Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam."

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

Variation of mass surface features can include absence.

---

True, but misleading.A desert is an area that receives less than 10 inches of precipitation per year (thus making some parts of Antarctica a desert...lots of snow, but it's old snow. Very little new snow falls in the area.) Thus, we should expect that every now and then, there will be years where there is no rain at all.But the rain forest? They're conceptually the opposite of deserts. Where deserts are defined by their lack of rain, rain forests are defined by their lack of dry. While we would expect there to be fluctuations such that some years there isn't as much rain as there was before, we do not expect them to have a year that would classify them as a desert. That would mean something drastic has happened and the rain forest is [I][B]GONE[/i][/b].

quote:

---

Does that make sense?

---

Yes.You're trivializing, equivocating, and engaging in the same error as what you are trying to deny:Confusing variation with absence.It is the same logical error creationists use when they try to make the false distinction of "macroevolution" and "microevolution" but in reverse: You are assuming that because there can be variation, then variation of any degree is to be expected.

quote:

---

The question would be if the temp changes we are seeing are a natural variation, that is from largely non-natural sources. The mass results are most definitely natural variations brought on by the temp changes no matter the source.

---

You do realize that those two sentences contradict each other, yes? If it is a non-natural source, then it is not a "natural" variation. That doesn't make it supernatural, but it does mean that it is being artificially driven.The evidence makes it quite clear that the temperature changes we are seeing are not a natural variation. A single hot year? Yeah, that's not so bizarre. A decade of hottest years on record? A century of hottest years on record? And not a gradual buildup but a sudden spike? That's something else.Your argument is that because things can vary, then they can vary to any degree desired without it being considered unusual.

quote:

---

You can't point to an unusual/extreme variant, and from that inherently deduce an unnatural cause.

---

If one is being trivial, pretending that one is looking only at a single data point, then you're right.However, we aren't dealing with trivial, one-off data points.

quote:

---

I hope this is clear.

---

Indeed.You are trivializing, engaging in the very fallacy you are trying to deny.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Can we please keep debate civil? There was no reason for the insulting nature of your response. I certainly was not insulting you.It is apparent that a miscommunication has been made. Let me try this again, but using your example.It would be true to say that we expect a relatively consistent system (for example rain in a rain forest) to stay within a certain margin. If there is an large change... and that can include up to a total absence... it makes sense to say something out of the ordinary is happening.Given that global temps are increasing, I suppose that could be linked to atmospheric disruptions leading to this unusual occurrence. In this example then the loss of rainfall being a natural occurrence due to the temp rises. However, in theory it is also possible to be linked to something else besides global temp change, which might not be natural process (for a hypothetical say some mean corporation is seeding clouds outside the area and preventing sufficient humidity for rainfall in that area). It is important then to find the link to the rising temps and not something else.Okay so assuming that is found... such a link does NOT allow a conclusion that the raise in temps are not natural. Until the exact factors are found, the temp changes could be primarily natural... or not!In this case we have found that the largest factor is man made sources. But it was from detailed analysis of atmospheric factors, not whether an unusual rainfall event has occurred.In other words one event can have more than one source, hence the event cannot be used to prove either one. And that goes if you have many unusual events. As long as they allow for the same possible sources, no single source is proven.One last time, an unusual event says something has changed, not necessarily what the exact mechanism is. In this case it took finding the atmospheric factors to make that determination. Predictions which would have been true regardless of source of the rising temps cannot tell us what was the cause of those rises.Edited by Silent H, : crucial NOT

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hi guys. If I may jump into the conversation late here ...I think I would agree with Legend that global warming models have not made many specific predictions that have been verified. Similarly they have not made many specific predictions that have been falsified. Accurate computer models have not been available until recently, and if you make a prediction about what temperature, clouds, CO2 concentrations, etc, will be like ten years from now, you have to wait ten years to see if you are right. This is not a fault of the models, it is a fact of life.That said, it is clear that the warming recently has been very significant, and it is beyond the norm of common natural climate fluctuations. I am not familiar with most of the techniques that are used to reconstruct past temperatures, but here's an easily understood piece of evidence. Plant material that this glacier left behind as it melted was carbon dated to be ~50,000 years old. So over the last 50,000 years the weather was not warm enough to melt this ice until recently.So yes, there are natural variations in the climate, and in the distant past it was warmer than it is today. But climate fluctuations of this magnitude are rare on the time scale of recorded human civilization, and the probability that such a fluctuation just happens to be occuring naturally at the same time as we are pumping vast amounts of heat trapping gasses into the atmosphere seems extremely unlikely. So humans are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming.That's how it seems to me, anyway, though I'm no expert.

