Global warming and climate change

[taiyuu_otoko]

More than just CO2 but yeah. And if you're willing to simply ignore scientific consensus of the causation, that is on you.

You can't take a vote to prove causation. Causation can only be proved with rigorous testing, which CANNOT be done with global warming.

Science, and the OPINION of scientists are two different things.

 

[EyeBRollin]

So what is the mountain of evidence to support it is accelerated by humans?

You're a smart guy, you can do your research. I would direct you to the environmental departments of every industrialized country we would consider "developed." Basic reading can be done on their website.

You can't take a vote to prove causation. Causation can only be proved with rigorous testing, which CANNOT be done with global warming.

Rigorous testing has already been done, with the consensus of every scientist not bought off by the fossil fuel industry.

Science, and the OPINION of scientists are two different things.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I have done the research, and nowhere have I found evidence to suggest it is accelerated by humans.

So you can't interpret data or you're just obtuse?

 

[ubercat]

Look this is only anecdotal. I think it's obvious the planet is warming. When I was a kid there was ice on the puddles when I did my paper round in New Zealand you would never see that now. They are developing a wine industry in the south of England. I remember when I first came to Melbourne the Winters were bitterly cold. Now the coldest day is 14 degrees Celsius.

Sure natural factors could be causing it. However greenhouse gases have been proven in any period of history to cause global warming. So why would we choose with our own actions to make the problem worse.

Anyway for the deniers don't worry about it. The tipping Points have already been reached it's probably too late. When the Greenland ice shelf collapses and the sea level Rises 5 metres enjoy your new inland beachfront real estate.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

Please explain to me, using science, how one can prove causality without repeating experiments and holding various variables constant?

How does one PROVE that "A" causes "B"?

How does one determine the difference, scientifically, between "A" being correlated to "B" and "A" causing "B"?

You do not need to reference anything regarding global warming to do this.

Please do not use metaphors or examples. Please only simply explain the difference between correlation and causation, and how one would scientifically know the difference.

 

[speed dawg]

So you can't interpret data or you're just obtuse?

DATA.....BECAUSE.....REASONS......

or you're stupid because......well.....you are......'they' told me you are.....so that means.....what????

Everyone one: It is past the time of useless logic with emotion-based folks like eyebrollin. It does no one any good. The rest of them have already taken off for the hills, like jaylan. Let's make this one do it too.

 

[EyeBRollin]

DATA.....BECAUSE.....REASONS......

or you're stupid because......well.....you are......'they' told me you are.....so that means.....what????

interpretation of data isn't your forte either, huh?

Anyone else?

 

[EyeBRollin]

Please explain to me, using science, how one can prove causality without repeating experiments and holding various variables constant?

How does one PROVE that "A" causes "B"?

How does one determine the difference, scientifically, between "A" being correlated to "B" and "A" causing "B"?

You do not need to reference anything regarding global warming to do this.

Please do not use metaphors or examples. Please only simply explain the difference between correlation and causation, and how one would scientifically know the difference.

You answered your own loaded question with another question, so you can go ahead and explain how the experiments and data pertaining to climate change are insufficient to come up with a consensus.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I'm still waiting for you to provide the data.

It's not my job to spoonfeed the very data you refuse to acknowledge exists.

Which greenhouse gases were proven to cause warming in different periods, what periods, and with what data?

The full methodology is also available for your viewing pleasure. The method by which we obtain the chemical makeup of the earth in different periods is especially fascinating. Once again, I'll direct you to any environmental agency in every developed country.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

You answered your own loaded question with another question, so you can go ahead and explain how the experiments and data pertaining to climate change are insufficient to come up with a consensus.

Scientists can come to a consensus for any number of reasons, usually because it's in their material interest to do so.

Any how, back to my question.

Please explain how to determine the difference between correlation and causation.

If you can only quote other experts, that's an indication that you don't understand the question.

So, one more time, just so we're clear:

What is the difference between causation and correlation?

 

[EyeBRollin]

If you make a claim, it is your job to cite your source and supporting facts.

So, where is it?

No, pleading ignorance was your rebuttal.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Scientists can come to a consensus for any number of reasons, usually because it's in their material interest to do so.

That doesn't answer my question. Your rebuttal, like the rest of the deniers is "oh we just don't know." The scientific community has a consensus that you disagree with. Explain why the evidence they used to reach their conclusion is insufficient.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Where did I plead ignorance? I said I cannot find these alleged mountains of evidence you say exists.

The evidence used to reach the global scientific consensus on climate change is public. This is an unacceptable rebuttal.

 

[EyeBRollin]

It is the only response required to your claims that mountains of evidence exists.

We are many replies after my request for this data you have read.....and still you won't provide it. I am suspecting it does not exist.

I directed you to search any environmental agency in any developed country.

