Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

Temperature is temperature. However, this is going nowhere given that you already declared the whole thing a Conspiracy Theory. So what is to be gained by trying to educate you on any of this?

So... you're scared of a teenager? Funny!

Why?

On second thought, never mind. Most advocates of conspiracy theories can make up the most fantastic stories. Not really interested.

 

That's right. Peer-reviewers are very much pressured to find something... anything... wrong with the studies they are reviewing. If they don't, and then some college kid does... they do even worse than the scientists who signed the study. And that's nothing compared to what happens to the Editor. You wouldn't want to be in his/her shoes...

 

It is the ultimate authority.

 

A flawed ultimate authority.

 

Correct! And it's the flaws in science that make it more trustworthy.

 

The more the errors, the better off we are???

 

Unfortunately you stopped trying. You were on a roll. One right of every two wasn't bad. But looks like you reached your limit. Oh well...

 

I don't see what there is to debate here. It's fact that increased C02 emissions raises heat. (heat causes WARMING). It's fact that burning fossil fuels increases C02 emissions.

It's fact that mining for lithium also has negative environmental impacts. (although not C02 related ones).

Also why is global warming the ONLY impact issue people seem to care about? Plastic in the ocean is a HUGE problem and its actually one we can control more easily yet we don't, why? because that isn't as financially exploitable as climate change is

You also don't hear certain groups talk about dead animals and fish and contaminated water supplies from lithium mining

FYI, I'm not anti-lithium or anti-fossil fuel but the point I'm trying to make is lets not fool ourselves into calling that CLEAN energy.

We do know that solar works! We do know that plants work. Why is every rooftop not covered in solar or plants?

This brings us to the left's TRUE agenda regarding climate change, population control. That is the really only true way to save us from global warming. Our population keeps getting higher, the numbers keep getting higher. The left is 100% right on this, its science, less people, less environmental impact. Sure if we throw humanity, mortals, and human decency to the wind then yes, population control is the way to go! Unless we actually find a clean source of energy. BTW, I no disrespect to the left for their "for the greater good" mentality, I understand how that could be the mentality of many and respect their right to think that way, but that mentality just isn't for me and not what I happen to agree with.

I really hope the smart future generation that got into college based on looks and not merit can help find the answers! We need clean energy and eventually will need to colonize other planets because it will become very crowded here. In the meantime why are we not utilizing the living crap out of Solar? Why aren't their plants any possible place they could fit? Why is water being sold in plastic bottles? Why aren't all desk jockey's working from home? If your entire job can be done in a cubicle then why not do it at home and minimize your footprint? You folks are gonna have to learn to deal with some minor inconveniences if you ever want to fix the environment problems and stop blaming it all on motor vehicles. The issue goes way beyond that.

I'd love to see a detailed graph of emissions for things like emissions from Auto per year and air travel and factories and it be nice to see it really broken down and then maybe that could lead to some constructive debate. I've been searching for one like that but no luck so far.

Also, I'm ready to ditch the car for a horse and buggy if you are! Do your politicians have the cajones to do that? Nah! Horses aren't as profitable as electric cars!

 

Cute story, not terribly accurate however because peer reviewers will sometimes become peer reviewees.

 

Except when it is no higher now than it was in 1940....? Then it's somehow a conspiracy by oil companies?

That is just another bald fabrication on your part.

So what is to be gained by trying to educate you on any of this?

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. I said she and other anti-fossil-fuel liars have been trying to make people afraid of CO2. Not that they had succeeded in making me afraid of her.

You know this. Why pretend you do not?

I already gave you several possible motives: to obtain political power; to feel important; to simulate virtue they do not possess; to exercise control over their betters; to fight an economic system they consider evil; there are lots of reasons.

I see. So, there could never have been any such thing as a conspiracy, because conspiracy theories are always automatically false?

 

The debate is over how much warming CO2 emissions cause. If doubling atmospheric CO2 would increase average global surface temperatures by 10C, that would be cause for alarm. However, we know for certain that it won't. If it would increase them by 1C (roughly the amount predicted by the ordinary physics of radiative heat transfer), that is not cause for alarm, but perhaps for caution. If it would increase them by 0.1C, that can safely be ignored. The anti-CO2 hysteria campaign claims the increase will be 2-5C, a hypothesis that is not supported by any credible empirical evidence.

 

No, actual physical events are the ultimate authority.

But I understand now why you believe the anti-CO2 hysteria campaign: you actually believe that peer review has the power to alter objective physical reality. You actually believe that whatever peer reviewers say will happen will then happen in reality, that their peer reviews have a magical power to control the physical universe.

That, I suppose, is the result of taking too many courses in epistemology.

 

No they aren't. They are pressured to give a pass to their friends' papers. That is why pal reviewers gave a pass to Lyin' Michael Mann's hockey stick graph even though Steve McIntyre proved it was fraudulent despite not having access to the original data.

