Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

There's still time, brother! (250 million years)

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by cocodrilo, Sep 26, 2023.

  1. UFLawyer

    UFLawyer GC Hall of Fame

    6,411
    418
    198
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida
    I frankly didn’t see what point you were trying to make. But I think I addressed what I believe to be your point in my other posts.
     
  2. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,228
    1,771
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    My point was I listed several facts, and if you take the sum of those facts, it pretty definitively shows the climate is warming and it is mostly man made.

    You could have refuted the facts, or refuted the conclusion but you did neither.

    It’s cold outside, and you are getting cold in spite of having 2 shirts on. Your body temperature is a little bit cooler.

    So you put a coat on, and you get warmer, and your body temperature goes up a bit. You are denying that your body temperature went up but, despite evidence to the contrary, and you are denying that the coat made you warmer.
     
  3. UFLawyer

    UFLawyer GC Hall of Fame

    6,411
    418
    198
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida
    I did refute your “facts”. Let me be clear, you didn’t state facts, you stated opinions. Earths temperature has been rising and declining like a yo-yo since the beginning of time. For example, 50 million years ago our earth experienced significant volcanic activity, releasing a significant amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This increased our temperature pretty significantly. You notice I keep using the word significantly. Ha ha. But guess what, like all cycles, it dissipated, and the temperature has dropped.

    When you look at earths historic temperature variance and graph it using 1° units on the Y axis, it is pretty much a straight line.
     
  4. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,228
    1,771
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    No they are broadly accepted as facts. To the extent you disagree, in usual discussion it would be up to you to explain your refutation of such facts.

    I could easily provide links to credible sources for each one, but I didn’t because I know you wouldn’t look at them.


    What you are saying, while all true, doesn’t have anything to do with the last 150 years and the global warming during that period. Yes a lot of things can cause warming/cooling. Many of them are observable over thousands of years, not hundreds. Volcanic activity is measurable and it isn’t a factor over last 150 years. All the things we know that can cause warming are not a factor over the last 150 years. So that either means it is man made greenhouse gases, which we know by definition causes warming, or something else we don’t know about.



    So what? 1 degree may seem trivial in the context of Earths existence. But 1 degree is not trivial in terms of impact on humans.
     
  5. UFLawyer

    UFLawyer GC Hall of Fame

    6,411
    418
    198
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida
    LOL. Nope on the burden shifting…..however, because I am feeling magnanimous I will explain by problem with your “facts”….they are not facts, and at the very best they are only a small part of the relevant facts needed to reach your conclusion. BTW. I look at most links, and I could post links with counter arguments, so I don’t give either link a ton of credence.

    first rule of fight club…you should quit while you’re ahead


    We will just have to disagree on this one.
     
  6. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,228
    1,771
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009

    Here they are then:

    - global temperature rising - fact - easy to prove (I am sure you have seen plenty of evidence that shows/asserts this is true

    Last decade confirmed as warmest on record - BBC News


    - co2 and other greenhouse gases rising - fact - easy to prove

    https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide


    - co2 increase is attributable to man made causes - fact easy to prove

    https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-earth-naturally-absorb#:~:text=Altogether the planet absorbs and,such as burning fossil fuels.

    Altogether the planet absorbs and emits somewhere on the order of 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide through this natural cycle every year, Rothman says.

    That total dwarfs humanity’s contribution, amounting to ten times as much CO2 as humans produce through activities such as burning fossil fuels.

    If people emit only a tenth as much CO2 as nature does, then why are scientists so concerned about our emissions driving climate change? It is because our extra chunk of carbon emissions has tipped out of equilibrium what was once a balanced cycle. “What's being taken out by natural processes is more or less equal to what's being put in—other than the extent to which we've disturbed it,” Rothman says. This is why the atmospheric level of CO2 continues to creep up as humans keep burning fossil fuels: Human activities tip the scales by adding carbon to the air faster than the planet’s sinks can absorb it.






    - greenhouse gases provide/cause warming - this is accepted fact and with out it the world would be inhabitable to humans.

    https://www.c2es.org/content/changes-in-climate/#:~:text=In the absence of a,survival of life on Earth.

    In the absence of a greenhouse effect, the average temperature at the Earth’s surface would be approximately 0 degrees F, about 60 degrees F colder than Earth’s current average temperature. Thus, the greenhouse effect is very important to the survival of life on Earth.

    - there are no other known measurable causes to global warming during this period - fact

    Human vs. Natural Contributions to Global Warming

    The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been zero or slightly in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.



    - climate models up to 50 years old have been largely correct - fact

    How reliable are climate models?


    - climate models by skeptics have failed, badly - fact.



    if you can disprove any of those assertions, have at it.
     
  7. UFLawyer

    UFLawyer GC Hall of Fame

    6,411
    418
    198
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida
    I will let your side’s apostles do the talking…

     
  8. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,228
    1,771
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    I got several minutes in and there was nothing, at all, that refuted the existence of man made climate change, just a bunch of cherry picking incorrect predictions, none of which have anything to do with my stated facts.

    I’m going to conclude that your failure to directly address the issue is due to either your inability or unwillingness to do so. As such I will take this as your confirmation of my statements.

    Thanks for playing.
     
