Intelligent Design

Let’s Play “Spot the Equivocation”

Spread the love

Some friends and I drove up to Casper, which was in the exact center of the zone of totality of the eclipse.  The experience was indescribably spectacular.  It was even worth enduring the worst traffic jam of my life in which the normal four-hour drive back to Denver was stretched to ten hours.

This morning I learned that Neil deGrasse Tyson‏ tweeted

The divided United States of America will unite today, sharing a cosmic event predicted by the methods and tools of science.

Most commenters have interpreted this as a dig at climate alarmism skeptics.  So, let’s play “Spot the Equivocation”!

A.  The “methods and tools of science” used to predict the eclipse have been extremely well understood for hundreds of years; are astronomically (literally) precise, and have been used to make an exacting prediction the success or failure of which can be measured with pinpoint accuracy.

B.  The “methods and tools of science”  used to predict future climate change are based on factors that are not well understood, if they are understood at all. The predictions of past models have failed spectacularly.

Why would any sane scientist compare “A” to “B”?  Oh, wait, Tyson was not acting as a scientist.  He was acting as a propagandist, and as is often the case, he was attempting to cover his political prejudices with the mantle of science.

72 Replies to “Let’s Play “Spot the Equivocation”

  1. 1
    asauber says:

    a cosmic event predicted by the methods and tools of science

    Yes, day and night are cosmic events that alternate somewhat predictably, too, and we don’t need an ensemble of million dollar worthless computer models to tell us about it, either. Equivocation, indeed.

    Andrew

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    Is it in the “Most commenters”? It’s not obvious That’s what was meant, and no examples of comments is given.

  3. 3
    Axel says:

    ‘Why would any sane scientist compare “A” to “B”? Oh, wait, Tyson was not acting as a scientist. He was acting as a propagandist, and as is often the case, he was attempting to cover his political prejudices with the mantle of science.’

    Reminds me of an advertisement, where, arriving at the scene of an accident, a woman pushes her way through the knot of bystanders, calling out : ‘Let me through ! Let me through ! I’m a beautician !’

  4. 4
    Kal says:

    Equivocation or some form of False Equivalence?

  5. 5
    john_a_designer says:

    Well, let’s give Climate Science some benefit of the doubt here. Using “the methods and tools of science” what can we say about climate change? Here is my list of things we can say with “solar eclipse” kind of certainty.

    First, climate change is a fact. The climate is changing because the climate has always been changing. Even the so-called climate deniers don’t deny that.

    Second, global warming is real. If the climate is changing then it must be changing in one of two directions: It’s either getting warmer or it is getting cooler. The overall trend since the last ice age has been warmer.

    Third, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, if is not most predominate greenhouse gas, water vapor is.

    Fourth, worldwide industrialization has contributed to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Fifth, since 1979 satellite data, which is the only true “real time” measure of the earth’s global temperature has shown only a negligible increase in the earths temperature. This does not correspond with the UN’s IPCC computer models, all of which show more of an increase than the satellite data, with a few “outliers” showing a runaway increase of global temperatures.

    That’s what we presently know using “the methods and tools of science.”

  6. 6
    Dionisio says:

    “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.”
    Did Lev Tolstoy say that?

    https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/08/big-data-finds-the-medieval-warm-period-no-denial-here/

  7. 7
    Bob O'H says:

    JAD @ 5 –

    Third, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, if is not most predominate greenhouse gas, water vapor is.

    Which is unfortunate, as warming increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, which amplifies the warming.

    Fifth, since 1979 satellite data, … has shown only a negligible increase in the earths temperature. This does not correspond with the UN’s IPCC computer models,

    The latest estimate is a change of about 0.14C/decade. I*m not sure I’d classify that as ‘negligible’, but I’m not a climate scientist.

  8. 8
    asauber says:

    So, Bob O’H @7…

    What are you doing to combat unfortunate Global Warming?

    Andrew

  9. 9
    Mung says:

    > What are you doing to combat unfortunate Global Warming?

    I’m restricting myself to having one wife.

  10. 10
    Bob O'H says:

    asauber – reducing my intake of red meat. I also take public transport (we don’t even own a car, but if we did it would be electric). I also try not to fly for long distance journeys (which is difficult with where I live, unfortunately).

  11. 11
    asauber says:

    reducing my intake of red meat. I also take public transport (we don’t even own a car, but if we did it would be electric). I also try not to fly for long distance journeys (which is difficult with where I live, unfortunately)

    Bob O’H you are doing a great job virtue signalling, but a lousy job stopping Global Warming.

