Not great news for us tourists...

[mark61]

God loves a trier Mark

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/us/flat-earth-conference-conspiracy-theories-scli-intl/index.html

That's just proof there's a conspiracy.

It's probably true though that God loves a flat earther, on the other hand, maybe not.

 

[mark61]

I can even prove the world is a cube, Adolf Hitler knew nothing of the holocaust, that it never happened. The way I see the net is come up with any theory about just about anything, and you will find support for it online.
Bye the way I am not convinced about global warming.

You are going to have a busy night proving that lot.

 

[izwozral]

IF climate change was a reality in the way the catastrophist would have you believe then we are looking at anything between 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? 100 000 years?, depending on how gullible or paranoid they are.
War would be far more likely within any of those time frames, yet not a peep out of any of their mouths concerning that likely hood. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Mankind is very adept at acting foolishly, arrogantly, barbarically, savagely and never knows what to do other than posture, inflame and aggravate the situation, usually with greed and dominance at the fore front.
America, China, Russia, Europe are busy sniping at each other, there are umpteen regional wars going on, continents are realigning with new 'partners', the perfect recipe for right old shindig.

And the European Cup hasn't even started yet!

 

[izwozral]

You are going to have a busy night proving that lot.

Don't encourage him Mark for gawds sake.

 

[Rumour]

Actually, they don't. Fewer than 2% of scientists who express an opinion on this agree that global climate change is man-made and the overwhelming majority consider global climate to be predominantly natural. Of course, local climate is a different matter (mainly because of the heat island effect) and conurbation, solar farms, etc. can raise the local temperature by up to 6°C -- but those are insignificant on a global scale.

That "all scientists agree" thing came from a few mendacious 'studies', with the one most quoted (i.e. "97% agree") coming from J. Cook et al. To arrive at that figure, Cook et al. 'examined' approx. 12,000 papers and split them into seven categories:

1. Papers that said global warming exists and is chiefly man-made.
2. Papers that said mankind has some role in global warming but did not quantify that role.
3. Papers that said CO2 in general has a warming effect.
4. Papers that did not comment on whether mankind has any effect on global warming.
5. Papers that suggest mankind has a minimal impact on global warming.
6. Papers that said mankind probably has no effect on global warming.
7. Papers that explicitly said mankind causes less than 50% of global warming.

They combined the papers from categories 1, 2 and 3 and brought it into one group, which amounted to 33% of all papers. They then claimed these supported the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis (even though those in categories 2 & 3 didn't). The vast majority of papers (67%) were in category 4; i.e. were silent on the AGW hypothesis but may or may not have explicitly cited non-human causes of global warming. Cook discarded that vast majority, and so effectively only compared those in the first three categories with those in 5, 6 and 7 combined. This made those he claimed supported the AGW hypothesis appear to be 97%. However, the only category that actually supports AGW is category 1, which was only 63 papers. When those 63 were later examined, it turned out that only 41 actually said climate change was chiefly man made. So by foul means, 41 out of 12,000 was claimed to be "97%"!

We can show that catastrophic AGW via the greenhouse effect is mathematically impossible (would be TLDR here, but I can post separately if you wish). In the meantime, I've linked Thierry Baudet's exposé on the 97% fraud:

You know what I am going to ask for now, don't you? Proof of what you typed! Not YouTube of some other website of fakery, but a peer reviewed site that says what you typed. Of course, you are using conspiracy theory rubbish, it actually looks like something I read when researching for a comment that someone made on Facebook. Funny that. Maybe think for yourself instead of following crackpot theories?

 

[GeoffL]

IF climate change was a reality in the way the catastrophist would have you believe then we are looking at anything between 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? 100 000 years?, depending on how gullible or paranoid they are.
War would be far more likely within any of those time frames, yet not a peep out of any of their mouths concerning that likely hood. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Mankind is very adept at acting foolishly, arrogantly, barbarically, savagely and never knows what to do other than posture, inflame and aggravate the situation, usually with greed and dominance at the fore front.
America, China, Russia, Europe are busy sniping at each other, there are umpteen regional wars going on, continents are realigning with new 'partners', the perfect recipe for right old shindig.

And the European Cup hasn't even started yet!

"Not a peep" also applies to some of the most fundamental data/values in this topic. For example, if CO2 actually caused a large increase in temperature, you'd think that they'd publish the actual value and shout it from the rooftops -- but the alleged degree of warming caused by CO2 is difficult to obtain and the best I've been able to come up with is 7.2K courtesy of a paper by Schönweise from the late 1990s. Same story with the percentage of atmospheric CO2 alleged to be anthropogenic. The best I've been able to come up with is 4.5% of CO2 input (whatever that means) that I got from an IPCC web page that cited NOAA but has since been redacted. Thus I've been working on a conservative value of 5% of the total in the first instance and then working up from that to establish absolute maxima.

