"March for Science protests ramp up around the globe"

[shmogie]

What's her specialization?

I started out in physical anthropology but shifted over fairly early in my undergrad work to cultural. In the latter area, I've specialized in the Woodland Indians (especially Huron and Ojibwe) and the Polar Inuit. Needless to say, I've spent a great deal of time on reservations here in the States and in Canada. Matter of fact, I'm going to be at an Ojibwe reservation in da U.P. in about two weeks. Even though I'm now retired, my interest and studies haven't retired.

Cool ! My daughters masters is in, are you ready for this, urban cultural anthropology via photography, or something like that, She has undergraduate degrees in photography and journalism. She takes free lance assignments from world governments for special studies/projects. She has had assignments on every continent but two. Her latest was for the government of Singapore. The field has changed since I learned about Margaret Mead all those years ago !

 

[shmogie]

According to the symposium of climate scientists that met several years ago, that's what they concluded. And when science agencies, such as the NAS, NOAA, NASA, and even the U.S. Department of Defense, say that there's more than enough evidence to conclude that human endeavor has caused most of the increase in temperature, that pretty conclusive. And, as a long term subscriber to "Scientific American", I have seen the gradual evolution of studies that have increasing concluded what these agencies have also arrived at.

Just because we don't know the answers to these questions doesn't mean that a deity must be the supposed cause. And you'll probably have a very hard time convincing both cosmologists and quantum physicists that "statistically impossible coincidences" are not in the running to explain our universe/multiverse. According to researcher Leonard Susskind, he says that surveys of them indicate that infinity is considered a far great possibility than any theistic causation.

As far as I'm concerned, maybe read my signature statement at the bottom of my posts.

I too read SA. There are a number of both Cosmologists and physicists who also support ID. There are also those who have adopted the attitude of one prominent bio chemist I am aware of, who said re abiogenesis," it is totally impossible, but I will accept it rather than even consider the alternative".

 

[shmogie]

Oh look, yet another commonality between creationism and global warming denialism.....reliance on petitions from "scientists" rather than doing any actual science. Apparently the denialists believe that what a person who spends his days making computer chips thinks about evolution or climatology is more relevant than anything from evolutionary biologists or climatologists.

Again, denialism is essentially the same, regardless of the topic it's focused on.

Ohhhhhhhh, denialism. is that related to Methodism or communism, or any other ism ? Man. you amaze me in that you know everything about anything ( ever heard of professor Irwin Corey ?), and are not the least bit hesitant to tell EVERYONE. You also know everyone of these 30.000 + scientists, their specialties, and whether they "do science", amazing. And I thought you flat out belittled and acted superior to anyone who disagreed with with you because you are insecure and feel inferior. Well, by golly, you sure showed me............................................... You have implied that you are a "scientist", why don't you tell me what you do and your credentials ? I might be even more impressed

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is exactly why I characterize you as a science denialist. Your entire argument is centered on arbitrarily cherry picking 1998 as your frame of reference. It's such a common denialist tactic, it's covered on just about every science advocacy website out there. For example....

Three Ways Climate Deniers Cherry-Pick Facts about Climate Change

A common climate denier tactic is focusing on a specific year in a data set, usually one that happens to be an outlier. A great example of this is the year 1998.

Nineteen-ninety-eight was one of the hottest years on record thanks to an unusually strong El Niño. That means when you pull a subset of climate data from 1998–2012 (as deniers often do), you’re starting at a record high point. And when you look at the years that follow – years that vary naturally in temperature with some falling well below the 1998 peak – the upward trend in temperatures wasn’t as visually obvious.

Visual data can be purposefully skewed or misrepresented. Let’s look at the chart below, which shows the global air temperature changes from 1998–2012. The red trend line on the chart isn’t a trend at all — it’s simply connecting the two dots on either side of the chart that show two yearly averages of global air temperature change. A trend line on this chart should, in fact, trend upwards. And if we started this chart with the year 1999, it would look quite different.

Or if we zoom out even further, we see an even more obvious increase in average temperatures over time.

So there we have it. If the best you have is merely repeating tired, old denialist talking points that are blatently fallacious, then I'll just let that speak for itself.