    Andrew

  12. 12
    Bob O'H says:

    Yes, asauber, I could do much more. But you asked me what I’m doing, and I told you. How could I have answered that truthfully without looking like I was virtue signaling?

    BTW, what are you doing to reduce your carbon footprint?

  13. 13
    asauber says:

    BTW, what are you doing to reduce your carbon footprint?

    Nothing. I’m not dumb enough to think in such terms.

    Andrew

  14. 14
    Bob O'H says:

    I think , asauber, that could be called vice signaling. 🙂

  15. 15
    asauber says:

    that could be called vice signaling

    To a Religious Global Warming Disciple, yes.

    Andrew

  16. 16
    john_a_designer says:

    Using “the methods and tools of science” what alternative energy sources are currently available to cut carbon emissions? One of them is solar. However, there is a dirty little secret about solar: it’s not as clean as people think or have been lead to believe.

    Environmental Progress investigated the problem to see how the problem compared to the much more high-profile issue of nuclear waste.

    We found:

    [That the manufacturing of] Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.

    If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).

    In countries like China, India, and Ghana, communities living near e-waste dumps often burn the waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off the plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.

    http://www.environmentalprogre.....ste-crisis

    Of course wind is pretty clean but it also kills a lot of birds, especially soaring birds like eagles, hawks and condors. But they are just birds. Just make sure you eat a lot of dolphin safe tuna. The other drawback about wind turbines are that they are an ugly eyesore and the PC pro-environment progressive elites, who have vacation homes along the Massachusetts coast (Cape Cod, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard,) don’t want them built there. IOW you can’t build wind turbines everywhere even if there is a lot of wind there.

    Beside that both wind and solar are very inefficient.

    There’s nuclear but nuclear is politically incorrect. Why? It just is, so you shouldn’t even be asking why. (If you don’t already know you should know that just asking why is in and of itself politically incorrect.)

  17. 17

    I am really beginning to worry about Warmers. They are getting increasingly desperate to “help” the rest of us…whether we like it or not. Scary people.

  18. 18
    Seversky says:

    Global warming denialists remind me of a scene from the original version of The Magnificent Seven where Steve McQueen’s character “Vin” tells this little story:

    Vin: Reminds me of that fellow back home that fell off a ten story building.

    Chris: What about him?

    Vin: Well, as he was falling people on each floor kept hearing him say, “So far, so good.” Tch… So far, so good!

  19. 19
    rvb8 says:

    I have noticed that almost all climate change ‘denialists’, live in countries that are large, temperate, and have clearly defined seasons; the effects of climate change will be felt by your children and grandchildren, but probably not you; how selfish!

    I am amazed at Australia’s continued denial, as it is already suffering forrest fires, and heatwaves, the likes of which have not been seen before.

    California is fast running out of water, but luckilly the State government largely ignores Federal leadership on the issue, such as it is.

    What is that joke about the climate change denying Governor, comming from the, ‘Great State of Denial’?

  20. 20
  21. 21
    john_a_designer says:

    The only truly global temperature measurements are from weather satellites in polar orbits.

    Dr. Judith Curry, a former AGW believer now turned skeptic, posted an article on her website in Dec. 2015 which includes an interesting graph.

    https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_dec8.jpg

    The red line represents what the average of 104 IPCC* computer generated climate models was predicting or forecasting.

    The blue and green lines represent actual data from actual global measurements. The blue is balloon data. The green is satellite data. The real data does show some global warming (the sceptics DO NOT DENY this) however, it does not show the runaway, catastrophic warming the alarmists are predicting with their models. Who is being more rational here? The alarmists who cling to their predictions even though they have been proven wrong time and time again by real world data? Or those who analyse the real data to reach a tentative conclusion?

    Here is the full article:

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/

    If the scientific evidence showed that global warming was being caused by human activity I would not be a sceptic. I am a sceptic BECAUSE of what the scientific data presently shows, which is that any human contribution to global warming is being totally masked by a natural climatic cycle. AGW proponents have yet to provide any solid evidence to support their POV.

    footnote: *The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  22. 22
    LocalMinimum says:

    I can easily believe that global warming is a field of study for the comfortable and unproductive; and that, even if they are actually correct in their predictions of doom, that the field has been utterly worthless (at best) up until this point; but I do very much believe in green energy.

