Is Inhofe correct?

Page 4 of 18 [ 274 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 18 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

26 Nov 2014, 5:02 pm

The uncontroversial fact that the climate has been cooling since 1998 is only disputed by climate change deniers.

wittgenstein
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull

26 Nov 2014, 5:10 pm

Nope. EVERY scientific organization in the world says that the world is not cooling. Even the graph you supplied showed that we are warming.
Are you saying that EVERY scientific organization in the world is falsifying data? NASA, falsified data? NOAA falsified data? The American Meteorological Society falsified data? Scientific American, National geographic, The Royal Society...
Since according to you EVERY scientific organization in the world is falsifying data, where do you get your data that the world is cooling from? Oh yeah, some guy's blog. Or you make it up yourself, by taking a graph that shows global warming and then altering it to make it look like it shows global cooling.

_________________
YES! This is me!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gtdlR4rUcY
I went up over 50 feet!
I love debate!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtckVng_1a0
My debate style is calm and deadly!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-230v_ecAcM

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

26 Nov 2014, 5:28 pm

wittgenstein wrote:

EVERY scientific organization in the world says that the world is not cooling.

They are currently on the fence, some searching for the "missing heat," but they haven't found anything yet.

wittgenstein
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull

26 Nov 2014, 5:32 pm

Nope. Every scientific organization is absolutely certain that the world is warming * and definitely not cooling. None are fence sitters.
* The data is vast , overwhelming and unequivocal. If you doubt that, simply click on the sites from NASA, American Meteorological Society, NOAA... that I gave.

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

26 Nov 2014, 7:22 pm

They will eventually have to come down on the cold side of the fence.

Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

29 Nov 2014, 8:13 pm

Humanaut wrote:

They will eventually have to come down on the cold side of the fence.

wittgenstein wrote:

Aside from well funded lap puppies, that seek to end discussion due to being the experts, and limit it to being the fault of humans, which is true, but there is more.

Carbon leaves the system by entering a Carbon Sink. The Ocean is a limited one, the main one is land plants, and farming and grazing have blocked that Carbon path. It has also released the Carbon stored in the soil.
This accounts for the Carbon buildup.

slave
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 113
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

29 Nov 2014, 8:38 pm

Fnord wrote:

It's easy to ignore anything that conflicts with scientific "dogma", especially:

Claims based on the "authority" of someone's "sacred" writings.
Claims based on anecdote, hearsay and rumor.
Claims based on the popularity of the person(s) making the claims.
Claims based on alleged forces that can not be observed or measured.
Claims based solely on coincidence and correlation.
Claims and predictions that consistently fail to come true.
Claims that are so vague and malleable that any event (or lack of events) has been used as supportive "evidence".
Claims that a conspiracy is suppressing knowledge that will benefit all humanity; but that would also ruin the global economy.
Claims that require mere belief in the claims to validate the claims.
Claims that no one but the claimants could possibly understand how the claims are allegedly valid.
Claims made by people who obviously have no real working knowledge of the subject matter of their claims.
Claims made in the popular media first (i.e., Conspiracy websites, Social websites, Internet blogs, Facebook, et cetera).
Claims made by people who refuse to give a critical demonstration of their claims.
Claims made by people who refuse to share the maths behind their claims.
Claims made by people who use improper grammar, punctuation, and spelling in their claims - even when using their native or "first" language!
Claims that are mere thinly-disguised solicitations for money.

There, that should cover the majority of pseudo-scientific quackery that passes for "science" on this website.

well said....as usual

wittgenstein
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull

01 Dec 2014, 3:35 pm

I have shown that it is NOT scientific dogma. It is EMPIRICAL DATA! Now, you may claim that EVERY scientific organization in the world is falsifying data, but that is really dogmatic. And besides if EVERY scientific organization in the world is falsifying data, what on earth do you base your claims on ( that the world is not warming and/or cooling?)
Obviously, not EMPIRICAL DATA, only dogma ( the dogma that there is a universal conspiracy that involves NASA, NOAA, Royal Academy, American Meteorological Society... and EVERY scientific organization in the world.)
You really need a philosophy ( or basic logic course) class , so that you will know the difference between data and dogma. It is not dogma that the world is warming. It is empirical data, validated by EVERY scientific organization in the world.
PS; This may help you understand what the defintion of "dogma" is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

wittgenstein
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull

01 Dec 2014, 3:38 pm

slave wrote:

Fnord wrote:

It's easy to ignore anything that conflicts with scientific "dogma", especially:

Claims based on the "authority" of someone's "sacred" writings.
Claims based on anecdote, hearsay and rumor.
Claims based on the popularity of the person(s) making the claims.
Claims based on alleged forces that can not be observed or measured.
Claims based solely on coincidence and correlation.
Claims and predictions that consistently fail to come true.
Claims that are so vague and malleable that any event (or lack of events) has been used as supportive "evidence".
Claims that a conspiracy is suppressing knowledge that will benefit all humanity; but that would also ruin the global economy.
Claims that require mere belief in the claims to validate the claims.
Claims that no one but the claimants could possibly understand how the claims are allegedly valid.
Claims made by people who obviously have no real working knowledge of the subject matter of their claims.
Claims made in the popular media first (i.e., Conspiracy websites, Social websites, Internet blogs, Facebook, et cetera).
Claims made by people who refuse to give a critical demonstration of their claims.
Claims made by people who refuse to share the maths behind their claims.
Claims made by people who use improper grammar, punctuation, and spelling in their claims - even when using their native or "first" language!
Claims that are mere thinly-disguised solicitations for money.

