This is how science works in Warmist World: they don’t have to prove their insane ramblings
Climate change: time for the sceptics to put up or shut up
Say I were to ask you to prove that the dinosaurs were wiped out when an asteroid collided with the Earth 66m years ago, in what is now snappily called the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event.
If you were as weirdly obsessed by these catastrophes as I am, you would maybe start by citing the worldwide layer of sediment known as K-Pg boundary, which was first discovered near Gubbio, in Italy, and is thought to be the fallout from a massive explosion. You would mention the soot that is associated with this layer, the site of a huge impact in the Yucatán region of Mexico 66m years ago and, finally, you’d ask what else could have caused the dinosaurs to die out more or less overnight. A sceptic might respond that this is all supposition, evidence tenuously linked to fit a very recent theory: none of it constitutes proof and no one can ever know why the dinosaurs vanished to allow the rise of mammals and the eventual evolution of man.
So you would quote more evidence, such as the presence in the K-Pg layer of iridium, an element rare on Earth but not in asteroids, as well as the altered state of quartz, which can only be made under extremely high pressure, such as is caused by a huge impact of a 10km asteroid. You would mention the long darkness when only ferns grew and the fact that the seas were emptied of all but the most tenacious species.
Ah, but this is still all very hypothetical, the sceptic would say, at which point you might give up and tell him, yes, a spacecraft might have visited Earth and exterminated 75% of the world’s species, but you’re going with the best available evidence. The sceptic would walk away, satisfied that he had achieved a draw, not from the merit of his argument, but simply because he had not let you convince him.
How cute. Personally, I subscribe to the K-Pg theory (previously known as the K-T Boundary Event). You have the crater. You have the layer which has Iridium. And so much more. However, can you prove it 100%? Did I just hear you say “no”? The science is not, in fact, settled. Otherwise, why would scientists still be investigating it? In fact, there actually multiple theories as to what was the initial cause to the end of the dinosaur period. One theory is that volcanoes had already been wiping them out, and the asteroid was the cherry on top. Some think it was strictly earthly forces, and may claim that the asteroid had minimal to no impact. Maybe disease, stress, a supernova, and even caterpillars. How about 101 crazy theories? Some have even mention galactic bow shock. So, this isn’t quite “settled”, eh? (but most likely from an asteroid)
This is where we are with the climate change deniers. The absolute proof of manmade global warming is unlikely to arrive until it is too late and so the deniers are scrupulously indulged with equal time in the argument, where, taking the part of Little Britain’s wheelchair user Andy to our Lou, nothing is ever good enough for them.
Did Henry Porter just admit that they really do not have the proof? Are we supposed to spend trillions of dollars, institute Big Government control of people, private entities, and economies, and push our modern lifestyles back thousands of years without proof? According to Warmists, yes. Just not their own money, freedom, or lifestyles.
Anyhow, proof is rather necessary, and the actions and models from the Warmists show that they really do not have it. 95% of their models have failed post-1997. They are continuously making things up when out of the blue where their models fail. They yammer on about 50-100 years from now, while retroactively stating that every weather even is proof of “climate change”. They change the name of their cult, er, science. They change the data to fit their prognostications, which is the complete opposite of science. They Blame Mankind yet won’t change their own behaviors.
And they really do not like anyone to be allowed to speak against their pet cult. Rather fascistic.
They are always the sniping antagonists, rarely, if ever, standing up to say: we believe in the following facts and here is our research. It is a risk-free strategy – at least for the moment – that comes almost exclusively from the political right and is, as often as not, incentivised by simple capitalist gain. Hearing Lord Lawson argue with the impeccably reasonable climate scientist Sir Brian Hoskins on the BBC Today programme last week, I finally boiled over. It is surely now time for the deniers to make their case and hold an international conference, where they set out their scientific stall, which, while stating that the climate is fundamentally chaotic, provides positive, underlying evidence that man’s activity has had no impact on sea and atmosphere temperatures, diminishing icecaps and glaciers, rising sea levels and so on.