    There are the more immediate consequences of pollution. Electric cars are simply better (simpler, more efficient, just better) and, even though they break even with gasoline considering America’s filthy coal powered electric generation infrastructure, that’s more an issue of America’s filthy coal powered electric generation infrastructure.

    While old-school solar panels are a nasty, toxic mess with hardly any return on investment, we’re seeing much cleaner, cheaper, productive technologies emerging of late. Even if you look past the hype on all of Elon Musk’s work, we’re still seeing great progress. And, really, all we’re trying to do here is make use of the God-given fusion reactor next-door. It only makes sense.

    So, Green is foolish as a religion, but excellent as a practical goal.

  23. 23
    groovamos says:

    BobO : Which is unfortunate, as warming increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, which amplifies the warming.

    Fail. I took science in primary school where we learned that H2O can exist in 3 phases. The absorption spectra of H2O is drastically affected by refraction and reflection of two of those phases. Your heroes and their climate models BTW failed in their prediction of a rash of hurricanes tormenting the United States.

    I also take public transport (we don’t even own a car, but if we did it would be electric). I also try not to fly for long distance journeys

    You know this is such a joke. Maybe you don’t live in the USA. But your living figurehead, Al Gore, uses 22x the energy in just one (in Nashville) of his 3 residences, than the average house in the USA. He also flies by private jet, drives a Lexus RX400h and a Ford Escape. You sacrifice so much for this guy to keep up his energy squandering lifestyle. Yes yes, this clown of a man does enjoy the comforts of the industrial age that he decries, and has the girth to prove it in person.

    And we could detail the lifetsyles of all your other “climate” heroes in Hollywood e.g. Leonardo DiCaprio and in the business world and inventory their private jets and multi-mansions, but you know what? You sheeple already know all this. You already know you’re being taken for a ride and you can’t admit it without feeling stupid, so you don’t admit it.

  24. 24
    john_a_designer says:

    How did Al Gore get so rich?

  25. 25
    PaV says:

    Here’s a quiz:

    In, or around, 2000, the NOAA did a computer simulation of warming using the gases in the upper atmosphere as variables. They wanted to match actual temperature data. When they used only CO2, there was no match; when they used CO2 and Methane CH4, their data moved somewhat towards actual data. And then when they included H2O, along with methane and CO2, they got almost a match with actual data!

    Now what problem does this present for AGW theory?

  26. 26
    Bob O'H says:

    groovamos @ 24 – Ah, so your appeal to authority is primary school physics? Sorry, but my A-level beats that. 🙂

    Your explanation doesn’t make any sense. That water has absorption spectra means that it absorbs radiation from the sun. Which is what greenhouse gasses do. You might want to read up a bit more before trying again.

  27. 27
    PaV says:

    Bob O’H:

    Do they burn coal at your nearby power plant as a way of producing the electricity to power your ‘electric car’?

  28. 28
    Mung says:

    Here’s how I charge my electric car. I leave my electric car on a golf course and wait for lightning to strike it.

  29. 29
    PaV says:

    Mung, the odds of lightning hitting your electric car are extremely low. How do you figure to get around the odds?

    Of course, OTOH, the odds of winning a lottery are tiny, and yet someone wins it all the time.

  30. 30
    groovamos says:

    BobO : Your explanation doesn’t make any sense. That water has absorption spectra means that it absorbs radiation from the sun. Which is what greenhouse gasses do. You might want to read up a bit more before trying again.

    Oh really? You ever hear of Arrhenius? Well let me introduce you to the assumptions of the greenhouse effect of which you apparently ignorant.

    Arrhenius postulated in 1895 that infrared emissions FROM THE PLANET SURFACE (duh) would fall largely in the peak region of the absorption spectrum of CO2. Then the CO2 molecules would, from the temperature elevation of such would re-radiate at longer wavelengths which would be absorbed by the planet’s surface thereby warming it and the atmoshpere.

    Arrhenius and other scientists also looked at water vapor with a similar treatment of absorption spectra. Arrhenius was not able to account for the thermodynamic behavior of H2O in the other two phases based on the ability of both phases to reflect solar radiation back to space before reaching the surface. And this is the downfall of climate so-called models which are the sole basis for “climate science”. And btw there is no such thing as a “global temperature” or anything remotely resembling proof that climate, even in theory, can be linked to human activity. If you have such proof as you see it, have at it here let us see it.