No they don't. Nobody even knows who they are. None of the pal reviewers who passed Lyin' Michael Mann's hockey stick paper suffered any consequences whatever -- except that they got passes from pal reviewers on their own fraudulent papers. Mann even doubled down on his fraud, and the anti-CO2 hysteria crowd circled the wagons around him.

Nothing happens to them. What happened to the editor who accepted Mann's obviously fraudulent hockey stick paper?

 

See the problem is that "heat" has raised temperature a little over 1.5C since the 1860's. OF that amount climatologists credit CO2 with about 5% of it. Granted that has never been "proved", just postulated based on the results of computer models. The same models that tell up water vapor is that largest villain in the "burning earth" saga.

 

Oh, for Heaven's sake! Temperature is temperature. It's a measurement. Lower higher.... whatever it is. I you're trying to argue that scientists, peer-reviewers, scientific publication editors (the large majority of which aren't even climatologists), students, Academies of Science...from ALL over the world... don't know how average temperatures are measured, then say it! Out with the nonsense! If you're arguing that they do, but that there is some sort of "worldwide conspiracy" to alter facts... I TOLD you I am just not interested!

So, there you have it folks. Climatologists all over the world are involved in this complicated Conspiracy with all other scientists and a teenager because they want to "feel important".

The only remaining question is why am I wasting my time with this, when there are waaaay more serious arguments about how scientists conspire with extraterrestrials to hide the fact that the Earth is not round. I mean, at least THOSE scientists have a micro-chip implanted in their brain, which is more interesting than they just wanting a teenager to become President of the World.

 

Priceless!

One has to wonder if maybe you're not just pulling our leg by making a caricature of the world of science denialism to ridicule it.

 

So we can add peer review to the list of topics of which you have no actual knowledge. Check.

 

And there is not only no known way to measure the average temperature of the earth's surface in the past, there is no known way to measure it now.

So in point of fact, your claim that since records began, the earth's surface having been warmest in nine of the past ten years is an actual physical event is just some silly made-up nonscience with no basis in fact.

They have no doubt employed lots of different methodologies in their attempts to estimate the earth's average surface temperature, but none of them know how to measure it now, let alone in the past.

You are not interested in any of the relevant facts. You've proved that often enough.

No, you made that up, like almost everything else you have said on this topic.

Let me know if you ever have anything relevant to say.

 

No, real science. You know (okay, maybe you don't), like physics and chemistry. Hard sciences based on empirical experimentation and proven over the last couple hundred years and the basis of much of the modern world. Real science.

Not pseudoscience like AGW science, based on modeling and not a single repeatable experiment. A complete exercise in sucking on the teat of government funding and "peer review" nonsense.

And by the way, thermodynamics (a branch of physics) easily disproves AGW science by way of the First and Second laws of Thermodynamics, Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck's law, etc. In short summary, you should probably have learned as early as junior high school that thermal energy always moves from hot to cold.

Game, set, match.

 

Well... there are some new devices we might be able to use to know the earth's surface temperature in the past NOW. It works like this: you write down the CURRENT temperature, and then tomorrow, you'll actually have the surface temperature in the past (today will be the past from the point of view of tomorrow). It's quite ingenious, actually. They want to call these new devices "paper" and "pencil". Imagine the records we could have kept if we only had such technology a few decades ago...

Then, I ask again: WHY would climatologists, peer-review publication editors, scientists (in sciences other than climatology), students, ALL science academies in the world, want to "fool" us into believing that the Earth surface temperature is increasing, and that this increase is due to human activity (a.k.a, the AGW Scientific Consensus)?

If I "made up" the conspiracy theory you are embracing, then you should be able to answer without the conspiracy part.

 

Climatology IS physics and chemistry. Nothing more, nothing less. Climatology is simply a WAY to apply those two sciences to a specific area (the climate) If climatologists were somehow lying to us, ANY chemist and any physicist would immediately spot the ruse and we would NOT have all the Academies of Science in the world (composed of waaaay more physicists and chemists than climatologists) demanding that governments take action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

 

<sigh> You appear to have become confused and lost your way. There are lots of such records. They record the temperature readings on particular thermometers at particular locations at particular times on particular days, not the average temperature of the earth's surface. The fact that you do not understand the difference speaks volumes.

They have discerned that that is how to advance (or avoid destroying) their careers.

I didn't say there could not be a conspiracy, just that the one you seemed to favor was rather implausible.

 

No. The lies are subtle and complex enough to defeat almost any casual analysis.

You made that up.

 

No it's not.

Here's a question. How does "global warming" get temperatures to rise given constant output of the sun?

 

Roughly the same way putting another blanket on your bed raises your skin temperature despite constant metabolic rate. The question is how much additional CO2 will increase average global surface temperatures, and there are good reasons to think it is not much.