I have never denied the warming, the graphs I have shown indicate the same amount of warming as the one's you have posted, ie. around 1 C since records began. My skepticism has to do wrt human CO2 emissions being the predominate cause of the warming.

Now logic says that if CO2 is the predominate cause of the warming, then we should see some correlation between increasing CO2 emissions and increasing temperature. This correlation was seen until 1998, but then there was a 17 years pause which is showm in the graph, and which I post again to show you why 1998 was chosen as the start date of the 17 year pause. It was not a cherry pick to attempt to show that there was no warming trend, but was chosen only to show that the linear increase in CO2 emissions after 1998 did not result in a linear increase in global temperature, and that this 17 year long trend of lack correlation is credible evidence that the IPCC models' climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 is exaggerated.

And here is a graph of atmospheric CO2 increase between 1998 to 2016.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not sure any believers really care about getting this far into real science, but it's also important that increased temps due to El Ninos are disproportionately distributed in equatorial latitudes.

Any increased temps from an enhanced GH effect would have the exact opposite fingerprint, high latitudes, predominantly polar regions BOTH poles- but it would take far far higher levels of CO2 to ever achieve this.

Practically all warmists I meet are of the left leaning political bent, and tend to naively believe in the fake news headlines of msm wrt global warming, such as these on this sample list.. warmlist

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Practically all warmists I meet are of the left leaning political bent, and tend to naively believe in the fake news headlines of msm wrt global warming, such as these on this sample list.. warmlist

Yes, I know and love a few of them who are very intelligent and well intentioned, but when you are very keen on the 'solutions' for their own sake, you have little motive to scrutinize the 'problem'.

 

[shmogie]

Practically all warmists I meet are of the left leaning political bent, and tend to naively believe in the fake news headlines of msm wrt global warming, such as these on this sample list.. warmlist

The primary political goal of liberals/leftists is to exercise as much centralized control over the people as possible. What better mechanism than this to control industry, agriculture, and other vast swathes of society ? Further, they like to change the meaning of words as they were instructed in Orwells 1984 ( "he who controls the language, controls the people" ) so that denier becomes a dirty word, and uneducated person who dares to have the effrontery to deny the opinions of those god's, scientists, So they pound away continually to first demonize, then marginalize those with whom they disagree, calling us, in essence dirty rotten deniers who want the earth to fry and be destroyed because,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,take your pick of a vast number of nerfarious reasons. When you point out the failures of the scientific gods in the past, and their predictions, they are convinced that every one was a fluke and now they are absolutely sure they are right, the evidence is overwhelming ( as it was in predictions of runaway populations, and a new ice age) and you and I are evil for not agreeing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The primary political goal of liberals/leftists is to exercise as much centralized control over the people as possible. What better mechanism than this to control industry, agriculture, and other vast swathes of society ? Further, they like to change the meaning of words as they were instructed in Orwells 1984 ( "he who controls the language, controls the people" ) so that denier becomes a dirty word, and uneducated person who dares to have the effrontery to deny the opinions of those god's, scientists, So they pound away continually to first demonize, then marginalize those with whom they disagree, calling us, in essence dirty rotten deniers who want the earth to fry and be destroyed because,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,take your pick of a vast number of nerfarious reasons. When you point out the failures of the scientific gods in the past, and their predictions, they are convinced that every one was a fluke and now they are absolutely sure they are right, the evidence is overwhelming ( as it was in predictions of runaway populations, and a new ice age) and you and I are evil for not agreeing.

Well said, and Michael Mann, supported by fake news msm, acted as a fraudulent pied piper to get the sheeples marching on their doomsday journey to despair. Sad really.

 

[metis]

There are a number of both Cosmologists and physicists who also support ID.

According to Leonard Susskind, he says that most of the theists that he knows that are also cosmologists tend to have very "unconventional" beliefs that don't fit well within mainline Christian or Jewish denominations/branches. He doesn't give examples, but it does make me wonder if many are pantheists or panentheists, which indeed seem more compatible with science because they generally negate the concept of miracles.