    You might want to get learned on the theoretical basis for your religion before spouting off the science supposedly justifying it.

  31. 31
    Bob O'H says:

    PaV @ 28 – no, I believe it’s mainly hydro up here. We export most of our naughty global warming fuels.

    Mung @ 29 – I tried that, but it only works once.

    groovamos @ 31 – Yes, I have heard of Arrhenius. He died a long time ago. Since then other have been other scientists who have done a lot more research. See the link in 7 to help you catch up with the last 100 years of science.

  32. 32
    rvb8 says:

    No new coal plant has been built in Australia for the last forty or so years; none, that is zero are planned.

    Between now and 2055 around 20 to 25 more will be shut down and by that time a mere 1000Mw of electricity will be coming from coal.

    In the cities and towns coal is deeply unpopular, and politicians who push its economic importance are seen widely for what they are; men living in a by-gone era.

  33. 33
    asauber says:

    the last 100 years of science

    So what we have here (again) is our pal Bob O’H appealing to a nice, big, impressive and meaningless number that makes his religious belief in science look better to him.

    But does he actually know anything about how the earth’s weather system works? 100 times no.

    Andrew

  34. 34
    Bob O'H says:

    asauber – I’m not a climate scientist, and have never claimed to be one. That’s why I gave links to what real climate scientists have to say (see my comments @ 7). If you are knowledgeable about how the earth’s weather system works then I assume you can explain why they are wrong, and I’d be interested to see what you have to say.

  35. 35
    asauber says:

    I’m not a climate scientist, and have never claimed to be one.

    Bob O’H, this is perfect. You have no idea if anything climate scientists say is correct, in the ballpark, or complete fantasy.

    Thanks for commenting, though.

    Andrew

  36. 36
    Bob O'H says:

    asauber – Do you have any substantive criticism of what real climate scientists are saying? Your dismissive attitude isn’t very convincing, I’m afraid.

  37. 37
    asauber says:

    Do you have any substantive criticism of what real climate scientists are saying?

    Bob O’H,

    Of course I do. I’ve been commenting them for for about a Decade. That’s for 3.154e+8 seconds.

    Andrew

  38. 38
    Bob O'H says:

    asauber – so where are these substantive criticisms? I’m afraid I haven’t seen them, and Google isn’t bringing up much.

  39. 39

    Bob O’H,

    If you have no means of personally assessing whether or not anything climate scientists say is valid or not, why do you believe them, especially when virtually all of their predictions have failed so spectacularly?

  40. 40
    asauber says:

    so where are these substantive criticisms?

    Bob O’H,

    Here’s one: You should get a job.

    Andrew

  41. 41
    PaV says:

    No one has taken my quiz @26. Bob O’H, what about you? Anyone?

    @32
    Bob O’H:

    Canada is not the US. Here the grid-electricity is produced either by natural gas, coal, or oil–almost exclusively.

  42. 42
    Bob O'H says:

    WJM – because I know how science works, and that if there’s a consensus, it’s because that’s where the evidence points. Plus, the criticisms haven’t very impressive (in my opinion). As for the predictions, I think the predictions that the climate will warm have been borne out – it’s definitely been warmer. Ice is melting etc etc.

    asauber – thanks for playing. I’m happy with my current job, TBH.

    PaV – thank you. I was well aware that Canada is not the US. So?

  43. 43
    PaV says:

    Bob O’H:

    “So.”

    So confront the reality that driving an electric car does not ensure that so-called “naughty global warming fuels” won’t be used to generate the electricity you use.

    Let’s go nuclear.

    Actually, I can’t wait for fuel-cells, if they can make them safely.

  44. 44
    asauber says:

    because I know how science works

    Is that what they tell you at your current job?

    Andrew

  45. 45
    Bob O'H says:

    PaV – huh? Why did you bring Canada into this?

    asauber – they don’t have to. I guess you don’t know what my current job is. Oh, and I’m still waiting to see some evidence of your substantive contributions to the discussions about climate change.

  46. 46
    PaV says:

    Bob O’H:

    I thought by your response that you were indicating that you live in Canada.

    All others:

    No takers for the quiz @ 26?

  47. 47
    john_a_designer says:

    Neil deGrasse Tyson just won’t give it up. Today on twitter he tweeted:

    “Hmm. Don’t see much denial of @NOAA climate scientists who have predicted Hurricane Harvey’s devastating path into Texas.”

    https://twitter.com/neiltyson

    To which one meteorologist has responded:

    Neil… doesn’t seem to understand that the National Hurricane Center has operational meteorologists, not climate scientists. But when you believe weather is climate, I guess anything goes.

