• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should we believe the experts or the politicians regarding climate change?

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
If we don't have a clue what the temp is then we can't say it's up or down.

Uh... you can just measure it. You can measure moisture, temperature, pressure, particulates, cloud
cover, rainfall, snow, wind and the like. And we can average for areas, countries, continents, hemispheres.
And it's obvious that wet areas are getting wetter, dry areas getting dryer - when averaged out over many
years. And it's obvious, averaged out, that most of the hottest years on record, are happening right now.

Certainly I have issues with the politicization of all this, but the science is good.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Wikipedia does not show global average surface temperature readings. The Y-axis only shows a calculated "temperature anomaly" --something that can end up being anything we want.

Except it has an exact definition: "The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average." -- Global Surface Temperature Anomalies

From the same site:

Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?

Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region's average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Not implying anything.

"How many experts work for an agency that is funded by, ran by, or over seen by the government/politicians"

One could imply that the politicians and experts get paid by the same place.
One could try to imply that, but it would be untrue. WE pay the experts, through our taxes. Corporate lobbyists pay the politicians, through legalized bribery. If they were all being paid by the same people, and they were all being corrupted by their paychecks, they would all agree on the results.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
I thought I would see what Professor Peterson had to say about it and he hasn’t let me down.


I believe the politicians have joined the cause because they can see votes and power heading their way.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I thought I would see what Professor Peterson had to say about it and he hasn’t let me down.


I believe the politicians have joined the cause because they can see votes and power heading their way.

Politicians change their mind with the wind, scientists chance their mind with the evidence.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
What is he doesn't "get money from some Oil/Gas" ???
There's tons of careers and money riding on Global Warming you know.
A lot of "Oil/Gas" people wanted to go nuclear but vested interests stopped them.
If the issue concerns vested interests then let's list them all.
Major oil producers have been funding emission reduction research for more than 2 decades.
 

Pete in Panama

Active Member
Pete in Panama said: ↑

Wikipedia does not show global average surface temperature readings. The Y-axis only shows a calculated "temperature anomaly" --something that can end up being anything we want.

...temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average....
--and then the big question becomes "a reference value or long-term average" of what? That's the big secret and for all we can tell it may even be a variety of fudge factors applied at will to ensure the desired result. Bottom line here is nobody knows but the publisher and nobody cares but the tax payer.
...Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations...
--so difficult that nobody ever bothers to try, but then even when there's no global absolute surface average temperatures they'll still turn right around and announce that these same unknown global absolute surface average temperatures have definitely increased 0.9C over the past 130 years.

We've got no idea what it is but we're sure it's changed a definite amount from some other thing we got no idea what it is either. That's a religious or political position, not a scientific observation.
 

Pete in Panama

Active Member
Guitar's Cry said:
...it is relatively simple to measure the average temperature of the surface of the Sun. It takes a bit of work to measure the Earth's average temperature.
Pete in Panama said:
So where does that leave us, that we simply have no idea what the Earth's average temperature is? If that's so then we can't say it's up or down.
Not sure where I said what you quoted me saying...
You said it's "work to measure the Earth's temperature". Agreed. That takes us to the reality that if we don't do the work of measuring the Earth's temperature then we can't say it's higher or lower.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
You said it's "work to measure the Earth's temperature". Agreed. That takes us to the reality that if we don't do the work of measuring the Earth's temperature then we can't say it's higher or lower.

...I didn't say that. Check the arrow next to the quote box.

Not that I am denying it. Science is gard work. We seem to be doing it despite the hard work, though, and we have a good idea of the rise in global temperature.
 

Pete in Panama

Active Member
...I didn't say that. Check the arrow next to the quote box.

Not that I am denying it. Science is gard work. We seem to be doing it despite the hard work, though, and we have a good idea of the rise in global temperature.
--and we've got that "good idea of the rise in global temperature" w/o ever knowing the temps before and after.

OK, you win, circular debating wins every time:
215357_5_.jpg

It's called "proof by exhaustion".
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
--and we've got that "good idea of the rise in global temperature" w/o ever knowing the temps before and after.

Don't be silly - have you even read the links on this? We know lots of historical, real temperature readings from all over the world. The only "problem" is extracting trends from lots of individual data points. The method used has been explained. You haven't said what you specifically you think is wrong with it - you've just posted lots of bluster and assertions.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
--and we've got that "good idea of the rise in global temperature" w/o ever knowing the temps before and after.

