Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Global Warming Theory not looking hot anymore


Ufo Believer
 Share

Recommended Posts

The goal of this data is to show the increase in temperature caused by using fossil fuels in the last two hundred years.

Let's make something clear:

This is you vs science here. You do not have the science on your side, you do not have the evidence on your side, you do not have the experts on your side, and you have shown us this with your reply that amounts to:

SQL,

Like you, I often get extremely frustrated by mindlessly ignorant posters.

However, you need to take a breather.

"Lets make something clear" here.

Data has no goal if it is "science" you are doing.

Data has a goal if you're manipulating statistics to dupe someone.

I realize that if you wish to see if human-generated CO2 (and other gases) have contributed to global warming, then you have to look at the period on Earth that contains humans generating CO2 (and other gases.)

However, when you say the data has a "goal," you're stepping outside of science.

The researcher has a goal, the data is just data.

I'm no denier, I'm just a skeptic.

I'm also skeptical of the deniers, of course.

Harte

Edited by Harte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moon Monkey

    24

  • questionmark

    33

  • SQLserver

    22

  • danielost

    22

QM - the black death is around us since 10,000 BC, it is in no way restricted to Middle Ages and ALWAYS was affecting us. Just check the wiki. The epidemic diseases on this level of their statistical studies cannot be used to support any climate changes, this is just a fantasy, sorry about saying this.

Naturally, but one thing is that it hits a village with 200 people, like before the middle ages and quite another is that it hits a town with 20.000. In the first case 150 could croak, in the latter 15.000.

Besides, we are talking of a very specific plague in this case, the so called Bubonic Plague.

You have to understand the transmission of the plague, which under normal circumstances is a rodent's disease. The problem is that the bacterium does not know that and that there is only one known species immune to it.

The bigger the settlements, the more rats. The agent in that case would be rat fleas, that normally prefer to suck on rats but to the contrary of many specialized fleas don't care to switch host... and that could be any mammal that happens to come by. As soon as the majority of the rats croaked the fleas would be infecting whatever came their way.

The bacterium still is considered a class A pathogen in biological warfare.

The problem was stabilized once the rat problem was under control, or what they called control, in major settlements.

Ah yes, the Bubonic Plague has its origin in Mongolia, where it still is common in a local rodent, the only animal we know to be resistant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naturally, but one thing is that it hits a village with 200 people, like before the middle ages and quite another is that it hits a town with 20.000. In the first case 150 could croak, in the latter 15.000.

Besides, we are talking of a very specific plague in this case, the so called Bubonic Plague.

You have to understand the transmission of the plague, which under normal circumstances is a rodent's disease. The problem is that the bacterium does not know that and that there is only one known species immune to it.

The bigger the settlements, the more rats. The agent in that case would be rat fleas, that normally prefer to suck on rats but to the contrary of many specialized fleas don't care to switch host... and that could be any mammal that happens to come by. As soon as the majority of the rats croaked the fleas would be infecting whatever came their way.

The bacterium still is considered a class A pathogen in biological warfare.

The problem was stabilized once the rat problem was under control, or what they called control, in major settlements.

Ah yes, the Bubonic Plague has its origin in Mongolia, where it still is common in a local rodent, the only animal we know to be resistant.

This would be all correct, however does not point to climate changes involved. Specially if we consider Mongolia, which historically was never an agricultural nation, neither it ever had any towns or cities, at least before 1000 AD. Also its population was always small and heavily scattered. Even what we call "Mongolian Horde" contained no more than 3% of the actual Mongols, while the rest were mostly subdued Turcic tribes.

There are other diseases of rodents, comparable with Bubonic Plague - for example Tularemia, which is similar to BP except for the actual inflammations are taking place in the intestines, therefore it is not transmitted like a flu by coughing and saliva. Bubonic Plague as a disease resembles Anthrax, and is not necessarily deadly. Both these diseases have several forms, depending on the actual organ they strike, the deadliest would be the lung form. Other forms are much lighter and leave stable immunity for life, for example a skin form of Anthrax may pass practically unnoticed by the infected human, its just a little wound which fails to heal for several weeks, very common thing as many people don't bother visiting a doctor.

Despite these diseases outbreaks mostly happen when the population grows enough to form the cities with high population density, this does not have any link to the current climate, except probably the fact that in a warmer climate food is better available than in cold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite these diseases outbreaks mostly happen when the population grows enough to form the cities with high population density, this does not have any link to the current climate, except probably the fact that in a warmer climate food is better available than in cold.