    Sheesh. Pretty soon he’s going to outshine Bill Nye in the science stupidity category.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/25/friday-funny-advice-from-another-scientist-to-neil-degrasse-tyson-neiltyson-stick-with-eclipses/

    The equivocation game continues. How does one even debate inane and stupid arguments?

  48. 48
    rvb8 says:

    Bob O’H, admits he’s not a climate scientist, @35, I admit I’m not a biologist, always, in what way does this invalidate our criticisms of ID?

    William J M@ 40, suggests Bob’s lack of climate science credentials means he is not clued up enough to contribute; that’s just silly as the science when explained is quite understandable to the half educated.

    So, to my question for William; If you have no post graduate degrees in biology, (and to all the posters here who have no doctoral degrees in biology), what makes you qualified to run a ‘science’ blog criticising biological science?

    The science of climate change, like that of evolution, is accepted. The only other position is denial.

  49. 49

    rvb8 said:

    William J M@ 40, suggests Bob’s lack of climate science credentials means he is not clued up enough to contribute; that’s just silly as the science when explained is quite understandable to the half educated.

    No, I did not suggest that. Try again. I merely asked him how he came to his conclusions given his self-admitted limitations in understanding the science involved.

    So, to my question for William; If you have no post graduate degrees in biology, (and to all the posters here who have no doctoral degrees in biology), what makes you qualified to run a ‘science’ blog criticising biological science?

    The answer is that I don’t run a science blog criticising biological science. On the rare occasion that I contribute to this blog, What I criticize is the logic and reasoning of certain views and beliefs. Which is why I asked Bob what I asked him.

  50. 50

    Bob and I must live in two different realities, because in mine, global warming/global change predictions have virtually all been abject failures.

    107 Failed Global Warming Predictions

  51. 51

    April 28, 1975 Newsweek “There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

    July 9, 1971, Washington Post: “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

    Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

    Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”

    1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

  52. 52

    I don’t think I can even count the number of failed global disaster predictions made by scientists that I’ve personally lived through. Back in the ’70’s it was the “coming ice age scare” and a supposed worldwide famine that would see widespread starvation. We were supposed to run out of precious metals and oil long before now. Then there was the ozone hole scare.

    With the current climate change scare, supposedly we had to make drastic worldwide changes long before now or else anything we did would be far too late. Well, it’s too late now, right? Why are these people still badgering us about doing something when they said that now would be too late?

    My question is, why should I believe any group with such an abysmal track record when it comes to predicting global environmental calamity? Don’t failed predictions even matter?

    Bob says that his proof is that it is “getting warmer” and that “ice is melting”; NOBODY asserts that the Earth is not going through a general warming period right now, which would mean it is getting warmer and that – generally – ice is melting. The question is whether or not humans are drastically contributing to that warming and pushing it way beyond historic, natural cycles of warming.

    The predictions from the view that this is not a normal warming cycle have failed spectacularly. And if we were even to take their predictions seriously, then by those predictions it is already too late to do anything about it.

  53. 53
    asauber says:

    I guess you don’t know what my current job is.

    Bob O’H,

    I don’t. I suspect you don’t have one. That’s the impression I get from your comments. I see you as over 97% Troll, if you believe in deriving such percentages. And you do because you claim to believe in the climate science consensus (same number). The numbers I present are as scientific as theirs.

    Andrew

  54. 54
    asauber says:

    “ice is melting”

    Ice melts during cooling trends, too.

    Andrew

  55. 55
    Bob O'H says:

    asauber – I’m still waiting to see a substantive criticism from you of what real climate scientists are saying.

    FWIW I do have a job. I’m curious to know, though, what made you think I was unemployed.

  56. 56
    asauber says:

    I’m curious to know, though, what made you think I was unemployed.

    I suspected you are unemployed because you Troll a lot during the day. The fact that you proceeded to comment about having a job but not what it is doesn’t help relieve my suspicion.

    Andrew

  57. 57
    asauber says:

    I’m still waiting to see a substantive criticism from you of what real climate scientists are saying.

    How about ‘climate’ not being a scientific concept. Imagine someone saying that 13 eggs are a ‘dozen’ or 33 years of weather is ‘climate’. You can make up all kinds of combinations of numbers of things and name them. It’s a fun game.

