Science Teachers’ Grasp of Climate Change Is Found Lacking
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Last time I discussed this issue with him. I've proven him wrong on numerous occasions and he always chooses to deflect or make straw man arguments to avoid armitting he was wrong.
I'm not at the end of either spectrum. That you insist on putting me there tells me all I need to know about your reading comprehension.
Baloney. We are ALL still waiting for your insights on the 'natural' causes for the recent runup in temperatures.
It's like Waiting for Godot.
Deflect and deny. It's what you do best. Get comfortable and thank me for not making you look like a fool again.
Phlogiston.
I propose that natural variation in the levels of phlogiston is responsible for what scientists are calling global warming.
This increase in phlogiston has been hypothesized to be the root cause of 4 of the 5 well-documented mass extinctions. So we shouldn't be complacent about it. But it's an easily cured problem. In the presence of CO2, phlogiston breaks down into inert byproducts. So the easiest solution is to burn fossil fuels. Using solar or wind power will reduce CO2 levels and greatly extend the half life of phlogiston, with disastrous consequences.
I propose that natural variation in the levels of phlogiston is responsible for what scientists are calling global warming.
This increase in phlogiston has been hypothesized to be the root cause of 4 of the 5 well-documented mass extinctions. So we shouldn't be complacent about it. But it's an easily cured problem. In the presence of CO2, phlogiston breaks down into inert byproducts. So the easiest solution is to burn fossil fuels. Using solar or wind power will reduce CO2 levels and greatly extend the half life of phlogiston, with disastrous consequences.
I don't think they are more upset with those in the middle. It's just that they believe that anyone not full on board with their alarmist view is a denier.
Oh no, not at all.
Some are just willfully ignorant or stupid.
Even Exxon, which has funded denialism for decades, has known the truth since the late 1970s. They aren't dumb. They looked at the research and did their own. They know it's true.
They just know that if people are allowed to grasp the truth, they will want to address it. And addressing it is extremely unhealthy to their bottom line.
A company whose value is significantly based upon proven reserves is in big trouble when the world finally recognizes that those proven reserves have to remain in the ground. If Big Oil hasn't diversified by then, they're toast. And if gaining enough time to diversify safely requires sacrificing the lives of millions or even billions of humans, along with 70% or more of all living species, hey, that's a small price to pay to protect shareholders.
I don't think this part is true. I think a great many people know it's true and don't want to address it as they are fairly certain that the costs to them of fixing it will outweigh the benefits. I think a lot of denialism is fueled by a desire to relieve guilt.
Sure, but I was talking about Exxon in that comment.
What you describe is advanced denialism. Wrong, of course, but doesn't sound quite so stupid. We've seen some GOP candidates play that charade. Rubio for example. You acknowledge the science, but downplay the threat and raise the fear that addressing it will, as you say, cause more harm than good.
Exxon Mobil sponsored the Universe of energy ride at Epcot center for most of its existence. On that ride they claim a worse situation than we actually face. In fact they predicted calamity would have already occurred and we would have already run out of fossil fuels.
Do you really think that the big bad guys would have spent millions of dollars to send a message in the most popular theme park in the world that directly opposed their conspiracy?
Beats me, but sounds like a cool ride.
BTW, the evidence is well-documented about Exxon.
Declaring yourself "right", doesn't make you right. You can claim that 3+3=8 all you want. It still makes you an idiot.
A lot of people who are a hell of a lot more informed, and smarter, than you say you are wrong. I'm going to go with the experts. I wouldn't take financial advice from a youtube video on Facebook, you shouldn't take scientific advice from one either.
Right. You are smarter than the scientists and climatologists. They didn't do anything to earn those PhD's anyway.
I never made single argument against them. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of those who don't know shit making false claims. Funny how when this subject comes up the disciples can't debate within reason but will take a reasonable person like myself and pigeonhole them into a position they can argue against in order to claim a victory.
You probably don't know Boyle's law from Boolean logic. I imagine if you were given a 500mb chart you wouldn't have the slightest idea what it means. And yes ****tards, climate and weather are related, but not in aspect of the hyperbole each side presents.
What you dumb shits don't seem to realize is that I'm not against you. I care just as much, and probably do more for the environment than you do. I just don't appreciate the bullshit.
1. Is the planet warming? You can answer no here and just skip the rest.
2. Is anthropogenic CO2 the major cause?
3. If your answer to #2 was any variation of "No" or hints at any level of uncertainty, please describe the unknown factor you believe is responsible.
Not sure why you keep dodging this. I suspect you will fail to address the questions again and then regale us with your claims of superiority...but I might be surprised.
And don't forget to show your evidence to support your reasoning.
Uh....YES, they DO.
What you are referring to is 'seasons'. Pretty sure the climate scientists have that part pretty well locked down.
No. I am not referring to seasons and nether was Milankovitch, you dipshit. I am referring to extremes WITHIN a season. When the axis changes the places closer to the sun get warmer while at the same time the places farther from the sun on the other side of the world get colder. You are not too bright. You are stuck on your SEASONS point. We already have seasons and they are getting extreme. Milankovitch Theory explains why they are getting extreme. The axis causes the seasons. A more extreme axis makes the seasons more extreme. Get a clue.
Al Gore started the whole ball rolling. I like how Al was giving speeches on global warming and he would have the heat turned up in the building. What a fraud.
Without people like me you would not have anyone to pay for your welfare programs. When you start pulling your weight you won't have to listen to me.
Al Gore was a sincere popularizer of the science at the time.
Which we needed because few scientists are good at it, have the name recognition, and are also willing to put themselves in the line of fire. Carl Sagans are rare.
