Austria sues European Union, claiming natural gas and nuclear energy are not 'green'

[Ponderer]

It's clearly not about politics and money.

 

[Paulsie]

No, let's start from the real beginning. Provide some decent research that backs up your stance.

You yourself have not come up with a single spec of information, merely attacking other's position.

Would you therefore like to state YOUR position and explanation for my question to @3WA ?

Here is my challenge to you in return.

Instead of the very popular temperature graph of between 1850-2020, let's look at historical global temperatures for some perspective. They seem very regular to my untrained eye. Can you explain them to me?

Three Million Years of Climate Change

Using reconstructions of global temperature based on oxygen isotope ratio analyses of ocean sediment cores and polar glacial ice cores we can look back at the Earth’s climate for about 800,00…

oz4caster.wordpress.com

 

[ToxicBunny]

You yourself have only come up with attacks on other's stance, without providing a single spec of information.

Would you like to state your position the my question to @3WA ?

Of course I attack our resident 2yr old stance... No real point actually engaging in his retardation, it's just more fun to see how deep he can dig the stupid hole.

 

[Ponderer]

Of course I attack our resident 2yr old stance... No real point actually engaging in his retardation, it's just more fun to see how deep he can dig the stupid hole.

You are yet again projecting, my little cupcake.

 

[tetrasect]

Let me remind you of one of my previous posts. I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas (so is water vapour, which is more prevalent in the atmosphere). I also never said CO2 was not partially responsible for the warming. What I said was that CO2 generated by human activity pales in comparison to that which is released naturally.
Warming comes first, which releases CO2 from oceans, soil and rock. This in turn further enhances warming in a self-generating loop.

Quantification of the Diminishing Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity and Geomagnetic Activity as the Causal Source for Global Warming within the Oceans and Atmosphere

Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of...

www.scirp.org

You're attempting to absolve humans from the equation by turning it into some kind of chicken and egg scenario. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, CO2 is released and absorbed naturally. Those are called fluctuations. CO2 by humans is only released and adds to the total CO2 which nature cannot absorb fast enough (seeing as we chopped down most of the earths forests etc), thus heating the planet. It's a delicate system and a small change can cause a coalescing affect (for instance by melting ice which releases pockets of methane gas that has been trapped for millions of years, evaporating water which has a much more potent greenhouse effect than CO2 and so on).

The paper you quoted does not dispute this.

In fact, if you look at my previous post, the papers that cite your paper cite it as saying "CO2 is the major contributor to global warming".

And one of those papers even calculates CO2 to be responsible for around 50% of global warming.

It's really strange to me that you are linking to a paper that says one thing while trying to argue another.

 

[Johand]

Then let's discuss it - one on one - directly - not via refenced documentation and/or links.
Surely you aren't afraid to do so?
Unless of course you are afraid to do so.

Put your money where your mouth is.

I think this is the point yes? None of us are qualified to discuss it and truth is not determined by argument -- Aristotle lived a very long time ago. You cannot derive the truth from inductive arguments - it is a logical fallacy.

What we can debate is the foundation of your beliefs - e.g. where do you get your information, what is your framework for evaluating and trusting information, what are the very real foundation for your argument.

My foundation is the way that proper science research is performed via peer reviewed published research agreed to by the majority by other peer reviewed published scientists over a consist long period of time. I am happy to hear any alternatives...

 

[wingnut771]

Here is my challenge to you in return.

Instead of the very popular temperature graph of between 1850-2020, let's look at historical global temperatures for some perspective. They seem very regular to my untrained eye. Can you explain them to me?

Three Million Years of Climate Change

Using reconstructions of global temperature based on oxygen isotope ratio analyses of ocean sediment cores and polar glacial ice cores we can look back at the Earth’s climate for about 800,00…

oz4caster.wordpress.com

To my untrained eye, the issue is, in the past, changes occurred over thousands of years allowing nature to adapt, yet today, the changes are happening in less than a century throwing nature's delicate balance out of whack. I blame the industrial revolution. Add on top of that, all the over/destructive fishing practices, deforestation and waste pollution into the mix and we have a quadruple whammy.

 

[tetrasect]

Here is my challenge to you in return.

Instead of the very popular temperature graph of between 1850-2020, let's look at historical global temperatures for some perspective. They seem very regular to my untrained eye. Can you explain them to me?

Three Million Years of Climate Change

Using reconstructions of global temperature based on oxygen isotope ratio analyses of ocean sediment cores and polar glacial ice cores we can look back at the Earth’s climate for about 800,00…

oz4caster.wordpress.com

Those temperature fluctuations span at most 10 degrees over 50,000 years (0.02 degrees per 100 years).

We are seeing a change of 2 degrees over 100 years (2 degrees per 100 years).

