinion at odds with the majority would fit into the peer-review process. 

3. Obviously, their opinion will not be accepted.

4. So it is pointless to claim that as any kind of useful process where opinions are in opposition. 

5. You may be able to find debates on the subject where you would hear both points of view and you can make up your own mind which one you believe.

1. No that's incorrect.  Anyone can submit a response, there's no majority about it.

2. What that means, though, is tough to guage.  Since none of them have published papers and very few have responded to published science, you have to ask why.  The fact is there are 1000s or 1000000s of videos pro- and anti- climate change.  The good ones refer to actual scientific papers.  The bad ones are just... TV shows.

3. Not true.  They are accepted.

4. No, there are dissenting papers and opposing papers, and it has also happened in climate science.  This is how all science works - such as with vaccines, and even in social scientists with race theory.  

5. Yes, i did this over a decade ago and heard the pro- and anti- views of various sorts and made up my mind based on the facts.

Keep in mind, that peer-review produces all of the engineering marvels, vaccines and even environmental solutions such as the solution to the ozone layer came out of academia.

But I can see that we are on a different page with this stuff so I won't impose on you further unless you have more questions.  
 

[blackbird]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No that's incorrect.  Anyone can submit a response, there's no majority about it.

2. What that means, though, is tough to guage.  Since none of them have published papers and very few have responded to published science, you have to ask why.  The fact is there are 1000s or 1000000s of videos pro- and anti- climate change.  The good ones refer to actual scientific papers.  The bad ones are just... TV shows.

3. Not true.  They are accepted.

4. No, there are dissenting papers and opposing papers, and it has also happened in climate science.  This is how all science works - such as with vaccines, and even in social scientists with race theory.  

5. Yes, i did this over a decade ago and heard the pro- and anti- views of various sorts and made up my mind based on the facts.

Keep in mind, that peer-review produces all of the engineering marvels, vaccines and even environmental solutions such as the solution to the ozone layer came out of academia.

But I can see that we are on a different page with this stuff so I won't impose on you further unless you have more questions.  
 

The question of climate change is beyond the scope of the normal scientific method of proof.  That is the problem.  So you can read all the "peer-reviewed" published articles you like and reject all the non peer-reviewed you like, but you won't find anything that fits into the historic scientific method.  I'm sure scientists on both sides are sincere, but because of the nature of the subject, i.e. the earth is so large and the environment so complex, it is one of those things that cannot be boiled down to a provable experiment.  All we can go by is our own opinions and supposition.  Try not to let political predispositions influence your reasoning.  What one believes is based on purely subjective opinion.  Nothing has been proven about what exactly is causing climate change.  Just remember that.  So those who make dogmatic claims that man is the cause are really making assumptions because there is no proof.  It is purely subjective and based on presumptions that are unproven. 

In law we live in a democratic society where a person is innocent unless proven guilty.  It appears in the climate change subject, man is guilty without being proven guilty.  This is partly the result of much secular humanist hatred for mankind and the belief that there is no God who created the universe and mankind.  They demote mankind to just another animal and fail to recognize God as the supreme person over and above the created earth and universe and Lord of all.  So as a consequence they elevate man to some kind of god who they think can control the climate and weather.  This is a very bloated ego of self importance and false image of man. This is a self destructive and fatal mistake.  That means the cure could end up being worse than the disease.  Great harm could be done to mankind by destroying what we have in a futile attempt to control the climate or redistribute wealth around the world as they are planning to do.  That is Trudeau's ideology.

[blackbird]

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

 

You still have not given one scintilla of evidence that man is causing climate change in spite of all your professions to believe science.

[dialamah]

23 hours ago, blackbird said:

You still have not given one scintilla of evidence that man is causing climate change in spite of all your professions to believe science.

There's lots of evidence, you just don't believe it.

Here, and here, and here, and here ... and on and on and on.

It was first noted in the 1800s that certain gases would create a warmer atmosphere, and that over time, would increase earth's temperature.   Every thing has come to pass as theorized, way back then, read all about it here.

But you don't believe it, God will take care of everything, you don't have to worry.