Not with the current climate, I must agree, but strong evidence shows it had something to do with the climate then. Which is my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, I cannot keep up with this thread for too long. I'm going to make a quick prediction, here:

1. Pseudo Intellectual is going to keep peddling the same nonsense and then laugh off anyone showing him he's wrong.

2. Lord Umbarger is going to continually come into the thread, repeat simple denialist claims, and then not respond to anyone ripping them apart.

3. Moon Monkey is going to continue to babble about how he's a well-known genius when it comes to data and how his clever and mysterious rebuttals are so powerful that he doesn't even need to state them.

4. Ufo Believer is going to continue with a confused mess of flip-flops and one-liners.

5. Stevewinn is going to continue with the ad hominecs and the cherry picking.

6. Michelle is going to continue advertising for her thread.

7. Caesar is going to continue throwing out political one-liners but also quickly run away when someone mentions science.

8. Ohio-Traveler is going to continue with his smug little phrases and oh-so-clever words he fabricated to describe anyone who disagrees with him politically.

9. Daniel is going to make as little sense as he always does.

10. No denialist is going to (god-forbid) cite a scientific article.(Besides Daniel's failed attempt, of course.)

11. No denialist is going to cite a single source.(Seriously, at least Daniel tried once!)

12. No denialist is actually going to respond to the science here. If we're lucky, perhaps they will cherry pick a specific piece of a post, but then fail to counter the counter-response.

13. People are going to continue peddling the lies already debunked in the thread.

That's it, I've won this debate. If someone else wants to respond to any of the "LALALA"'s and "Ha, SQL couldn't take the heat!" and "See, liberuls sucks1!@4!!11", "Here's a bunch of sentence fragments which you will have to translate into respectable English", and "Look guys, I WAS RIGHT ABOUT MAH AWESOME DATAZ ALL ALONG" replies that are sure to come, go ahead. I'm done.

Amazing how none of them have either shown an knowledge of science or any scientific evidence yet they feel they know so much more than those who do because they saw a youtube video or read a media article. It is such an amazing level of arrogant stupidity and ignorance. It is blind denial, not scepticism, as the people above won't even bother addressing the evidence (seriously Steve, if you can't understand the basic graphs shown to you then you should redo high school).

All I have asked for for two years is some real science to answer the science that has been put up to show that the world is warming (and yes the BBC article is outright wrong because taking one data point and saying it is not higher than this so it must be fall is dumb) and that it is not our fault, yet I have had neither. Why is this?

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not with the current climate, I must agree, but strong evidence shows it had something to do with the climate then. Which is my point.

I understand what you mean, and again agree, that the outbreaks of such diseases is linked to the climate. When the air is moist and cold, the body increases heat exchange as cold and moist air is more heat conductive than dry warm one. This may cause our weakening to various bad cold bugs, and they can depress the general levels of our immunity and increase our vulnerability.

But the above changes do not relate to the global climatic cycles, only to the current weather conditions! And weather conditions are permanently changing and have their own little cycles, which do not come from any global long-term process. Say, a prolonged period of rains in autumn can cause us all having flu...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how none of them have either shown an knowledge of science or any scientific evidence yet they feel they know so much more than those who do because they saw a youtube video or read a media article. It is such an amazing level of arrogant stupidity and ignorance.

All I have asked for for two years is some real science to answer the science that has been put up to show that the world is warming (and yes the BBC article is outright wrong because taking one data point and saying it is not higher than this so it must be fall is dumb) and that it is not our fault, yet I have had neither. Why is this?

People believe what they want to believe. Besides, Don Easterbrook has either not the newest charts or does not know how to read them, the highest temperatures were not measured in 1998 but in 2005... but then again I could write a book about that "professor's" claims and where he is wrong. My conclusion is that he just is a mouth piece for the extreme right and the "moral majority". And in view of the meeting in Denmark in December they needed a new controversy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's it, I've won this debate.

Well done, SQL! You've just won a pointless, non-serious debate on an Internet forum! You must be so happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that, but lets see the list I took the letter M because your name is Michelle:

Robert P. Ma, Biochemist

Tso-Ping Ma, Professor of the Department of Electrical Engineering

Mel G. Maalouf, no scientific accreditation found, which does not mean he does not have one.

E. Jerome Maas, PhD, Chemist

Jenner Maas, DVM. No academic record except that he is a co-signer

Martin Maassen, Internal Medicine Physician

Wilfred J. Mabee, no academic record found

Richard E. Mabie, seemingly Warren County Fire Chief

Everett L. Mabry, no academic record found

and it goes on like that until the end, you will find all kind of people there but there is a notable absence of meteorologists and climatologists. In plain English, a list of concerned citizens who mostly have a degree in something, except in the area they are petitioning in.

The whole thing is as preposterous as you going to a climatologist the next time you have a toothache.

Don't get me wrong, everybody can petition for whatever they want, but at least the organizer of this one is selling it under false flag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about all of the scientists on wiki that lists their credentials?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about all of the scientists on wiki that lists their credentials?

They are a minority entitled to their opinion. The majority only shakes their head at those claims.

You have to remember that scientist don't all come to the same conclusions.

See in 1819 there was a professor in Cambridge who claimed that a steam engine could never pull its own weight and therefore a steam driven railway was impossible. Funny 'cause on July 25, 1814 Stephenson had completed the first mine railway. Ah yes, I maybe should mention that the perfessor was a friend of Lord Darby, who had been lobbying against the public railway planned by Stephenson, 'cause it would compete with the canal owned by the latter.

ED: Just before you get the wrong impression, I am not saying that all those on the list have friends in interested quarters.

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh. A while ago, the majority of "scientists" knew for a fact Earth was flat.

Ah yes, but they, to the contrary of others, were quick to rectify when they discovered their error. The parrot choir kept on saying the same, in fact some still are.

The problem in this case is that if the minority is right nothing much will happen, if the majority is we better take action now because we will not get another chance. The prizes for being right or wrong can be passed out later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Flat Society (your link) are a bunch of idiots. I can't believe there are still people who believe that.

Edited by Ufo Believer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QM - there is no need to have Climatologists represented at all, as they cannot prove the concept on their own at all; all what they can is predict a few days of weather. All the proofs they use are from the OTHER sciences, so the represent5atives of these other sciences look at their proofs, not at the actual concept of climate change ( a Physicist is not a Climatologists, he does not deal with climate but with the physical processes in physical systems). Each expert is looking at "his" part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh. A while ago, the majority of "scientists" knew for a fact Earth was flat.

I assume you put "scientists" in quotation marks because there were no scientists at that point in history. Philosopher-mathematicians as far back as Aristotle and Eratosthenes knew--through physical arguments--the Earth to be round. More than a millenium before the birth of modern science.

Edited by Startraveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QM - there is no need to have Climatologists represented at all, as they cannot prove the concept on their own at all; all what they can is predict a few days of weather. All the proofs they use are from the OTHER sciences, so the represent5atives of these other sciences look at their proofs, not at the actual concept of climate change ( a Physicist is not a Climatologists, he does not deal with climate but with the physical processes in physical systems). Each expert is looking at "his" part.

Sorry, yo are confusing climatologists with meteorologists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, yo are confusing climatologists with meteorologists.

They both deal with the weather - in short and long time span. Climate is just a typical repeating weather pattern.

And I was not talking about this detail at all, but of the FACT that "greenhouse effect" belongs to Physical Chemistry, not to some "climatology", so when I look at this theory I care not about the climate, but only of how the Physical Chemistry, Thermodynamics and Gas Laws are used in this theory, applying Greenhouse Effect to climate. As I said, to date I was not persuaded, as the climatology statement in my view CONTRADICTS Thermodynamics and Gas Laws.

Earth is a system in state of equilibrium for millions years. Vostok graphs only confirm this fact, demonstrating oscillations of temperature within certain narrow limits. Systems in the state of equilibrium (in accordance to Le Chatelier Principle) react to the outside influence in a manner that their reaction minimizes the impact of this influence. Today's data on the graph is not any different from the data for the past 400,000 years - is it? Determination of CO2 content in atmosphere by its content in ice IS NOT a quality assured method, recommended for wide usage, but a new methodology, most likely developed for this particularly case, as such we have a method of UNKNOWN reliability due to the possibility of have some factors missed (say, diffusion of CO2 through ice. I am not saying that in a core drill ice sample, which is usually a cylinder no more than 2" diameter and 4-5 inches long, the presence of CO2 is supposed to be in nanograms if not less, so to catch a few molecules and count them is not an easy thing to do, hence precision issue - while the result cannot be verified by another method (or at least I am unaware of several such precise methods existing). Moreover, all possible methods for such work are INDIRECT - it is impossible to extract CO2 as CO2-containing compound and weigh it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They both deal with the weather - in short and long time span. Climate is just a typical repeating weather pattern.

And I was not talking about this detail at all, but of the FACT that "greenhouse effect" belongs to Physical Chemistry, not to some "climatology", so when I look at this theory I care not about the climate, but only of how the Physical Chemistry, Thermodynamics and Gas Laws are used in this theory, applying Greenhouse Effect to climate. As I said, to date I was not persuaded, as the climatology statement in my view CONTRADICTS Thermodynamics and Gas Laws.