    Andrew

  58. 58
    Mung says:

    The number of failed economic and global disaster predictions didn’t matter, because Jesus was coming back any day.

  59. 59
    Bob O'H says:

    asauber @ 58 – that’s not really substantive, I’m afraid. For a start, it’s just semantics. We have to call the study of long-term weather something. We could call it “thingy science”, if you want, but the changes in CO2 in the atmosphere and the warming trend we are seeing still exist, whatever you call the study of it.

  60. 60
    Bob O'H says:

    PaV @ 47 – sorry, I should have responded earlier. I now live by a fjord in Norway.

  61. 61
    Mung says:

    So Bob O’H thinks that the way to combat global warming is to go someplace cold and wet.

  62. 62
    PaV says:

    Bob O’H:

    Is that a “Fjord,” or a “Chevrolet”? 🙂

    TO THE REST:

    As to the quiz @ 26, I’ll give you the answer: the problem that NOAA simulation raises is that the entire argument for AGW is that CO2 levels are critical in the upper atmosphere because water vapor doesn’t rise up that high.

    But if computer simulations can’t produce anything remotely close to actual temperatures until water vapor is included, means that water vapor is, indeed, present in the upper atmosphere at ‘more’ significant levels than CO2. Or, IOW, the entire AGW argument falls apart.

    But don’t that stop anything. After all, there’s a “consensus.”

  63. 63
    Bob O'H says:

    Mung – hey, sometimes it’s cold & dry. Plus, we get northern lights.

  64. 64
    asauber says:

    But Bob, what scientific process determines climate to be 30 years, 1000 years, 1 billion years or 4 times a year?

    Andrew

  65. 65
    Bob O'H says:

    asauber – if by “scientific process” you mean the process of dong science, then it’s done by the process of discussion and debate, where some suitable definition is arrived at. You can read an outline of how it was arrived at here, but I’m sure the full story is much more complex.

  66. 66
    asauber says:

    it’s done by the process of discussion and debate

    This process doesn’t necessarily produce a scientific conclusion.

    but I’m sure the full story is much more complex

    Again, you’re just admitting you don’t know what you’re saying and/or supporting.

    Knew that already. It looks like you are the one who needs to present a substantive comment. Sometime.

    Andrew

  67. 67
    Bob O'H says:

    asauber- no, I don’t know a lot about the history of climate science. I gave the link to show that more is known, and also in the hope that you would use it to start some research, as this seems to be an issue of importance for you.

    But again, I really don’t see that as a substantive criticism of climate science. No matter what we call ‘climate’, there has been an increase in global temperature, particularly over the last 50 years or so: “Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998“. This is attributed by climate scientists to changes in concentrations of greenhouse gasses, particularly CO2. That’s what’s important, not whether we call ‘climate’ a 30, 50, 300, 10,000 year phenomenon.

  68. 68
    asauber says:

    No matter what we call ‘climate’

    Again, Bob, this is an admission by you that climate doesn’t have a scientific definition, because it doesn’t matter what time period, as you state. There is has been no scientific discovery that compels any specific definition of climate.

    The best you can do is the generalization ‘weather history’. Which is ‘weather’ to those able to grasp the obvious.

    Andrew

  69. 69
    ET says:

    The divided United States of America will unite today, sharing a cosmic event predicted by the methods and tools of science.

    Yes, thanks to the hard work of Creationists such as Newton and Kepler such predictions are possible.

    triple whopper environmental impact of global meat production

    The number 1 cause of global environmental change is animal agriculture. But we can’t talk about that cuz everyone needs their milk, bacon and hamburgers.

  70. 70
    Bob O'H says:

    asauber – scientists have given a definition for “climate”. So that’s a scientific definition. My point was that your harping on about how “climate”is defined isn’t a substantive criticism of the science. It’s almost as if you’re trying to evade giving any substantive criticism.

  71. 71
    asauber says:

    Bob,

    If you thought my criticism lacked substance, you wouldn’t be appealing to scientists to try and counter it.

    You’ve failed completely as a second-rate troll.

    Andrew

  72. 72
    asauber says:

    Yes, in Bob’s Universe it takes the smartest people in the world, Climate Scientists, to counter ol’ Andrew’s UD comments.

    I find that infinitely amusing. I must be at the Restaurant At The End of The Universe.

    Andrew

Leave a Reply