That means we are seeing a temperature change today that is 100 times faster than what we saw in the past.

 

[tetrasect]

You yourself have not come up with a single spec of information, merely attacking other's position.

Would you therefore like to state YOUR position and explanation for my question to @3WA ?

Any normal person is in the position of agreeing with what scientists who dedicate their lives to studying climatology have to say.

We are not experts, they are.

If you think you can do better than those scientists then it's up to you to refute them.

But so far ponderer has only managed to show a complete lack of understanding even the most basic highschool level scientific principles.

These "refutations" do not even come close to being significant in any way, shape or form other than serving as a laughing stock for the rest of us.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Any normal person is in the position of agreeing with what scientists who dedicate their lives to studying climatology have to say.

We are not experts, they are.

If you think you can do better than those scientists then it's up to you to refute them.

But so far ponderer has only managed to show a complete lack of understanding even the most basic highschool level scientific principles.

These "refutations" do not even come close to being significant in any way, shape or form other than serving as a laughing stock for the rest of us.

They aren't even refutations..
They're a temper tantrum going 'No! You're wrong and I'm right!'

 

[Paulsie]

Those temperature fluctuations span at most 10 degrees over 50,000 years (0.02 degrees per 100 years).

We are seeing a change of 2 degrees over 100 years (2 degrees per 100 years).

That means we are seeing a temperature change today that is 100 times faster than what we saw in the past.

There are instances where an uncontrolled temperature change occurred suddenly (within a few years and up to a decade) - e.g. Younger Dryas (Wiki)

Measurements of oxygen isotopes from the GISP2 ice core suggest the ending of the Younger Dryas took place over just 40~50 years in three discrete steps, each lasting five years. Other proxy data, such as dust concentration and snow accumulation, suggest an even more rapid transition, which would require about 7 °C (13 °F) of warming in just a few years.[16][17][30][31] Total warming in Greenland was 10 ± 4 °C (18 ± 7 °F).[32]

Also, in history, global average temperatures were not correlated to the levels of CO2 over millennia (we are currently at the bottom of both, the average temps as well as CO2 levels).

globalTempAndCo2_last600MillionYears - JeremyShiers.com BlogJeremyShiers.com Blog

jeremyshiers.com

And R.A. Barnes CO2 work..

https://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf

 

[Paulsie]

Any normal person is in the position of agreeing with what scientists who dedicate their lives to studying climatology have to say.

We are not experts, they are.

If you think you can do better than those scientists then it's up to you to refute them.

But so far ponderer has only managed to show a complete lack of understanding even the most basic highschool level scientific principles.

These "refutations" do not even come close to being significant in any way, shape or form other than serving as a laughing stock for the rest of us.

I am not better than the experts, but there are multiple experts with multiple points of view.

The fair and most accurate thing to do would be to declare this one INCONCLUSIVE.

 

[Temujin]

It's clearly not about politics and money.

So what you're saying is big oil murdered all the dinosaurs to profit off their oily bits

 

[Ponderer]

I think this is the point yes? None of us are qualified to discuss it and truth is not determined by argument -- Aristotle lived a very long time ago.

You don't need to be qualified to discuss something.
That is already silly reasoning - straight off the bat.

And truth is determined by argument.
You determine truth by thinking.

Have no idea what "Aristotle lived a very long time ago" has to do with anything.
This is simply more silly reasoning.

You cannot derive the truth from inductive arguments - it is a logical fallacy.

Rubbish - pure and utter rubbish.
Where did you get that rubbish from.

What we can debate is the foundation of your beliefs - e.g. where do you get your information, what is your framework for evaluating and trusting information, what are the very real foundation for your argument.

Then let's do that.
I refer to post #855 (copy below).

Do you believe there is a "climate crises", that Carbon Emissions are the cause of "global warming" and/or "climate change", and that it (Carbon Emissions) is an imminent existential threat?

Let's start with that.
Answer the questions, and well take it from there.

My foundation is the way that proper science research is performed via peer reviewed published research agreed to by the majority by other peer reviewed published scientists over a consist long period of time. I am happy to hear any alternatives...

Science has been corrupted.
There is an abundance of BS/pseudo/fake "science" out there.
The same goes for peer review - it used to be a measure to stay true to (actual/true/real) Science, but that is now no longer the case.
Peer review now means nothing.

In closing.
I'm glad to see you are willing to discuss/debate.
Let's do it.
If it's okay with you, let's start with you answering the questions in post #855, and take it from there.

 

[Johand]

The fair and most accurate thing to do would be to declare this one INCONCLUSIVE.

Not by a long shot. 99% conclusive IMHO:

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

Science has been corrupted.
There is an abundance of BS/pseudo/fake "science" out there.
The same goes for peer review - it used to be a measure to stay true to (actual/true/real) Science, but that is now no longer the case.
Peer review now means nothing.