Earth is a system in state of equilibrium for millions years. Vostok graphs only confirm this fact, demonstrating oscillations of temperature within certain narrow limits. Systems in the state of equilibrium (in accordance to Le Chatelier Principle) react to the outside influence in a manner that their reaction minimizes the impact of this influence. Today's data on the graph is not any different from the data for the past 400,000 years - is it? Determination of CO2 content in atmosphere by its content in ice IS NOT a quality assured method, recommended for wide usage, but a new methodology, most likely developed for this particularly case, as such we have a method of UNKNOWN reliability due to the possibility of have some factors missed (say, diffusion of CO2 through ice. I am not saying that in a core drill ice sample, which is usually a cylinder no more than 2" diameter and 4-5 inches long, the presence of CO2 is supposed to be in nanograms if not less, so to catch a few molecules and count them is not an easy thing to do, hence precision issue - while the result cannot be verified by another method (or at least I am unaware of several such precise methods existing). Moreover, all possible methods for such work are INDIRECT - it is impossible to extract CO2 as CO2-containing compound and weigh it.

in short if your looking for something specific you will find a way to find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They both deal with the weather - in short and long time span. Climate is just a typical repeating weather pattern.

And I was not talking about this detail at all, but of the FACT that "greenhouse effect" belongs to Physical Chemistry, not to some "climatology", so when I look at this theory I care not about the climate, but only of how the Physical Chemistry, Thermodynamics and Gas Laws are used in this theory, applying Greenhouse Effect to climate. As I said, to date I was not persuaded, as the climatology statement in my view CONTRADICTS Thermodynamics and Gas Laws.

Earth is a system in state of equilibrium for millions years. Vostok graphs only confirm this fact, demonstrating oscillations of temperature within certain narrow limits. Systems in the state of equilibrium (in accordance to Le Chatelier Principle) react to the outside influence in a manner that their reaction minimizes the impact of this influence. Today's data on the graph is not any different from the data for the past 400,000 years - is it? Determination of CO2 content in atmosphere by its content in ice IS NOT a quality assured method, recommended for wide usage, but a new methodology, most likely developed for this particularly case, as such we have a method of UNKNOWN reliability due to the possibility of have some factors missed (say, diffusion of CO2 through ice. I am not saying that in a core drill ice sample, which is usually a cylinder no more than 2" diameter and 4-5 inches long, the presence of CO2 is supposed to be in nanograms if not less, so to catch a few molecules and count them is not an easy thing to do, hence precision issue - while the result cannot be verified by another method (or at least I am unaware of several such precise methods existing). Moreover, all possible methods for such work are INDIRECT - it is impossible to extract CO2 as CO2-containing compound and weigh it.

Well, these guys are the leading climate research institute, maybe you can convince them of the wrongness of their ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh. A while ago, the majority of "scientists" knew for a fact Earth was flat.

So you are advocating ignorance because of a complete falsehood. "Flat earth" was a myth regardless of the flat earth society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, these guys are the leading climate research institute, maybe you can convince them of the wrongness of their ways.

Mind you, the institutes are funded by the Governments in one or another form, so the one dances a girl who pays for the music. If a government needs a sort of "scientific" justification to its desired policies, it can create any sort of "scientific school", why would I be pointing out to them their alleged wrongness? I am out of politics, I only review their models, which are based on the sciences I work with and fail to find them comprehensive and persuasive. I am NOT talking about the climate changes at all, they remain outside of my professional field.

In some features Climatology resembles Theology, which is called to interpret the Scriptures to the advantage of the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in short if your looking for something specific you will find a way to find it.

Daniel - YES. This is the same as the Bible, one can find justification for absolutely anything in it. Some people worship Lord god; others worship Evolution Theory or Big Bang theory... These guys worship Global Warming. The best worshipers are made priests by the governments...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questionmark, that was 2008 cold spell, it seems to be getting colder and colder

no one is listening to logic no more my friend. even I've noticed that it's getting colder and colder but also, I have been watching the North Atlantic current a lot too. but like I said, no one listens to logic anymore. It's not just man that's helping heat the planet. truth be told, we're less than five percent of why the earth is heating the glaciers. The earth's core is actually heating up and melting the glaciers to drive it's self into another cooling stage. so, we'll soon see another cool age upon us. the years between 1920's to 1980 was really cold but also, it's been right at 10,000 years since the true last ice age. So it shouldn't be too much longer before we enter another cold climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.