And there is the gist: Warmists do not have to prove anything. Those who do not subscribe to “climate change” must prove other causation. Well, we’ve done it time and time and time again (I could provide lots more links, those are just three I quickly grabbed). This is more of the “the science is settled, so just shut up” from these Warmists anti-science fascists. Whose own actions, data, and models prove their hypotheses are wrong.
To suspend hostilities for a moment, it seems to me that both sides should start by considering the undeniable waste of energy in British cities, where office lights shine through the night and supermarkets pump out hot air at open entrances and cold air in their freezer sections. Energy saving and a huge insulation programme might prevent the construction of more wasteful wind turbines, some of which, in the extreme weather of last week, burst into flames or had to be shut down.
Actually, not a bad idea.
We have to come to some agreement soon or the deniers won’t be the only dinosaurs.
Sigh. These people are unhinged.
Your third link boldly states:
“The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. Current warming is clearly not natural cycle.”
This is undoubtedly true, even if not “proved” to your (or jl’s) satisfaction.
Like jimhoft, sometimes you apparently fail to read the articles you use to support your own point. Did you intend to link to this withering refutation of your own position?
The other two links contain no data or evidence whatsoever, just opinion.
So in keeping with the theme of the essay you’ve criticized, do you have any evidence to support your hypothesis that the current rapid warming is all or mostly natural (remembering that natural does not mean magical)? The actual data and evidence overwhelmingly support the theory that CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels is changing the Earth’s climate.
As I’ve explained to you and yours on several occasions, a scientific theory is not just someone’s idea, but is supported by significant if not overwhelming data. For example, there’s the theory of evolution, which only the most scientifically illiterate would fail to recognize. Also, as I’ve said before, you can slay the theory of evolution or of AGW with data and evidence to the contrary. The author of the essay has asked the skeptics to “man up” and put up or shut up. And we all know you won’t shut up regardless, lol. In any event, your opposition to the theory of AGW is ideological and not scientific. But why won’t you just proudly admit that? Explain your ideological position – that you believe that cutting carbon emissions is too harmful to the economy – or that you think the god or gods would not let his or her or its creations suffer – or that since Al Gore/professors/scientists/liberals/Obama said it, you’re “agin” it – or add your own reason here.
Science is never settled, but as evidence mounts sometimes you have to accept that a theory is most likely true. Seriously, there are still educated folks working to refute the theory of evolution (see the Discovery Institute), and bless them for their thankless (but well compensated) task.
What natural processes are causing the current rapid warming period? The sun? Cosmic rays? Galactic impacts? Greenhouse effect? Magic?
Jeff,
What is the concentration of acid in the oceans that is making them acidotic, obtained by quantitative methods?
I might note that you have done more than anyone to solidify opinions that the AGW efforts are bogus.
dave,
Since the pH of seawater is 8, the free H+ concentration is 1 x 10-8 M/L as I’ve told you several times. Are you trying to make a point by asking?
“Acidotic” is a specific clinical term and it’s improper usage to describe the ocean that way.
Studies show that skeptics dig in their heels even more firmly when confronted with facts so I’m not surprised. Skeptics object to global warming for ideological reasons, not because of the evidence.
“Do you have evidence to support…that the current rapid warming is all or mostly natural..?” All we have to be able to do is show that your theory is falsifiable, which, with GW causing everything, is impossible. But that’s your problem. “Rapid warming” Again, rapid compared to ..what? You have no comparable data to….compare it to. So you can’t say it it’s rapid or not. But nice try for about the 10th time, J. But getting back to the “do you have evidence?” question. Yes, 4 billion years worth of natural warming, and cooling. It’s been warmer before, which the astrologers still can’t explain away. Remember, we don’t have to prove it’s natural- you have to prove it’s not. So, yes- 4 billion years worth of natural of evidence compared to several decades worth of evidence- most of which has been acting contradictory to your theory.
j,
You’re confused. The Theory of AGW is falsifiable – all you need is evidence. Unfortunately for humans, and for your position, the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of the theory.