To clarify, we actually don't know how fast temperature fluctuations can occur naturally. The time frame of our techniques do not allow for a degree of precision to check our recent time frame.That said it is clearly unusual for recent recorded history, that is while people have been around to record temps.I think the fit of the models have been getting such that we can say they are getting more accurate without having to wait a long time to see what happens. As it is no model could predict many natural fluctuations to come. They are really looking into the recent past to see how accurate a prediction is made be a model, over the time already recorded... that is when trying to determine if man made sources are the prime factor.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

Can we please keep debate civil?

---

You reap what you sow. Stop playing dumb and perhaps we'll be able to get somewhere.

quote:

---

I certainly was not insulting you.

---

Playing dumb is insulting.

quote:

---

Given that global temps are increasing, I suppose that could be linked to atmospheric disruptions leading to this unusual occurrence. In this example then the loss of rainfall being a natural occurrence due to the temp rises. However, in theory it is also possible to be linked to something else besides global temp change

---

Trivia! Yes, "in theory" there's an alien sending icemelt rays to the Arctic causing the opening of the Northwest passage even though the temperature couldn't possibly be causing the icemelt.But let's not play dumb.

quote:

---

which might not be natural process (for a hypothetical say some mean corporation is seeding clouds outside the area and preventing sufficient humidity for rainfall in that area).

---

You whine about not being able to engage in a "civil" discussion and then you come up with this? Conspiracy theories?Do you think we're stupid?

quote:

---

Okay so assuming that is found... such a link does NOT allow a conclusion that the raise in temps are not natural.

---

Huh? That was the entire point! We know that there are natural variations. They don't result in what we see. Ergo, something else is going on.

quote:

---

But it was from detailed analysis of atmospheric factors, not whether an unusual rainfall event has occurred.

---

And there you go, playing dumb again.Let's see...what was it that I said? Oh, that's right: Now, wouldn't slogging through decades of climate data indicate "detailed analysis of atmospheric factors"? Nah, couldn't possibly be. I was obviously talking about a single thunderstorm.Do you think we're stupid?

quote:

---

In other words one event can have more than one source

---

And more playing dumb.Let's see...what was it that I said? Oh, that's right: Hmm..."A century of hottest years on record." Is that "one event"? Why of course! It's "one event" of a century!Do you think we're stupid?

quote:

---

One last time, an unusual event says something has changed, not necessarily what the exact mechanism is.

---

But we're not talking about an unusual "event." We're talking about a complete reworking of everything. The glaciers didn't just "recede." They're GONE. Within a space that natural factors cannot account for.

quote:

---

Predictions which would have been true regardless of source of the rising temps cannot tell us what was the cause of those rises.

---

But that isn't what the prediction was. The prediction is not, "Glaciers will disappear if the temperature rises enough." The prediction was, "Glaciers will disappear because the temperature is rising beyond what would normally happen. Normal fluctuations would not result in the complete disappearance of glaciers."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

We have.It isn't.Honestly, why do you assume climate scientists are idiots? The people telling you that humans are causing global warming are the same people who've spent the most time and effort determining how and why temperature has varied in the past.Ignore the trend evidence, just look at the CO₂. We know, for a fact, that humans are releasing around 7 thousand million tonnes of C in the form of CO₂ (~24 thousand million tonnes of CO₂) into the atmosphere each year and that total levels of CO₂ are rising by around 2 thousand million tonnes of CO₂ each year. We know, for a fact, that CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation because it transfers into vibrational energy in the bonds between the O atoms and the central C atom. We know that the earth's surface radiates 1.98 x 10¹⁷ W of energy as infrared energy each year and that the amount of that energy that escapes into space is a vital determining factor of surface temperature and we know that CO₂ is the second most important greenhouse gas (meaning a gas that absorbs IR radiation and thus traps heat energy in the atmosphere) in the atmosphere. The most important is H₂O but it's quantity is determined primarily by atmospheric temperature and thus follows the level of CO₂ in the atmosphere.Given these facts what possible way is there for human generated CO₂ not causing global warming? What do you think is happening to the additional trapped energy if we're not?

