Do innuendoes add value to the conversation, in your humble opinion?
1 Like
You are clearly unaware that only around 42% of cobalt mined annually is used for batteries (and only around 10% of that is used for electric vehicles), and the overwhelming bulk of that comes from mines which do not use slave labor. The mines which use slave labor account for a tiny 7.5% of cobalt mined annually. One of the reasons for this is that companies which do use cobalt, have helped marginalize the slavery mines, by making great efforts to support ethically sourced cobalt.
I missed the part where this company was responsible for the peer reviewed reports such as the IPCCâs assessments. Contrary to your suggestion, it is in Glencoreâs best interests to ignore global warming since they earn so much money from mining fossil fuels, but unfortunately they canât because governments are putting pressure on them to stop mining. So the facts are the complete opposite of what you imply; Glencore isnât profiting by attempting to convince people of that AGW is a fact, they are suffering because governments who do accept AGW is a fact, are pressuring them to stop mining their fossil fuels.
I notice you are avoiding actual discussion of the science. This is typical of denialists; it is not the approach of genuine skeptics.
1 Like
What you originally wrote.
What you later wrote when your original claim was proved false.
In other words, âWhen I said âvery little global warming during the past 10 years or soâ, what I really meant was average global surface temperature between about 1998 (20 years ago), and 2012 (nearly seven years ago)â. How foolish of people to misunderstand you.
Then why donât you? Why would you instead make bombastic claims on the basis of a couple of sentences at the start of an article which contextualizes them in a manner which proves your understanding of the article is false? Letâs read the first section.
The recent slow-down in the rate of warming, averaged over the surface of the entire planet, has incited much discussion. As climate scientists are tracking down the causes, we must not forget that average surface temperatures are only one indicator of climate change.
Global mean warming at the Earthâs surface has been slow over the past 15 years or so, but climate change, in the broader sense, has not. Since the late 1990s, summer sea ice extent in the Arctic has marched relentlessly from one record retreat to the next[1], extremely hot periods over land have become ever more common[2] and global mean sea level has continued to rise steadily[3]. Although the slow-down requires further attention, it does not seriously challenge current understanding of the mechanics of climate change: the evolution of global mean surface temperatures as well as the difference between climate model projections and observations are unusual, but not inexplicable, as argued in two Commentary articles in this issue (on [pages 158]
Cherry picking an article like this is typical of denialists, not genuine skeptics. Why would you only look at data between 1998 and 2012? Why would you not look at data from the last 100 years or so?
Evidence please.
Nonsense. That isnât remotely necessary. Additionally, according to you, arriving at a conclusion on the dangers of smoking was the quick work of looking at a couple of pictures (!). Perhaps you could look at a couple of pictures of climate change data. You might learn something.
Evidence please. Iâd love to see examples.
What do you actually know about the last 120 years of scientific study of global warming? You claim to not know enough to draw a conclusion about the issue, yet you claim to know enough to dismiss the overwhelming consensus of relevant science, a consensus significant not merely because of numbers, but because of the manner in which this consensus has been formed; through repeated observation, hypotheses, experimentation, accurate predictions, and the repeated validation of hypotheses, and their persistent resistance to falsification.
2 Likes
Great to see you here @Jonathan_Burke. Been a long time.
3 Likes
Given the state of the world, I feel itâs a Christian duty to speak out the facts on AGW. Denialism is dangerous, and we must police our own community.
3 Likes
Peaceful Science certainly needs an efficient police force.
1 Like
I never dismissed it. I said I wittheld assent. Withholding assent and denying the truth of something are two different things. But I refuse to discuss the science of global warming with a Classics major who hasnât taken a science course since high school. Unlike you, I went to a research university on a science scholarship with stratospheric grades, especially in mathematics. So I do know a little bit about how scientists think and work. Iâm better trained to understand the results than you are. And all you ever do on this subject is nod to authority; you arenât capable of critically analyzing the assumptions made about the physics, the mathematical modelling (which you couldnât follow to save your life, based on studying your Biblical Greek), etc. You simply nod your head in agreement with the majority. Your opinions are of no concern to me.
Please stop. Youâre hiding behind a pseudonym, making your relentless bragging even more absurd.
3 Likes
There is much that is wrong here⌠Everyone take a break and a breath. Discuss the issues and leave personal attacks out of it.
If you are continuing a bar fight from a previous site, forget it. We donât need that here. Just discuss the issues or move on.