Lack of action on climate change estimated to have cost 0.6 Trillion the US already.

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

There's lots of evidence, you just don't believe it.

Here, and here, and here, and here ... and on and on and on.

It was first noted in the 1800s that certain gases would create a warmer atmosphere, and that over time, would increase earth's temperature.   Every thing has come to pass as theorized, way back then, read all about it here.

But you don't believe it, God will take care of everything, you don't have to worry.

Lack of action on climate change estimated to have cost 0.6 Trillion the US already.

 

To start with, your first link is to an environmental organization, Environmental Defence Fund (EDF), which is biased anyway.  Enviro organizations blame man for everything in general and worship Mother Earth.  That is their purpose for being.  I read their so-called evidence.  It appears to make assumptions but there is still no proof that man is the cause.  Their claims are simply assumptions, not scientific proof according to the scientific method.

But here is something else to consider about what they said.  Did you know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of the atmosphere or 410 PPM.  Yet the amount of water vapour is up to 4% or up to 100 times greater than the amount of CO2 and water vapour is known to be a greenhouse gas which causes warming of the atmosphere.  Now, why did EDF not mention that water vapour is a greenhouse gas and the amount in the atmosphere is up to 100 times greater than CO2?  Since they are so concerned about global warming, why did they not mention water vapour, (H2O)? 

Also, EDF does not mention the fact that the big GHG emitters such as China emit about 30% of the world's fossil emissions, while Canada emits only about 1.5%, a miniscule amount.  So even if Canada makes major cuts while China cuts very little, it will have negligible effect, if you assume fossil emissions are the root cause of global warming problem.

So if they really believe GHG are the cause of GW, why don't they go after the largest emitters like China and India?  Why are they not out protesting in front of the Chinese embassies and talking about China?  No, instead they are concentrating on the western developed countries because they want us to contribute 100 billion dollars to the third world. 

Your second link, nasa.gov, is actually just a list of organizations which support the consensus view.  It makes much of the view that "climate is changing", but I don't think anyone would disagree with that.  Of course climate is changing.  It always has changed.  We have had warm periods in the past.  2,000 years ago we had the Roman Warming period and in the Middle Ages we had the Middle Ages warming period which lasted for centuries.  It was likely at warm in those two periods or warmer than it is now and there was no industry or fossil fuels involved.  So what was the cause in those periods?   Secondly, this link doesn't go into the causes other than to say it is very "likely" caused by man.  They offer the claim that it is "scientific consensus" as the primary argument.  But consensus is not proof.  In the past, man had consensus beliefs in things that were later abandoned, such as the sun revolved around the earth and other things that nobody believes today.  They don't mention the fact that there are many scientists who give good reasons for disagreeing with the consensus and don't believe there is any cause for climate change alarmism.

I will read what I can of your other links as time permits and may comment further.

Edited October 30, 2021 by blackbird

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

To start with, your first link is to an environmental organization, Environmental Defence Fund (EDF), which is biased anyway.  Enviro organizations blame man for everything in general and worship Mother Earth.  That is their purpose for being.  I read their so-called evidence.  It appears to make assumptions but there is still no proof that man is the cause.  Their claims are simply assumptions, not scientific proof according to the scientific method.

But here is something else to consider about what they said.  Did you know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of the atmosphere or 410 PPM.  Yet the amount of water vapour is up to 4% or up to 100 times greater than the amount of CO2 and water vapour is known to be a greenhouse gas which causes warming of the atmosphere.  Now, why did EDF not mention that water vapour is a greenhouse gas and the amount in the atmosphere is up to 100 times greater than CO2?  Since they are so concerned about global warming, why did they not mention water vapour, (H2O)? 

Also, EDF does not mention the fact that the big GHG emitters such as China emit about 30% of the world's fossil emissions, while Canada emits only about 1.5%, a miniscule amount.  So even if Canada makes major cuts while China cuts very little, it will have negligible effect, if you assume fossil emissions are the root cause of global warming problem.