The fact that you are using a computer and that the internet uses optical fibre all which has serious roots in scientific peer review literature has me thinking.

Individual peer review articles are open for corruption. Fake journals appear. That is not the point -- this is the process by which scientists can get data and method and either confirm or dispute it... with a peer reviewed research paper. Peer review means there are some structure and openness and it is not complete random noise published for the sake of publishing, but does not indicate that the paper is 100% correct. The real validation is that other experts in the field see the research, know it passed some basic screening and then they have the opportunity to verify it/build on it/refute it. They can't hunt down forum articles written by random people - they don't have enough time in the day.

I am well aware that the process is not perfect, but it is self correcting. You can only draw real conclusions once time has passed and a significant number of experts has looked at it. Example -- vaxxing-causes-autism comes from the Lancet journal article. Multiple other scientists looked at it, try to validate it, did further research which in the end led Lancet to retract that paper.

I am very, very open if you are able to describe a better process currently in action to vet research. To my knowledge there is none. Even if you say you will look at one person that you absolutely trust - individuals are fallible and they might make mistakes.

 

[tetrasect]

There are instances where an uncontrolled temperature change occurred suddenly (within a few years and up to a decade) - e.g. Younger Dryas (Wiki)



Also, in history, global average temperatures were not correlated to the levels of CO2 over millennia (we are currently at the bottom of both, the average temps as well as CO2 levels).

globalTempAndCo2_last600MillionYears - JeremyShiers.com BlogJeremyShiers.com Blog

jeremyshiers.com

And R.A. Barnes CO2 work..

https://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf

Nobody said CO2 was responsible for driving temperature millions of years ago.

This is a strawman argument.

 

[tetrasect]

I am not better than the experts, but there are multiple experts with multiple points of view.

The fair and most accurate thing to do would be to declare this one INCONCLUSIVE.

No it's not.

There is over 99% scientific consensus.

You have no authority to declare it as inconclusive based on your negligible understanding of the subject matter.

This is dunning-kruger at it's finest.

 

[Ponderer]

Not by a long shot. 99% conclusive IMHO:

Your reasoning is purely/entirely an argument from authority.
It is further silly to argue that the probability of something to be true or false is determined by the number of people that believe it to be true or false.
Consensus is not Science, and Science is not Consensus.
Science has nothing to do with "democracy".
You cannot reason that if 70% of "scientists" agree on something, there is a 70% probability that "the science" is right - all/some/none of them may be right or wrong.
That's not how actual/true/real Science works.

The fact that you are using a computer and that the internet uses optical fibre all which has serious roots in scientific peer review literature has me thinking.

What is it making you think.

Individual peer review articles are open for corruption. Fake journals appear. That is not the point -- this is the process by which scientists can get data and method and either confirm or dispute it... with a peer reviewed research paper. Peer review means there are some structure and openness and it is not complete random noise published for the sake of publishing, but does not indicate that the paper is 100% correct. The real validation is that other experts in the field see the research, know it passed some basic screening and then they have the opportunity to verify it/build on it/refute it. They can't hunt down forum articles written by random people - they don't have enough time in the day.

I am intimately acquainted with peer review.
You don't have to explain it to me, or what it is, or how it works, ........
I worked in the "hard" sciences for a long time.

I am well aware that the process is not perfect, but it is self correcting.

Peer review is now a joke - it now means nothing.

You can only draw real conclusions once time has passed and a significant number of experts has looked at it. Example -- vaxxing-causes-autism comes from the Lancet journal article. Multiple other scientists looked at it, try to validate it, did further research which in the end led Lancet to retract that paper.

You don't know the half of all the shenanigans.
The corruption is unbelievable - downright disgusting.
Not to mention the politics.
You must "toe the line" if you value your career.

I am very, very open if you are able to describe a better process currently in action to vet research. To my knowledge there is none. Even if you say you will look at one person that you absolutely trust - individuals are fallible and they might make mistakes.

Let me start by saying that I absolutely love actual/true/real Science.
Let me add that I absolutely detest BS/pseudo/fake "science".
I have the utmost regard for a true scientist, and deeply despise fake "scientists".
And, as is almost always the case, you have to trust someone and/or something.
That's why Science must be kept as pure as possible.
That's why I hate BS/pseudo/fake "science" so much.

 

[Ponderer]

No it's not.

There is over 99% scientific consensus.

You have no authority to declare it as inconclusive based on your negligible understanding of the subject matter.

This is dunning-kruger at it's finest.

Oh the irony.
Simply stunning.

 

[tetrasect]

I am intimately acquainted with peer review.
You don't have to explain it to me, or what it is, or how it works, ........
I worked in the "hard" sciences for a long time.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA