SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Present some then.
-
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!
Climate change as a tool of tyranny
- Thread starter Shaul
- Start date
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Apart from the ones that you ignored, you mean?Present some then.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
While that is true, it doesn't mean that catastrophic AGW is anything more that IPCC dogma.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
It's a fiction that results from a gravitational model which fails at boundary conditions. An accurate model of the earth derives from rejecting plate tectonics in favour of a model which can explain how the the Himalayas formed. Hint: subduction zones are only theoretical.
Hints about the model can be gleaned from the Tamarack Mine Experiments and the miscalculation of Earth-Moon Lagrange L1 during the Apollo mission.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No I am not. I am very real. And subduction zones on the Earth can be observed in more than one way. So they are more than "theoretical".
What our good friend here does not realize is that he is misusing the phrase "only theoretical" because people that do not understand the sciences do not understand that scientific theories are at top of the list when it comes to how strong an idea is in the sciences. If anything a theory outranks a law. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was supplanted by Einstein's General Relativity. Newton's Laws are still good enough to get us to the Moon and back, but when extreme accuracy is needed we go to Einstein. When one says "theoretical" in the scientific sense one is saying very very highly correct.
Back to plate tectonics. Plate tectonics do explain how the Himalayas were made. We can observe the motion of the plates both in the present and historically. One would be a fool to deny it. Or incredibly ignorant.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
One main difference is pure science is more about nature, as it is. Engineering applies the principles of nature that pure science discovers, to make manmade things that are not natural to the earth. Metallic aluminum is not natural to the earth. Natural aluminum is always aluminum oxide. Aluminum metal needs electrodes which are not natural. The engineering approach, have had an impact on pure science, in term of a shift in the math used for pure science.
At the time of Einstein, there were no computers, so modeling physics required classic math and math reduction to simple equations like E=MC2. With the invention of computers, by electrical engineers, computational math methods became possible and more common, initially for the engineers, and now are being used by pure science; climate science. This type of math is not exactly math logic, which could explain the casino science addendum, in pure science, that is also part of QC production math by engineers in factories.
For example, as a Chemical Engineer one may have to design continuous flow process to manufacture a chemical. One has to deal with variables like reaction kinetics, fluid flow, heat and mass transfer, which may also involve changes of viscosity, and even changes from Newtonian to a nonNewtonian fluid, which slow the flow and/or need more pressure, which can impact reactions and upstream turbulence and mixing.
To model this unnatural factory situation; nature does not do this, you may set up equations for all the pure science parameters, in a matrix, and then use a computer to cycle through the matrix, again and again, until it closes the simulations equations, enough to make useful flow data with a reasonable margin of error; compute versus time. It is too complicated with classic math reduction, but then again for the engineer, this is not about natural laws, but natural laws applied to man made situations. You can then use operator skill to fine tune and tweak.
When pure science stopped using classic math and started to use engineer math for pure science, with computers and numerical and computational math, the pure was no longer so pure, making nature appear more QC random. The math and computer frees the mind, but the freed mind loses track of the natural, in favor of a black box. This is fine for engineering, but the pure can become contrived, which is not pure, since pure is not just about profit.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well then, you should have no problem finding peer-reviewed articles from science sources on this, so why not give it a go?
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Because I don't do fool's errands.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not doing so indicates that you may be an expert at those.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, calling those who may disagree with you "fools" is characteristic of your "religious" orientation?
I'm a scientist who reads the research from peer-reviewed studies, thus I would challenge be called a "fool".
If this is a reflection of your "Ebionite" morality, there's so many others I'd rather spend my time taking about serious matters without doing name calling.
bye
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, a fool's errand is about the foolishness of someone who follows instructions mindlessly.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Well, you are right that she has better credentials than you, I, or others here, but so do the 97% of climate scientists who reject her claims. You apparently value her credentials over theirs. After writing papers that accepted the reality of global warming and its manmade causes, she retired and became a blogger in support of climate change denialism. She is the single most frequently quoted scientist in the forefront of the rightwing campaign to block efforts to meet the challenges of climate change, because there are only a handful of them. To make her case, she has to reject the findings of her own research, which, AFAICT, she has not repudiated.
There is a very interesting discussion of her denialism on Quora for those who are interested:
How is climate scientist Judith Curry wrong?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
"Curry has become known for hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere, despite having published research confirming anthropogenic effects on climate.[3] Social scientists who have studied Curry's position on climate change have described it as "neo-skepticism", in that her current position includes certain features of denialism; on the one hand, she accepts that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but on the other hand she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate projection models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable.[4] Despite the broad consensus among climate scientists that climate change requires urgent action, in 2013 Curry testified to the United States Congress that, in her opinion, there is so much uncertainty about natural climate variation that trying to reduce emissions may be pointless.[5]"
Judith Curry - Wikipedia
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I too accept that global temperature has increased, and that CO2 is a contributing factor, but I do not accept the AGW dire future projections."Curry has become known for hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere, despite having published research confirming anthropogenic effects on climate.[3] Social scientists who have studied Curry's position on climate change have described it as "neo-skepticism", in that her current position includes certain features of denialism; on the one hand, she accepts that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but on the other hand she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate projection models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable.[4] Despite the broad consensus among climate scientists that climate change requires urgent action, in 2013 Curry testified to the United States Congress that, in her opinion, there is so much uncertainty about natural climate variation that trying to reduce emissions may be pointless.[5]"
Judith Curry - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why not?
And perhaps I should ask "Which dire predictions?"
Al Gore had the right basic message, but the was also an alarmist that overstated how bad it would be in the very near future. He was wrong about that. Most of the predictions are right one the mark. The coasts are not going to flood in the next ten years or so, but in fifty it may be another story. I think that Gore predicted an ice free Arctic in the summer by now. But that is not apt to happen for another fifteen years.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Because I deal with reality as it is in the here and now, if the worst of the AGW future climate projections turn out to be correct, then I would accept it, likewise if it less than the projections, I will accept.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The reality here and now show that the projections are correct. So do we keep making it worse or try to find a solution?
This is not something that can easily be stopped. Do you realize that?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Relax, there is more to life than anxiety about the future climate.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
There can be no logical refutation of this statement. There is a way to improve it, though: "…then it is [inevitable that] unscrupulous governments [will] change the climate..."