So if they really believe GHG are the cause of GW, why don't they go after the largest emitters like China and India?  Why are they not out protesting in front of the Chinese embassies and talking about China?  No, instead they are concentrating on the western developed countries because they want us to contribute 100 billion dollars to the third world. 

Your second link, nasa.gov, is actually just a list of organizations which support the consensus view.  It makes much of the view that "climate is changing", but I don't think anyone would disagree with that.  Of course climate is changing.  It always has changed.  We have had warm periods in the past.  2,000 years ago we had the Roman Warming period and in the Middle Ages we had the Middle Ages warming period which lasted for centuries.  It was likely at warm in those two periods or warmer than it is now and there was no industry or fossil fuels involved.  So what was the cause in those periods?   Secondly, this link doesn't go into the causes other than to say it is very "likely" caused by man.  They offer the claim that it is "scientific consensus" as the primary argument.  But consensus is not proof.  In the past, man had consensus beliefs in things that were later abandoned, such as the sun revolved around the earth and other things that nobody believes today.  They don't mention the fact that there are many scientists who give good reasons for disagreeing with the consensus and don't believe there is any cause for climate change alarmism.

I will read what I can of your other links as time permits and may comment further.

You wouldn't believe it unless you saw it written in the bible, so don't bother reading the other links.  Its just a waste of your time.

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

You wouldn't believe it unless you saw it written in the bible, so don't bother reading the other links.  Its just a waste of your time.

I think that scientific publication is likely the most intellectually honest forum we have, and this person is rejecting that and citing YouTube/blogs etc.

I think you are wasting your time here, D.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I think you are wasting your time here, D.

It's even debatable whether someone who is demanding double-blind 'proof', after having been explained why that's impossible, is being intellectually honest.  More than 50% chance you are being played.  Move on.

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

You wouldn't believe it unless you saw it written in the bible, so don't bother reading the other links.  Its just a waste of your time.

 

I read much of the information from the first three of your links and gave a considered reply, which you obviously dismissed out of hand.  Not a sign of a serious or sincere debater.  You dismiss my long explanation with one nonsensical sentence.

I noticed the fourth link you gave, carbonbrief.org, says right off the top that "However, the science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report."

I think they completely lost any credibility right there.  I doubt any scientists would agree with that statement for the simple reason that global warming has historically occurred from time to time long before we had man contributing any greenhouse gases and before the industrial age.  Global warming has always existed and most greenhouse gases in the atmosphere come from nature and include water vapour which is by far much greater than CO2.  The fact is we could not live on earth if global warming was not provided by nature and energy from the sun.  That is what makes earth habitable and other planets not habitable.

If nature was not a major contributor to greenhouse gases and global warming, the earth would be a frigid ice pack like other planets.  But because we have an atmosphere and nature releases greenhouse gases and water vapour, it keeps the atmosphere at a temperature range that makes life possible.  So to simple say man is 100% responsible for global warming is illogical.  Just how much man contributes to global warming is what the debate is all about.

So why would anybody believe that man is 100% responsible for global warming now when nature has been the only cause of global warming in the past centuries?  And again CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere and water vapour is up to 4% of the atmosphere, meaning the major contributor to global warming has to be water vapour, not CO2.  There are also many other things besides mankind that release CO2 into the atmosphere.  So to say it is 100% caused by man is ludicrous and irrational.  No credibility with that kind of claim.  However, if you can't accept these simple facts, not much more I can say.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by blackbird

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think that scientific publication is likely the most intellectually honest forum we have, and this person is rejecting that and citing YouTube/blogs etc.

I think you are wasting your time here, D.

I think you should read my reply to Dia before making a silly comment.  I never cited youtube for one thing.  Try spending more time answering my points and less time trying to just discredit me.   That would be more intellectually honest if you want to know.

[H B Lowrey]

On 10/28/2021 at 10:03 PM, blackbird said:

 

God tell you that?

[H B Lowrey]

On 10/30/2021 at 9:54 PM, blackbird said:

I think you should read my reply to Dia before making a silly comment.  I never cited youtube for one thing.  Try spending more time answering my points and less time trying to just discredit me.   That would be more intellectually honest if you want to know.

Dude, you believe shit in the bible.