OK, you win, circular debating wins every time:
215357_5_.jpg

It's called "proof by exhaustion".

Woah! Slow the ride down! You misquoted me. I never said what you quoted me saying.

And, I have not been circular in my reasoning. We have a good idea of average temperatures, and with many of the indicators climate models have predicted panning out, it would appear that they are accurate.

Don't call out logical fallacies while apparently purposely misquoting me.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I use the words....global warming
my wife and my son use the term …..climate change

I think it is naïve to say …..Man does not soil the nest
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
I believe Jordan made some very good points in his video (post #84)

As he says -

It is very difficult to separate the science from the politics.

Even if the more radical claims are true, we have no idea what to do about it.

We won’t be able to measure the positive or negative effects of anything we do right now.

How are you going to solve a problem when you can’t even measure the consequence of your actions?

What is the solution, are we going to rely on wind and solar?

We can’t store the power.

Germany tried it and they produced more carbon dioxide than they did when they started. They had to turn on their coal-fired plants again. The price of electricity just went up.

He doesn’t see a solution to global warming.

Two hundred goals isn’t a plan, it’s a wish list. Addressing global warming wasn’t even on the list.

There are more trees in the northern hemisphere than there were 100 years ago because poor people have been burning coal instead of wood. People say we shouldn’t burn coal, so what do you want to do, burn trees instead because that’s what poor people would have done. Coal isn’t good but it’s better than burning wood.

It’s complicated and we are not going to do a damn thing about it either. So it doesn’t really matter.

Are you going to stop having heat?

Are you going to stop having electricity?

Are you going to stop driving your cars?

Are you going to stop taking trains?

Are you going to stop using your i-phones?

You are not going to do any of that and no wonder.
 

Pete in Panama

Active Member
Pete in Panama said:
--and we've got that "good idea of the rise in global temperature" w/o ever knowing the temps before and after.
Don't be silly - have you even read...
You tell me, what's today's average global surface temp and how was it measured? There are an infinite number of good ways to measure it but so far on this thread we've yet to find it done.

The farthest we've gotten is to accuse me of being in denial of reality --as if my being a bad guy would somehow measure the temp-- but no way will I deny that the well being of the planet is important and that a lot very good people say it's in danger of overheating. What truly amazes me is how important this should be while at the same time everyone seems to be incapable of answering some overwhelmingly basic obvious questions.
 

Pete in Panama

Active Member
...We have a good idea of average temperatures....
That's great, so please tell us what the good idea is for what today's global average surface temp is measured at. If we can also get the temp for 1890 then we can check to see if there really is an increase of 0.9C. Simply insisting that somebody knows what it is doesn't make sense if there's no actually reported global average surface temp. We can't say there's been an increase w/o the temps.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
a solution to global warming.
it's too late to retreat from the warming trend

we have to weather it...……….hehehehehehe

as for power
breeder reactors have been known for quite some time

but I suspect
someone is manipulating the playing field
to keep that from happening
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
That's great, so please tell us what the good idea is for what today's global average surface temp is measured at. If we can also get the temp for 1890 then we can check to see if there really is an increase of 0.9C. Simply insisting that somebody knows what it is doesn't make sense if there's no actually reported global average surface temp. We can't say there's been an increase w/o the temps.

Can't speak for today, but here is the range from the link I posted earlier:

2018: 53.52 degrees Fahrenheit
1895: 50.34 degrees Fahrenheit

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Note the departures from the mean provided (52.02 degrees Fahrenheit).
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
it's too late to retreat from the warming trend

we have to weather it...……….hehehehehehe

as for power
breeder reactors have been known for quite some time

but I suspect
someone is manipulating the playing field
to keep that from happening

It could just be an excuse to increase taxes from the poor to fund projects that benefit big business and government coffers.

The elites that are preaching to us now will not be at the back of the queue when it comes to creaming off some of this new money.

How many of those elites will stop flying, even in their private jets?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
can't remember the source.....

but I heard years ago....
when the average temp was only seven degrees cooler (10.000yrs ago)
New York was under a glacier

since the 1950's the average temp has gone up....3degrees
 
Top