  9. UFLawyer

    UFLawyer GC Hall of Fame

    6,411
    418
    198
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida
    noooooooo. Please give me another chance. I’ll be good this time. I promise. Don’t make engagement in other activities serve as a confirmation! ANYTHING but that!
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  10. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    8,944
    1,702
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    Right here
    If lawyer isn’t interested in challenging his own ideas, he’s in pretty good company, as it seems most of us have trouble in this regard. I am practically obsessed with discovering the flaws in my own reasoning, and I still have some trouble when people tell me I’m wrong. But yes, I agree with you that our ideal state is healthy skepticism of all claims, rather than an immense skepticism of some claims.
     
  11. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    8,944
    1,702
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    Right here
    Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I do think we have some legitimate disagreements regarding what should count as strong evidence for a claim, I really do appreciate your efforts to explain your thinking. If we are going to be confident, I really do believe that we want to engage in strong inference, where we can identify X in this situation: if climate change, then X; if not, then not X.

    I do understand your graph, but changing the axes simply changes the framing. It does not change the underlying reality. If we set the y-axis of a population graph to a maximum of a googolplex, it would look like Earth has still zero people on it, but the actual number of people would not change.

    I addressed your pessimistic meta-induction above. I just don’t think past predictions can be used to falsify totally independent predictions in the future. If it could, we should deny most all the rest of our knowledge as well.

    Lastly, I don’t think the climate science has been so fabricated, but even if had, it doesn’t seem relevant for us since we never identified any key data in the first place. If we had found that “if climate change, then X” and also that X was fabricated, then I would be right with you. But since we have no X, there is no X to fabricate. BTW, this did happen with a theory in Alzheimer’s research. A key finding was found to be fraudulent, potentially invalidating years of research. Fraud does happen, but in an active field, it is usually discovered during replication attempts.

    Overall, I would just leave with you with the idea I started with: If your mind seizes on any idea with satisfaction, always try to determine what evidence, if it existed, would change it. If you cannot think of any, it is a good sign that this belief is not scientific. But if you can honestly answer this question, there’s a good chance that you are truly seeking truth, which must one of the pinnacles of human reason.

    Good luck, lawyer. I’ll be rooting for you.
     
  12. UFLawyer

    UFLawyer GC Hall of Fame

    6,411
    418
    198
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida
    Here is a truth: liberals have been claiming the world is coming to an end for about 75 years. The only thing consistent in those 75 years is that people have become very wealthy on this doomsday hoax. Meanwhile, the corporations and people screaming the loudest about the hoax are the ones that are polluting the most. Flying around in their private jets, enjoying their 13,000 square-foot mansion in Malibu, driving the largest SUVs in the world, I could go on and on and on. Sometimes you have to look at what people do, not at what they say, to understand the truth.
     
  13. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,228
    1,771
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    I like you don’t change my mind often but I do like to get down into the elements of the argument - I’ll defend my interpretation and don’t easily change, but if a counterargument resonates it will sit with me and I may change my line of thinking, eventually. Typically not immediately.

    UFLawyer uses more of a strategy of a stereotypical criminal defense court lawyer, exaggerate, sew doubt in the arguments, attack the arguer or arguments in a way that little or nothing to do with the subject at hand, deflect, etc., all the while never really addressing the core issues at hand.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  14. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,228
    1,771
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    It isn’t just liberals. Conservatives have their own doomsday scenarios. Communism. Currency collapse, the gold standard. The economy crashing due to deficits and debt. Armageddon. I have been hearing those arguments for nearly 50 years. Maybe, eventually one of those will come true.

    Presenting erroneous population predictions 50 years ago, or even climate predictions, does nothing to address whether the core principles of climate change are in fact true.
     
  15. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    8,944
    1,702
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    Right here
    I understand your concern. Again, I don’t have much faith in extrapolating out from meta-inductions. Here is one that a philosopher of science published last year, showing that no theory has been overturned when it comes from a diverse scientific field reaching a strong consensus:

    Should we really believe scientific facts will last forever when history is full of revolutions in thinking?

    Again, I’m not sure this induction is great evidence, but if we are going to admit inductions, then we end up with contradictory predictions on this one.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. UFLawyer

    UFLawyer GC Hall of Fame

    6,411
    418
    198
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida
    Don't forget the awesome memes

    [​IMG]
     
  17. UFLawyer

    UFLawyer GC Hall of Fame

    6,411
    418
    198
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida
    So if someone lies for 50 years we now should ignore the lies and accept the next lie as truth. #nothankyou
     
  18. exiledgator

    exiledgator Gruntled

    11,827
    2,167
    3,128
    Jan 5, 2010
    Maine
    That link is total BS. This gem exposes this guy as a sheep:

    "There are many examples. We now have microscopes that can reveal the behaviour of viruses, and we see viruses doing what we already knew they were doing."
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,228
    1,771
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    This is just flat out dumb. I expect better.
     
  20. UFLawyer

    UFLawyer GC Hall of Fame

    6,411
    418
    198
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida
    Dumb? “Science” has been making up climate catastrophes for 50 years, but this time we are supposed to accept they got it right? They are like 1990s Vanderbilt…..0-100.

    I’m sorry, but when you get caught lying over and over again, I don’t believe anything out of your mouth.

    so the assertion I made is far from dumb.

    I expect better from you.