2 Likes
Posted elsewhere previously on PS, a comment that I have frequently posted after news articles on climate change:
This is simply false. There is still a climate to study, so there would be climatologists. Grants are based on the quality of the science, not the conclusion. I think the vast majority of climatologists would celebrate if our use of fossil fuels was not causing a change in Earthâs climate.
2 Likes
Actually, it would need to be a 100+ year old Swedish hoax. The Swede, Svante Arrhenius, was the first to calculate the potential increase in temperature due to increases in carbon dioxide, and he did it in 1896.
Arrheniusâ calculations turned out to be over-simplified and didnât include other mechanisms like atmospheric convection, but the meat of his calculations are still true to this day, 100+ years later. This isnât a recent idea that cropped up in the last few decades. This is science that has over a century of science to back it.
The assumptions are really simple. The first basic assumption is adiabatic cooling. As pressure falls the temperature falls. The reverse is also true. As pressure increases, the temperature increases. This is why it is cooler at higher altitudes than at lower altitudes, something that you learn when you drive up into the mountains.
The second basic assumption is carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation. This can be checked in a multitude of spectrophotometers. Included in this assumption are the basic mathematical models of how IR radiation makes its way through a mixture of gases before it can escape.
The third basic assumption is blackbody radiation. This can be checked any number of ways.
With these basic assumptions you will end up at the conclusion we are currently at, that increasing carbon dioxide by 30% in the atmosphere will raise temperatures. This is because the more CO2 you have the higher in the atmosphere you have to go before that IR radiation can escape. This will necessarily raise the temperature in the upper atmosphere in order to be in equilibrium with the amount of heat radiating from the Earth. When you raise the temperature of the upper atmosphere you necessarily raise the temperature of the lower atmosphere due to adiabatic processes. This is the greenhouse effect in a nutshell, and it is some of the most solid science there is.
Once you understand the physics of the greenhouse effect, the conclusion seems unavoidable, at least in my eyes.
1 Like
But not in Judith Curryâs, and having published 160 peer reviewed articles in the field of climatology, she knows a bit about it. Your non-specialist general reasoning such as the above is not decisive, in the light of thousands of complicating factors in the climate system that you donât deal with (and as a microbiologist, likely know little to nothing about). Iâll take her word over yours any day, if I choose to take anyoneâs word at all. But as I told Harshman, I donât take a side. I find the arguments inconclusive. If you and Harshman donât like that, tough. Iâm not answerable to two biologists who dabble in climate science.
The thousands of other climatologists that disagree with her also know a bit. It is rather interesting that you cling to an extreme minority of contrarians while ignoring the bulk of the expertise in the field.
But you wonât take the word of thousands of climatologists that make up the overwhelming consensus within the field.
I will say the most fascinating thing is your instinctive attraction towards contrarians. It seems to be consistent across all fields.
Not surprising. He does the same thing for evolutionary biology which he knows absolutely nothing about yet dismisses in favor of ID-Creationism.
So you admit that in the end your support is based on authority? You admit that you donât have the technical expertise in climate science modeling to demonstrate who is right and wrong, and why? Well, I admit the same thing. And thatâs why I donât decide. I say, let them fight it out theoretically, and keep the politics out of it.
Not to contrarians as such, but to people who think for themselves. And people who think outside the box. And people who have broad synthetic interests. And people who have theoretical interests that tend to bridge different fields.
Here is a lecture by Wagner, which I have heard only part of so far, but which indicates the sort of biologist I admire, the one who can do technical work but is also keenly aware of broader questions, both within his field and outside of it. He talks about homology in relationship both to biology and philosophy.
(And to avoid misunderstanding, I am not necessarily pushing any particular conclusions he draws in the lecture, but merely indicating the kind of scientist who excites admiration in me: interested in the history of his own discipline, willing to admit inner tensions or ambiguities within his own disciplineâs definitions, interested in the interface of his discipline with philosophy, etc.)
This is the kind of mind I am attracted to, not just in biology but in any field. I have just as much impatience with pedantic, detail-man Biblical scholars as I do with their analogues in biology. Iâve had much the same frustrating conversations with those who believe that all scholars should accept the findings of ârigorous Biblical scienceâ or âthe consensus of Biblical scholarship,â as I do with those who have the same attitude in biology, climate science, etc.
What exactly is their hypothesis?
Try this on â it may be worse than we think:
Dimming the Sun â transcript.
Of course, a volcanic winter or three could slow things down.
This is falseâŚjust look at the increase in government grants to study climate change from the 1990sâŚ
The volume of the grants has increased exponentially post claims of the crisis.