I asked you to be civil in another thread. I've grown tired of your accusations of playing dumb and asking if I think you're stupid.Apparently you did not understand what I was doing. I was using rainfall in a rain forest of an example of how an examination might proceed, just to show that the existence of the phenomena does not mean what kind of specific factors were related. I was not actually speculating on a cause for current phenomena.Also, I mentioned this pertained to multiple phenomena. You avoided this point I made and discussed multiple phenomena. That makes no difference to ascertain the specific causative factor.In conclusion, it appears you did not understand what I meant by "atmospheric factor". Hot weather is not a factor in rising global temps, it is the result of factors. I am talking about the physical factors which lead to rising temps. That means sources of heat as well as components of the atmosphere which trap heat.One more response from you like this and I will have to assume you have no interest in rational conversation. If you have a reasonable point, all of the insults are not only not necessary, they are contradictory to a purpose of making your arguments accessible to a reader.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Okay then, even with out any reason to think so, what if “Global Warming” is wrong?
That’s the question of this thread. And by “wrong”, the question means “not catastrophic”. You need to check your saying-seemer.
That thought never crossed my mind when writing what you replied too. Or, we could just discuss it as a hypothetical situation. No, I’m not. Strike two.
I didn’t really know why Crash bitched about you so much but its starting to make sense.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice efficacy for efficiency. Or projects get delayed in an attempt to “green” them up a bit.
But this is what this thread should be about and I don’t know all the answers. I think it’d be a decent discussion. It’s too bad that the die-hard Global Warming advocates are incapable of even considering the possibility that it is wrong. Some things won’t be problems. Others could.
Which one will and which ones won’t is one thing that I thought should be discussed in this thread. Well, we’d have to get into specific policies to find the problems.Some things won’t be problems. Others could.
Which one will and which ones won’t is one thing that I thought should be discussed in this thread. Well, we’d have to get into specific policies to find the problems.

It wouldn’t. That, for example, doesn’t sound like a hindrance to me. Companies like Green Seal charge shit-tons of money (and they are “non-profit” :laugh. Are they really necessary? Are they helping at all?
What other companies are just scams?
If Global Warming is wrong, how many more of them become scams? What else becomes a scam? Those are questions for this thread.
Not “ZOMG! Where’s all the CO2 gonna go!”.
That’s for a different thread. Sure. It’s not only about oil. Everyone is allowed to get rich.
It is kinda annoying that, like alternative medicine, companies can parade as trying to help out when they are really just a scam to make money. And if there isn’t even a problem to begin with, then its just worse. And then we have people that believe everything on a label just because the product claims to be green. That would be cool. If it is an advancement then it isn’t limiting. But not everything green is an advancement. That wasn’t my interpretation. Are you trying to make me sound stupid?

Actually, it assumes he’s right and is to discuss the ramifications of it. Oh, I see what your saying. It does seem like a double standard. I guess people form it from their perceived lack of immediate effect combined with a feeling of getting screwed by green scene. But that is just a guess. I don’t know how it would work. It’s an assumption. You can’t fathom the possibility that humans are not affecting the climate and that there is nothing wrong with it? That’s what the discussion is supposed to be.
Do we really all need to get into a hissy-fit about the environment? I think people are lazy and really don’t want to do anything much and that it is going to take a lot of work to fix the problems if they are real. Why make everyone get off their ass if there really isn’t a problem? You don’t have to be so disingenuous. That humans are affecting the environment in a way that is going to be catastrophic to them.

It really is that simple, huh? Yeah, and it could just be a waste of money. You could have been had.
Maybe not, but we can still discuss the consequences of it you had.

So are you saying we should not take advantage of insurance?Are you saying we should not prepare for disasters?Are you saying that like we did with Katrina, we should wait until after something happens to begin thinking about mitigating consequences?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

While it is true we have no definite way of knowing how fast temp fluc can occur naturally, we do have some indication that it should happen over the course of centuries, not decades. Take the little ice age, for example. It was a phenomenon that took course over centuries. This is a fact of life because the weather is a chaotic system. There really is no way anyone could account for enough initial conditions to make accurate predictions. All we are left with are general predictions, like the melting of the old glaciers and permafrost, and so far all these predictions are coming true.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

A complete aside, but actually weather is probably not a chaotic system just very complicated.