 

[EyeBRollin]

And I have, with none of this mountain of evidence to be found. So please provide exactly what you are looking at.

Ok, summarize your findings.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

The scientific community has a consensus that you disagree with. Explain why the evidence they used to reach their conclusion is insufficient.

I'm pretty sure you aren't understanding what I'm saying. Consensus and proof are two different things. I'm saying their consensus isn't proof. It's only a bunch of scientists agreeing what they THINK is happening but cannot PROVE.

Data to consensus is easy. All you need is to pay people to say what you want them to say. Every scientist that has joined whatever consensus you keep referring to gains a material benefit from the idea of man made global warming.

Data to prove is incredibly difficult, so much so that it rarely happens.

There is zero proof that humans are causing climate change, only consensus of SOME scientists, whose data has being questioned by other scientists.

This is not a complicated point.

NO SCIENTIST or group of scientists have shown PROOF (shown causation) that humans CAUSE climate change.

Once again, CONSENSUS is not PROOF.

It only takes ONE SCIENTIST to prove anything. One paper that demonstrates scientifically that A CAUSES B.

There is no proof of man made climate change.

If there were, there would be NO NEED for a group of scientists coming to a CONSENSUS.

There have been many "consensuses" in the course of history that were later proved to be incorrect.

Consensus DOES NOT MEAN PROOF. It generally means a group of scientists who have an agenda OTHER THAN SCIENCE.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I'm pretty sure you aren't understanding what I'm saying. Consensus and proof are two different things. I'm saying their consensus isn't proof. It's only a bunch of scientists agreeing what they THINK is happening but cannot PROVE.

That's why it is a theory; the best possible explanation given the evidence and tests.

Data to consensus is easy. All you need is to pay people to say what you want them to say. Every scientist that has joined whatever consensus you keep referring to gains a material benefit from the idea of man made global warming.

What incentive or material benefits will most of the world's scientists receive to "agree" on climate change?

Data to prove is incredibly difficult, so much so that it rarely happens.

It does, those are our scientific laws.

There is zero proof that humans are causing climate change, only consensus of SOME scientists, whose data has being questioned by other scientists.

Questioned by scientists paid by the fossil fuel industry.

This is not a complicated point.

NO SCIENTIST or group of scientists have shown PROOF (shown causation) that humans CAUSE climate change.

Once again, CONSENSUS is not PROOF.

It only takes ONE SCIENTIST to prove anything. One paper that demonstrates scientifically that A CAUSES B.

There is no proof of man made climate change.

If there were, there would be NO NEED for a group of scientists coming to a CONSENSUS.

There have been many "consensuses" in the course of history that were later proved to be incorrect.

Consensus DOES NOT MEAN PROOF. It generally means a group of scientists who have an agenda OTHER THAN SCIENCE.

And what is that agenda? Science seeks to find the truth. Luckily the truth doesn't give a damn what you're comfortable with or not. As such, there is no better method for the pursuit of truth than science.

 

[guugly]

they get jobs, grants, book sales, invitations to speak (sometimes being paid to do so) , fame, , etc. That is what incentives they have. Any such change is mostly coming from the third world's burning of coal, destroying forests, overfishing, etc, cause they wont limit their numbers. So there's nothing to be done about it, which means that there's no reason to argue about it.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

That's why it is a theory; the best possible explanation given the evidence and tests.

Fortunately, other scientists not working for the fossil fuel industry don't think so.

What incentive or material benefits will most of the world's scientists receive to "agree" on climate change?

Their entire careers are based around the PRESUPPOSITION that climate change is man made. Without man made climate change, they would have to find jobs elsewhere. Any studies that involve man made climate change receive almost guaranteed funding.

It does, those are our scientific laws.

The idea of "man made climate" change has not been proven.

And what is that agenda? Science seeks to find the truth. Luckily the truth doesn't give a damn what you're comfortable with or not. As such, there is no better method for the pursuit of truth than science.

I think you're confusing "Science" with "Scientists."

Science is a technique, a method of determining what is and isn't true. It's rarely used without an agenda. Nobody is going to pay a scientist to find anything out unless they have a good idea of how the study will come out.

the idea of a "scientist" in a huge and expensive lab merrily doing experiments just to find "the truth" is a fantasy. Experiments need to be paid for. And they are paid for by people who have an idea of HOW the experiments will come out.

Most of the climate scientists who have decided the humans are causing climate change are paid, in one way or another, by the government who has a VESTED INTEREST in the idea of "man made climate change" as it will give them an excuse to tax people they couldn't otherwise tax.

 

[EyeBRollin]

they get jobs, grants, book sales, invitations to speak (sometimes being paid to do so) , fame, , etc. That is what incentives they have.

What about the skeptics that are paid by the fossil fuel industry?