 

[metis]

Cool ! My daughters masters is in, are you ready for this, urban cultural anthropology via photography, or something like that, She has undergraduate degrees in photography and journalism. She takes free lance assignments from world governments for special studies/projects. She has had assignments on every continent but two. Her latest was for the government of Singapore.

Sounds like she has a lot more exciting life than I do in anthro.

The field has changed since I learned about Margaret Mead all those years ago !

Amen to that.

BTW, I took a group of students to see her when she spoke at Wayne State University in Detroit, and even though age was catching up to her, she still had a very sharp mind.

 

[shmogie]

Sounds like she has a lot more exciting life than I do in anthro.

Amen to that.

BTW, I took a group of students to see her when she spoke at Wayne State University in Detroit, and even though age was catching up to her, she still had a very sharp mind.

She did tremendous work, and could communicate her discoveries well so all could understand. I would love to have met her, she was a towering figure, you were lucky, BLESSED to have done so.

 

[shmogie]

According to Leonard Susskind, he says that most of the theists that he knows that are also cosmologists tend to have very "unconventional" beliefs that don't fit well within mainline Christian or Jewish denominations/branches. He doesn't give examples, but it does make me wonder if many are pantheists or panentheists, which indeed seem more compatible with science because they generally negate the concept of miracles.

Agreed, that is true. I don't know their specific beliefs, but they support ID/Creation. The evidence is the evidence, regardless of what people believe.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have never denied the warming, the graphs I have shown indicate the same amount of warming as the one's you have posted, ie. around 1 C since records began. My skepticism has to do wrt human CO2 emissions being the predominate cause of the warming.

So again, what is the cause of the current warming trend? Previously we looked at the data showing it isn't solar forcing, nor is it orbital forcing, nor is it non-human sources of greenhouse gasses, so what is it?

Now logic says that if CO2 is the predominate cause of the warming, then we should see some correlation between increasing CO2 emissions and increasing temperature.

And we see exactly that.

This correlation was seen until 1998, but then there was a 17 years pause which is showm in the graph, and which I post again to show you why 1998 was chosen as the start date of the 17 year pause.

And now you're cherry picking again. Either that or you don't understand how correlations in long-term, variable data sets work.

It was not a cherry pick to attempt to show that there was no warming trend, but was chosen only to show that the linear increase in CO2 emissions after 1998 did not result in a linear increase in global temperature

So perhaps it is that you don't understand the basics of correlations. Otherwise, why do you think the relationship between the two must be linear from year to year?

 

[Jose Fly]

Practically all warmists I meet are of the left leaning political bent,

Sadly it's becoming that way with a lot of scientific issues. It seems to be a result of conservatives becoming increasingly anti-science, either for religious reasons (evolution) or due to ties with industry groups (global warming).

 

[Jose Fly]

The primary political goal of liberals/leftists is to exercise as much centralized control over the people as possible. What better mechanism than this to control industry, agriculture, and other vast swathes of society ? Further, they like to change the meaning of words as they were instructed in Orwells 1984 ( "he who controls the language, controls the people" ) so that denier becomes a dirty word, and uneducated person who dares to have the effrontery to deny the opinions of those god's, scientists, So they pound away continually to first demonize, then marginalize those with whom they disagree, calling us, in essence dirty rotten deniers who want the earth to fry and be destroyed because,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,take your pick of a vast number of nerfarious reasons. When you point out the failures of the scientific gods in the past, and their predictions, they are convinced that every one was a fluke and now they are absolutely sure they are right, the evidence is overwhelming ( as it was in predictions of runaway populations, and a new ice age) and you and I are evil for not agreeing.

So you believe the world's climatologists (and other associated scientists) have been engaging in a deliberate conspiracy to promote global warming for about 40 or 50 years or so?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Science is a tool used to obtain knowledge and understanding. It's how that is used by people is where ethics come into play.

Science used to be such a tool. For the last 100 years it has degenerated
into an institution without ethics, often inherited positions, often just a
ponzi scheme that pays lip-service to its origins, much like medieval monarchy.