You should read the essay again: “Climate change: time for the sceptics to put up or shut up”. I can make no arguments any better than the author did.
Here is my key point: “There is no evidence that will convince a denier that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the Earth to warm.”
I’ve asked before, What evidence would convince you? You have thought of this, right?
Ok, I have given Jeff several occasions to answer fundamental questions about his CO2 model. He refuses to answer them as he does not know the answer and when he comments he is using absurdly erroneous “facts”. He is nothing but a troll that delights in calling people names and confusing any issue. His only knowledge base is a few white papers that are highly biased. Don’t feed the troll.
dave,
Before you kiss my ass, understand there is only one issue: The Earth is warming because of CO2 that we are adding to the atmosphere increasing the retention of the sun’s heat.
Science deniers such as yourself work to deflect, confuse, change the subject, lie, lie some more, get the vapors and then make a flouncing exit as now.
Now, kiss my ass and be gone you big phony.
Now, kiss my ass and be gone you big phony.,?i>
Translation: “Mommy! The mean man is kicking my intellectual butt on a blog. Make the mean man stop Mommy!”
Looks like David hit a nerve.
But, since you solely blame CO2 from Mankind, Jeff, you’ve given up all fossil fueled travel and made your life “carbon neutral”, right? And will work tirelessly to get your fellow Warmists to do the same, right?
RE: “Say I were to ask you to prove that the dinosaurs were wiped out when an asteroid collided with the Earth 66m years ago, in what is now snappily called the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. … This is where we are with the climate change deniers.”
LOL. Clearly written by someone who doesn’t understand the scientific method.
The really fun part is his initial premise: a large asteroid caused the extinction. Sorry, this theory is being challenged on multiple fronts. Astrophysicists point to the fact that an asteroid couldn’t produce the effect. A comet is a better candidate. Further, the age of the commonly accepted impact site is too old. Still more geologists point to severe volcanic activity that weakened dinosaur populations before an impact event finished the job.
The author starts with an example of “settled science” without realizing that the issue isn’t settled at all. There’s no such thing as “settled science”. The best science challenges consensus with a new theory that explains the facts and predicts future outcomes.
My daughter in-law defended her PhD thesis in a conference room named after Oswald Avery. Prior to Avery, it was “settled science” that proteins were the basis of inheritance. While DNA was known, it was considered too simple to be the basis of genetics. Avery, MacLeod, and McCarthy revolutionized molecular genetics by postulating that DNA was the basis of inheritance. Their views were not accepted at first.
Pirate,
I’ve tired of explaining and re-explaining to dave the basics of acid-base chemistry. He contends there is no such thing as a pH measurement, therefore there is no basis for debate. He’s playing denier games.
Yes, the current warming period is mostly because of human-generated CO2. I have not given up all fossil fueled travel. Why do you believe that is critical to the debate?
Because people that believe in something act on those beliefs.
We are tired of explaining and re-explaining that to you. You contend that actions are not indicative of hypocrisy. You’re playing the denier game.
g2,
So? The Pirate has rigged the game. 1) There is NO evidence that will persuade a true Coolist/ Science denier believer, ever. Period. That’s why Coolists never argue evidence. 2) The logical fallacy of requiring your debate opponent to meet some unattainable and irrelevant criteria is a distraction, not an argument. It’s a form of ad hominem attack to denigrate your opponent rather than argue facts and evidence.
I’ve lived in a tiny, energy efficient house close to work for over 30 years and I likely spend less on heating and cooling than the Pirate spends on cigarettes and nude pictures of teen girls. The Pirate demands that anyone who argues for reducing carbon emissions must first reduce their own carbon emissions to zero. He wants to limit the debate, and no wonder. Anyway, if every household in the developed world had had my carbon footprint for the past 35 yrs we wouldn’t need to have this debate.
Few if any climate realists are demanding that anyone not use any fossil fuels, yet the Pirate demands that of others before he allows them to even enter the debate. You guys normally label that kind of behavior as “fascism”. Incorrectly, I might add.