There, that should cover the majority of pseudo-scientific quackery that passes for "science" on this website.

well said....as usual

Actually, Fnord is making the point that AGW is real and the conspiracy enthusiasts are the one's being dogmatic.

wittgenstein
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull

01 Dec 2014, 3:41 pm

Inventor wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

They will eventually have to come down on the cold side of the fence.

wittgenstein wrote:

Perhaps, you are correct. However, that is superfluous. The major contributor to global warming is the release of CO2 by fossil fuels.

wittgenstein
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull

01 Dec 2014, 3:45 pm

Humanaut wrote:

They will eventually have to come down on the cold side of the fence.

I trust the empirical data and not your intuitive dogma.
You should hire yourself out as a psychic! Your personal intuition transcends the scientific method! :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

wittgenstein
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull

01 Dec 2014, 4:48 pm

I think that people are confusing dogma with an appeal to authority (which is not always a fallacy).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ority.html
For example, if I say that EVERY scientific organization in the world believes that the world is NOT flat, I am not appealing to dogma. Granted, I have not proven that the earth is not flat. However, I have made it obvious that it is highly unlikely (because it is very unlikely that so many experts would be part of a conspiracy, or that every scientist in the world doesn't understand the scientific method. However, I have done more than just prove that EVERY scientific organization in the world agrees with AGW. I have also provided their proof ( empirical data).

wittgenstein
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull

01 Dec 2014, 4:54 pm

wittgenstein wrote:

Fnord wrote:

wittgenstein wrote:

It is sad that so far 3 people voted ?yes? showing their lack of critical thinking skills, lack of acquaintance with logic and ignorance of science...

Actually, it shows the exact opposite.

I've spent the last 6 years trying to teach principles of critical thinking to the members of WP, and it looks like my efforts are finally paying off.

Shaming people into believing as you do (a.k.a., "Fallacy of Appeal to Shame") will only drive them further away.

Further, the only thing that is real about "Climategate" is the fact that several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change, an unknown individual or group breached the Climate Research Group's (CRU) server and copied thousands of emails and computer files to various locations on the Internet -- a clearly illegal act, by the way.

What makes this "Climategate" an utter farce is that the contents of the emails were then selectively taken out of context and blatantly "edited" to reflect the agenda of the "Global Warming is a Scientific Conspiracy" crowd.

No fewer than eight independent committees investigated their allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct, thus exonerating the CRU and forcing a withdrawal of all other charges against them.

So don't be so surprised that so few people agree with you; most people around here can and do think for themselves, and are no longer easily swayed by falsified data and fallacious reasoning.

Reason has triumphed over fear and doubt. Get used to it.

UMM So you agree with me! Climategate was a farce and a lie.
So few people agree with me? 80% do according to the poll on this thread. Unfortunately, 18% have no understanding of science and critical thinking.
I think you are confused. Read the OP again. I am obviously saying that AGW is real and Inhofe is a fool. How on earth did you think I was saying that global warming is a myth and that climategate actually happened???! ! !

Slave,
I too misunderstood Fnord. I thought at first that he was a global warming denier/conspiracy enthusiast. However, I then realized that somehow he thought I was!! ! ( see above!). Ironically, his attacks were directed at my name but not at my position! He takes my side and is against Humanaut and Inventor

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

01 Dec 2014, 6:21 pm

The globe has been cooling since 1998 according to satellite data, and the search for the missing heat has so far yielded no results. The reason is no heat went missing in the first place. It is the cold that went missing prior to the illusory warming that has returned. If we adjust the temperature records in accordance with this new insight, the following signal emerges: No signal. It's a flatliner up until 1998, and the globe has been cooling since, which raises a question. Where has the additional cold come from? Air conditioners? I don't think so. The core of the Earth is cooling, and there is nothing we can do about it.

wittgenstein
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull

02 Dec 2014, 3:30 pm

Why do you keep saying that? There is NO EVIDENCE* that the earth is cooling.However, EVERY scientific organization in the world has provided EMPIRICAL DATA that the earth is warming ( which I have provided). All you have ever given is your opinion.
* You have yet to give ANY evidence that the world is cooling. By the way, altering a graph that shows global warming to make it look like it shows global cooling is not evidence. You even admitted that you altered the graph. Unfortunately, that was the only "evidence" you ever gave.

wittgenstein
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull

02 Dec 2014, 3:35 pm

Humanaut wrote:

Missing heat

It shows up in EVERY measure taken by every scientific organization.
Why do you keep making things up? It has not been a "flatliner" since 1998. 2005, 2010 and this year beat 1998. ( see the sites I gave , NOAA etc).
The core of the earth is cooling?

That is probably not true, but even if it is, the center of the earth is not the earth's atmosphere.* Those are two different subjects. The atmosphere and surface of the earth are warming . That is where we live.
* "An atmosphere (New Latin atmosphaera, created in the 17th century from Greek ἀτμός [atmos] "vapor"[1] and σφαῖρα [sphaira] "sphere"[2]) is a layer of gases surrounding a planet or other material body of sufficient mass[3] that is held in place by the gravity of the body. An atmosphere is more likely to be retained if the gravity is high and the atmosphere's temperature is low."
FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere
"Earth’s core is the very hot center of our planet."
FROM http://education.nationalgeographic.com ... re/?ar_a=1

Last edited by wittgenstein on 02 Dec 2014, 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Page 4 of 18 [ 274 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 18 Next

Jump to:

Is Inhofe correct? Post Reply New Topic

Is Inhofe correct?