Its still uses the tools it developed in the 19th and previous centuries,
and technology grows from these, but not because of the institutions
and certainly not from that ancient method.

Science is defined as "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions". How does that teach anyone to kill, lie, or steal? Also, considering lying, stealing, and killing to be immoral is hardly original or exclusive to "Christian ethics". They're common sense rules required for any functioning society.

Materialist evolution uses animals as its test subjects, where any means
at their disposal justify procreation and (by subconscious implication)
sexual motives of increasing degenerate nature (for the people).

The case in point being, one Dawkins, and his concept 'selfish gene'
which specifically attempts to undermine fidelity, and places people
on the level of marauding beasts. 'Selfish' is the keyword here.

Many such animals are observed to kill, lie and steal. The materialist
only observes these as pseudo-ethical - to be used until the ego sees
an opportunity to do away with them and seize power for the self.
Because these ideas of ethics, are not transcendental or absolute to
the materialists, they will use them only as a ruse in order to abuse them.

In the Christian sense, the transcendental ethic is superior, not only
in logical terms, but also simply from the point of societies that survive the best.
The catch being that the materialist still seeks to use this as a ruse to
violate these ethics whilst benefiting from others obeying them absolutely.

Only with a judgement day, can the ethics be absolute.
Once the materialist ignores this, then religious society senses it,
and the system degrades to its base level.

 

[leibowde84]

riiiiight

Right.

What interest would a government administration have for creating a nationwide conspiracy to create a lie like climate change made worse by man-made pollution? Why would they all get together and create this huge conspiracy? And, remember, they have stayed faithful to this conspiracy through both republican and democratic administrations, so it can't have anything to do with politics.

 

[Jose Fly]

What interest would a government administration have for creating a nationwide conspiracy to create a lie like climate change made worse by man-made pollution? Why would they all get together and create this huge conspiracy? And, remember, they have stayed faithful to this conspiracy through both republican and democratic administrations, so it can't have anything to do with politics.

I asked them this months ago and all they could muster were vague assertions about "socialism" and "control". When I asked them for actual evidence of this conspiracy, they completely failed to produce any.

But then as I've often heard, total absence of evidence is merely proof that the conspiracy is working.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So again, what is the cause of the current warming trend? Previously we looked at the data showing it isn't solar forcing, nor is it orbital forcing, nor is it non-human sources of greenhouse gasses, so what is it?


And we see exactly that.

And now you're cherry picking again. Either that or you don't understand how correlations in long-term, variable data sets work.

So perhaps it is that you don't understand the basics of correlations. Otherwise, why do you think the relationship between the two must be linear from year to year?

The cause of the recorded warming trend is predominately natural and is due to the variations in solar radiation, ocean currents, convection, and oscillations, cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, earth albedo, atmospheric CO2 GHGs, etc.. All of the aforementioned are fully natural variables except for about 4% of the atmospheric CO2 which is due to human emissions.

Dr Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. has done the calculations and states that the human contribution only causes about a 2% perturbation of this single natural CO2 variable. In his own words, he states "In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure."

As for your graph, there are many way to present data for effect, cherry picking, filters, axis representations, etc.. The fact is, from 1880, the start date on your anomaly graph to now in 2017, the temperature has only increased about 1 degree C, and your Y axis is just a little over 1 C.

So I give you below, a perfectly accurate graph of the same period using with the Y axis showing the actual average annual global temperature in degrees Celsius,

I never said the correlation should be year to year, but a 17 years plus pause is a such a significant duration, it is evidence that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is overestimated in the IPCC models. And fyi, the IPCC global temperature projections show a linear trend upwards correlating with linear CO2 increase. So as to clear up the suggestion of cherry picking the data to show the pause, here are some Climategate leaked emails from leading agw priesthood figures who acknowledged the pause in the upward trend in temperature.

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005 “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009 ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009 “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that.”

Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009 “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community.... We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”

Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013 “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sadly it's becoming that way with a lot of scientific issues. It seems to be a result of conservatives becoming increasingly anti-science, either for religious reasons (evolution) or due to ties with industry groups (global warming).

.Agw is a religion, and you are one of the true believers... thread here..Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.