One of the most interesting points for me is the implication that we'll reach an irreversible tipping point in (say) 12 years unless we get to net zero now. Since less than 5% of the increase is from humanity, even if we stop emitting CO2 right now, that tipping point will be 95% reached in 12 years and 100% reached just 32 weeks later just from natural causes. Therefore, it's already too late and rather than seek to destroy societies and infrastructure, our masters would be better working out how to mitigate the inevitable even if that meant doubling our CO2 emissions!

 

[Rumour]

IF climate change was a reality in the way the catastrophist would have you believe then we are looking at anything between 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? 100 000 years?, depending on how gullible or paranoid they are.
War would be far more likely within any of those time frames, yet not a peep out of any of their mouths concerning that likely hood. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Mankind is very adept at acting foolishly, arrogantly, barbarically, savagely and never knows what to do other than posture, inflame and aggravate the situation, usually with greed and dominance at the fore front.
America, China, Russia, Europe are busy sniping at each other, there are umpteen regional wars going on, continents are realigning with new 'partners', the perfect recipe for right old shindig.

And the European Cup hasn't even started yet!

But war is something the man in the street has no real control over, climate change we do. Don't get me wrong, I think it is exaggerated to a point that makes it more urgent than perhaps it is. But it is something we can do something about. Take a look at the changing weather patterns over say the last 50 years, there is definitely a trend towards climate changing in different parts of the world.

 

[Rumour]

Your reference refutes the 97% claim time and time again, yet is taken at first sight to support it. This is the sort of shenanigans that abound. Take Oreskes as example, her "consensus" was claimed on the basis that 97% of a very small number who proclaimed themselves to be 'climate experts' agreed and mendacious filtering to exclude all but that very small group. Among those excluded with meteorologists, of who over 60% said humanity had no significant effect! Every study I've studied this far has used similar trickery.
We now come onto the crux: academia is very much broken. Publication and funding biases abound. Funding bias ensures that only those studies that are likely to support 'the narrative' receive funding. Even if someone carries out a study that finds against that narrative, the purpose of the study is almost always declared to find for it (otherwise no funding) and in finding against AGW is deemed to have failed and failed studies don't get published.

That is exactly my point! Using YouTube as a reference and the truth? Well done you!

 

[GeoffL]

You know what I am going to ask for now, don't you? Proof of what you typed! Not YouTube of some other website of fakery, but a peer reviewed site that says what you typed. Of course, you are using conspiracy theory rubbish, it actually looks like something I read when researching for a comment that someone made on Facebook. Funny that. Maybe think for yourself instead of following crackpot theories?

I'll accept your apologies later since this is my own work. I'll also point out that the 'peer review' process has been corrupted to the point that papers have been accepted and then rejected purely because they found against 'consensus' (e.g. Kauppinen and Malmi 2019, which was corroborated by the University of Kobe before 'Pal Reviewers' took it down!)

I hope your maths is up to this:

Consider the relationship between atmospheric concentration (C) of a greenhouse gas (GHG) and the warming (W) it is alleged to cause. This is logarithmic of the form W = k*log(C) for some constant k. If we take logs to base 2, k is the sensitivity: i.e. the temperature rise that results from doubling the concentration. Using the current state for CO2, we know from Schönweise that W = 7.2°C and from the IPCC that C = 417ppm. So:​

W = k * log2(417)​

​

Thus k = W/(log2(417)) = 0.83 °C/doubling​

We can use this to calculate the warming (Wn) that would arise if every molecule of humanity's CO2 were removed from the atmosphere. According to the IPCC, 4.5% of CO2 input is from human emissions, so 95.5% (i.e. 398ppm) is natural.​

Wn = k * log2(C) = 0.83 * log2(398) = 7.145°C​

The amount of warming from humanity's CO2 is thus W - Wn = 7.2 - 7.145 = 0.055°C, which is below the threshold for measurement error and hence insignificant. Of course, you might question the input values above, but the same sort of result arises for any reasonable input parameters, with the biggest value for AGW I've managed to coax out of this being 0.25°C.​

Further, the above calculations assume the greenhouse effect to be the only atmospheric insulation mechanism. However, there are at least two other major mechanisms, and so even the tiny warming calculated here must be an overestimate.​

The same can be shown for methane.​

 

[Rumour]

I'll accept your apologies later since this is my own work. I'll also point out that the 'peer review' process has been corrupted to the point that papers have been accepted and then rejected purely because they found against 'consensus' (e.g. Kauppinen and Malmi 2019, which was corroborated by the University of Kobe before 'Pal Reviewers' took it down!)

