Climate Change denial vs History

Yes!!! Weren't you????

Any moderately intelligent person would have sensed the sarcasm.

The point is that you rant against comparing Proxy Data with Instrumental Data, and then... what do you do?... you compare Proxy Data with Instrumental Data when you find it suits you. So, given your lack of coherence, I sarcastically asked you to show what instruments were used in 1000-1200 to base your statement that the tempreature difference between now and then was "minimal" .... How could you have taken that literally?

Gawd! Never thought I'd have to spell it out for you...

So now... if you don't accept comparing inferred data and observed data (which, BTW, and whether you like it or not, is common in all Sciences), how do you know that the difference in temperature between 1000-1200 and now is minimal?

 

Why do so many make a straw man argument when it comes to action on climate change? We do not have to go back to horse and buggies

Mind you walking a few meters more won't hurt most of us

But humour aside we are working on some of the major sources of climate change by altering how we manufacture and store electricity, by developing hybrids and electric vehicles for short journies by making coal "clean" New carbon capture technologies https://www.newlight.com/aircarbon/ and other innovations that we may never have seen if this concern had not been raised at an international level

 

They have had electric cars since around 1900, are you serious. What you have listed here, they already know how to do. It's just they don't make as much money that way. And going back to horses was sarcasm.

 

So, the problem with Bill Nye is that his assertions are not so much "wrong" as they are purposefully misleading. Climates do change. They don't however, rely on a "grand scale" in nature. We know that this isn't true. We know that climates have dramatically changed over very short durations of time. It depends on the external influencers.

And what Nye is suggesting is that when viewed through a very small lens, (tens or hundreds of years) that rapidity isn't a normal function of nature. Of course that's horse shyte. The onset of the last little ice age occurred over less than 100 years, and it's abatement experienced a similar time line.

The unfortunate truth is that mr Nye isn't qualified to be scientifically authoritative, Tucker astutely points this out, and Nye thrashed having that expressed.

 

Really can you not follow that. It is said that the science for climate change is settled, there is no denying it they say. So if the science is "settled" what's the science? To what degree are humans effecting the climate? You realize that requires knowing the climate without the human effect. So what degree are humans effecting the climate, seems how their "science" on the matter is "settled"?

 

The science settled.... the muck it settled into cannot be parsed out to tell us what the science was....or the inputs... So, because the science "settled", we can't unwind it sufficiently to answer any real question....

 

So you agree with me?

 

yes.

 

DUPLICATE

 

Wrong!

To pose the nonsensical question of what would climate be like without the human effect, many many variables would need to be resolved: "Why is there no human effect?", "Is this a scenario in which humans don't exist, or is it that they haven't reached the industrial stage?", "What other conditions are changed?", "What caused this catastrophic change, and does that cause affect climate?", ... and many many etceteras more.

Oh, there are charts of human produced CO2 vs naturally produced CO2... And for just about every green-house gas. But that doesn't tell us what the climate would be without humans. Because the variables are too many and it is not of any interest to anybody

This video of Bill Nye is interesting in other ways. He is confused by a nonsensical question. Scientists aren't accustomed to dealing with nonsensical questions. They are accustomed to dealing with nature. And nature doesn't pose nonsensical questions.

And that's why Epistemology exists.

(Sidenote: I responded to this above, but accidentally deleted it thinking I had duplicated it. So if anybody read the original post, you might find different words, but the idea is the same)

 

Hello...Bill Nye is not a scientist. He has a bachelor in engineering, nothing more. He was hired by Disney, for a science spokesman, another words an "actor".

Your entire rant here claims that we have no idea what the extent of human activity contributes to climate change. It's obvious the earth is warming, and that man plays a role. How significant we don't know, how much is the natural climate changing, we don't know. We do know that it's warming, simply from our senses.

The other problem is the "solution". We can argue all day over climate change, and in doing so we are contributing to that climate change. If it is man causing it, then it's obvious it is our "way of life". So what are we going to do.....to change our "way of life". Simple, everybody is already doing it.........absolutely nothing. We know it's warming, we know man plays a role, and we know man is doing nothing to change their "way of life".

 

It was a disingenuous strawman fallacy, which you are now attempting to recast as sarcasm.

As I did no such thing, may I assume you are being "sarcastic" again, and are aware that I did not compare instrumental and proxy data?

Because that was how you intended it.

It's commonly done to validate proxies (obviously), but not to show relationships that aren't supported by proxy-proxy comparisons, as Mann did with the hokey stick.

I've already told you: proxies like weather and farming records, comparison of pollen from peat bogs and lake sediments, etc.

 

You didn't complain about comparing Proxy Data to instrumental Data? Ok. Then we're cool. Probably had you confused with somebody else...

 

You don't need a degree to be a Scientist. All you need is to ... do Science. And he has worked quite a bit in Science Projects. And he has several Patents to his name which have been peer-reviewed and published. And, probably the most important, he thinks like a Scientist.

His work might be best described as "Science Communicator" but ... Yes! Bill Nye is a Scientist.

BTW, there are many people who hold a PhD in Science, and are not scientists. So a degree is most definitely not an indicator.

Not really. My entire "rant" in the message you were responding to was that Bill Nye was asked a nonsensical question.

I actually agree with most of what you say in the rest of your message. We need to figure out what to do. And start doing it. But our country is far behind because some extremists on the right just deny the scientific consensus position: that the Surface of the planet is getting warmer, and that human activity is to blame. So we're stuck still trying to convince ignorant lawmakers about something that Science settled many years ago. And instead of focusing on your questions, they focus on the nonsensical questions.

 

Like Michael Mann.

No, he just had no answer.

That's not the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is that the earth GOT warmer in the 20th century -- not surprising, as it was still rebounding from the LIA, and solar activity was at a multi-millennium high -- and that human CO2 emissions CONTRIBUTED to it. There is most certainly NOT a scientific consensus (though there may be a political one) that human CO2 emissions were the cause of the 20th century warming, let alone that they will cause much more warming in the 21st century.

That's just false. Science did not settle any such thing. The consensus, such as it is, has been driven by politics and manipulation, not science.

Just because AGW screamers can't answer a question, that doesn't make it nonsensical.

 

No the consensus is that over 50% of the warming is due to man

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You're wrong bringiton ,and there's no past tense.

It IS the consensus that AGW IS happening

 

The political consensus. Not the scientific consensus.

 

That claim is not supported by the political -- not scientific -- document you linked to.

 

Nope scientific consensus. Political too since every country also believes in it

 

You certainly do not have any scientific papers to support your position.....they are all political

 

That link was talking about SCIENTISTS not politicians.

Did you bother to read it?

You CAN read right?

 

He only has answers to real questions.

Scientific consensus is reviewed and updated every year.... still getting warmer, I'm afraid....

Scientists know how to do Science. They have no clue how to do politics.

We agree. What makes it nonsensical is that nobody in their right mind would spend a single penny on investigation to figure out what would have happened if... something that did not happen, had happened..

 

Nope. It was talking about ORGANIZATIONS, not SCIENTISTS. Organizations are controlled POLITICALLY.

Yes.

And what's more, think.

 

Prove it