Gore has been honestly concerned with this subject matter at least back when he was running for the Dem nomination in 1988.
He's not a scientist and he made some relatively inconsequential errors in presentation but, on balance, he did the nation and the world a huge service.
Whoever else attempted to do what Gore did do was either going to be totally ignored or was going to get the full smear treatment. Probably both, in sequence. The shame is that people still beat up on Gore after all this time and despite evidence that he was absolutely right in the broad strokes of his warnings and presentation.
Last edited:
The Earth doesn't wobble on it's axis at the rates it would need to in order to create these extremes we are getting every year. You're trying to attribute seasonal extremes to something that takes thousands of years to happen.
I'll ask AGAIN.
WHAT are the natural mechanisms for the recent warming? I'm not deflecting or denying anything. You are completely avoiding answering YOUR assertion made earlier in the thread.
It's fairly obvious you are in WAY over your head in science discussions. Maybe there's a kid's area on HR for you to play in...
A sponsored theme park ride is your answer to their own internal scientific reports and documents which outlined the problem 3 decades ago?
Wow.
Bullcrap.
You stated above that humans are not causing warming, that it's 'natural' climate variation.
Point to the natural variable driving the warming.
You cannot support your (false) hypothesis, so all you do is keep yelling at other people and acting like a child.
You clearly do not understand Milankovitch cycles and their relation to climate. They are responsible for overall warming/cooling of the planet, not 'seasonal extremes'. An Ice Age is NOT a 'seasonal extreme', it's a major climate shift.
Go read a science book and cut the namecalling bullcrap.
JFC...STOP!!!! We are in the DECREASING TILT phase of the cycle about halfway between the last maximum and the oncoming minimum. This is when axial tilt and seasonal differences become LESS extreme. Summers should be getting cooler and winters warmer. The planet as a whole SHOULD BE COOLING if the Milankovitch cycle is considered in isolation!!! And those changes occur over periods of millennia...the decreasing phase of the cycle takes 20,000+ years. The changes caused by the Milankovitch cycle - again, in isolation - would be barely perceptible in a human lifetime.
Dipshit.
Al Gore has nothing to do with climate science.
He also was nowhere on the road map when companies like Exxon identified the risks of CO2 emissions and climate change 30 years ago.
Yep. Zwicky doesn't understand the concept of a simple sinusoidal function (Milankovitch pattern) and that we're already past the peak of the cycle and should be headed for another Ice Age in 50,000 years or so.
But instead of the climate cooling, it's heating up 10x faster (or more) than the cooling effects should be. It's like driving your car on the highway on cruise control, tapping the brakes just a bit and having the car rapidly accelerate the more you hit the brake. I'm afraid that even an analogy that simple is beyond his reading comprehension level, however...
You remember how Mike Tyson used to memorize really big words in a dictionary and then use them to make himself try and sound educated?
Yeah, it's like that.
Joe, is it your belief that all the recent warming is man made and that there are no natural mechanisms impacting it?
It is not 'my belief' that all the recent warming is manmade.
It is my observation and understanding that:
- Solar output is mostly unchanged for at least 70 years, and in fact has dropped in the past 2 decades. New analysis of historical sunspot data implies solar output has been in a 'lull' for the past several hundred years. Thus, it is highly unlikely that solar output variations, which are either stable at best and more likely decreasing, can explain recent warming - they should be causing a very limited and slow cooling.
- Milankovitch cycles occur on a range of 100,000 to 400,000 years, and we are already past the peak of the last cycle and on the 'downward' side. Thus, it is highly improbable (bordering on completely impossible) that these cycles can explain the recent warming - we should be experiencing an unmeasureable (on a century-scale) cooling.
- A complex system like our climate certainly has lots of internal variability, BUT in order for it to move significantly in one direction or another, there MUST be some forcing causing the change. The Earth and Earth's oceans simply have a massive specific heat value which will not allow major shifts in global temperature unless there is an imbalanced forcing, like solar output (which noted above, is stable or decreasing).
- ENSO variation can influence decadal temperatures, but cannot explain consistent warming over the past century. A simple look at ENSO vs. global temperatures shows rapid warming during any El Nino dominated decade, and NO COOLING, but instead stable temperatures during La Nina dominated periods. If the Earth's temperature were stable, we SHOULD see some cooling during La Nina periods but we don't.
- The ONLY variable that we have been able to track which is consistent with recent warming is GHG levels, particularly CO2 levels. Those levels are entirely driven my man-made influences, which is well documented by analyzing isotope levels for the C in the CO2; we KNOW that the 'new' CO2 has been sequestered for millennia because of the isotope ratios - either as oil, coal or natural gas. Thus, we KNOW we are the one causing the CO2 runup, and it is presently the ONLY variable consistent with the warming.
Could someone pin this to the top of the forum please? TiA.
When someone starts one of these we could just link it and end the thread. Far more efficient.
There you go again. I simply did not state that. You are confusing me with somebody else or simply lack the basic reading comprehension skills.
It is you acting as a child here, and though you seem to think your pretty smart, I'm a hell of a lot smarter than you and not in the least bit over my head. Every time we discuss this I have owned you and most of it starts with your desire to fight about things I haven't even said. Sorry but I'm simply not engaging you again on this because not only are you less intelligent, you lack honesty.
Really? Because I was responding to who wrote THIS in the thread:
And I've asked you for WHAT the 'natural forcings' are which are contributing to recent warming many times, only to have to repost your same old bullshit here.
You've been thoroughly owned in this thread, and have nowhere NEAR the scientific understanding of this topic you think you do.