I hope your maths is up to this:

Consider the relationship between atmospheric concentration (C) of a greenhouse gas (GHG) and the warming (W) it is alleged to cause. This is logarithmic of the form W = k*log(C) for some constant k. If we take logs to base 2, k is the sensitivity: i.e. the temperature rise that results from doubling the concentration. Using the current state for CO2, we know from Schönweise that W = 7.2°C and from the IPCC that C = 417ppm. So:​

W = k * log2(417)​

​

Thus k = W/(log2(417)) = 0.83 °C/doubling​

We can use this to calculate the warming (Wn) that would arise if every molecule of humanity's CO2 were removed from the atmosphere. According to the IPCC, 4.5% of CO2 input is from human emissions, so 95.5% (i.e. 398ppm) is natural.​

Wn = k * log2(C) = 0.83 * log2(398) = 7.145°C​

The amount of warming from humanity's CO2 is thus W - Wn = 7.2 - 7.145 = 0.055°C, which is below the threshold for measurement error and hence insignificant. Of course, you might question the input values above, but the same sort of result arises for any reasonable input parameters, with the biggest value for AGW I've managed to coax out of this being 0.25°C.​

Further, the above calculations assume the greenhouse effect to be the only atmospheric insulation mechanism. However, there are at least two other major mechanisms, and so even the tiny warming calculated here must be an overestimate.​

The same can be shown for methane.​

Cut and paste? You could never have typed that out in the short time since my post! But I would guess that is also from a spurious web site, come on, let me know which one? Ahh, very similar to Skepitcal Science.

 

[GeoffL]

But war is something the man in the street has no real control over, climate change we do. Don't get me wrong, I think it is exaggerated to a point that makes it more urgent than perhaps it is. But it is something we can do something about. Take a look at the changing weather patterns over say the last 50 years, there is definitely a trend towards climate changing in different parts of the world.

See my earlier post: if the claims are correct, there is nothing we can do and you're deluding yourself to think we can!

That is exactly my point! Using YouTube as a reference and the truth? Well done you!

The difference here, that seems to have gone completely over your head, is that the facts those YouTube videos presented are easily verifiable (even if you need to spend a little to get behind a paywall or two).

 

[Rumour]

See my earlier post: if the claims are correct, there is nothing we can do and you're deluding yourself to think we can!


The difference here, that seems to have gone completely over your head, is that the facts those YouTube videos presented are easily verifiable (even if you need to spend a little to get behind a paywall or two).

So point me in the direction of verification. It's that easy!

 

[GeoffL]

Cut and paste? You could never have typed that out in the short time since my post! But I would guess that is also from a spurious web site, come on, let me know which one?

It really is my own work; a project that I started four years or so ago. I've presented it to several alarmists, including a PhD, and no-one so far has refuted it (but I'm open comments). It's not a formal paper. Rather, it's a fact check of alarmist claims. It's only cut and paste because it exists as a text file on my laptop to save me having to retype it every time I need it to counter alarmist BS. It also exists in various versions as a series of PDFs and working spreadsheets for continued 'what if' analysis. Do you really find it so implausible that someone with a few decades in science and technology and a First Class Science degree could do this themselves? Rather than engaging in ad-hominem, why don't you address my calculations? Oh! I forgot, ad-hominem and other logical fallacies seem to be the stock in trade of alarmists!

So point me in the direction of verification. It's that easy!

Just check the videos: they contain all the references you need. It really is that easy...

 

[izwozral]

@Rumour

I have a D in CSE woodwork.
Geoffl has a First Class Science degree.
What a dream team!
Be afraid, be very afraid.

 

[GeoffL]

... deleted

 

[izwozral]

All gone quiet on the western front. I hope my D in CSE woodwork hasn't frightened Rumour away.

 

[korky]

The sad rantings of a doomed species. Architects of their own demise.

 

[trevskoda]

All gone quiet on the western front. I hope my D in CSE woodwork hasn't frightened Rumour away.

I got one in english, stil cannot speel.

 

[Robmac]

I love a debate like this and for me GeoffL and Ral are winning at the moment.

I can now chuck another tyre in the woodburner without feeling any guilt, thanks lads!

 

[maingate]

Don't upset the Flat Earthers, they are a large organisation with Offices around the Globe.