A Facebook Conversation On Global Warming

I posted a link to a WASHINGTON TIMES article discussing the alarmist aspects and possible connections to those that swallow whole the anthropocentric aspect of global warming in the writing of the most recent “National Climate Assessment.”

The report lists more than 200 authors and contributors, most of them federal employees but also dozens from universities, advocacy groups, foundations, think tanks and consulting firms specializing in advising governments and businesses on climate change adaptation and resilience.

The advocacy groups include the Union of Concerned Scientists, National Wildlife Federation, Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, and Arctic Institute. Others involved with the report are affiliated with the Brookings Institution, the Paulson Institute, and the Rand Corp., as well as the Kresge and Packard foundations.

Absent were prominent scientists affiliated with top research universities who have challenged catastrophic climate scenarios, such as John Christy, Judith Curry, William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Roy Spencer….

This is the response I got from a friend:

  • RT — 13 Federal agencies and hundreds if not thousands helped prepare that report, and you’re puking over 1 “Obama official”, who in all likelihood is now a “Trump official.” Grasping at straws. Again.

First, the idea that Trump replaces people in total is silly. But that red-herring aside, this comment led to a typical conversation where I ask for a dialogue, and insults and appeals to authority are the mainstay. I wish to share it as it may illuminate your conversations and the directions it should and maybe even should not go. (I may edit slightly the conversation and add media for presentation value, FYI.) Here is my first response — I will emphasize my repeated requests for dialogue:

So you say you have a myriad of experts and I have a myriad of experts…. pick a topic from the report that you think convinces you that man-made or guy that global warming is true. And let’s debate that one topic. because over the past week I’ve readquite a few reports by specialist/scientists it’s that refute that report. But no matter what they say we should look at the evidence.

Here is a non-technical readable article discussing the matter in this new report: Latest Climate Report Feeds into Alarmist Fearmongering (NATIONAL REVIEW)

RT responds:

  • They have. So called “Experts” on both sides. A helluva lot more on the global warming side.

This is a reference to the “consensus” many people believe because of the brainwashing of their minds by the media. This “consensus” has been disproved soo many times by specialist/scientists/statisticians to the laity. I ignored this discussion as I have PROVEN this to him time-and-time-again in the past. Instead, I want a dialogue. My response:

RT, about a third say that man is not driving global warming. about two-thirds say man is making an increase in global warming. Half of them say it’s no big deal the other half says it’s detrimental to our future. But I know you like to have others guide your life for you. That’s why you are really a Democrat at heart. So the original question is what piece of evidence -name one- that makes you think the man is contributing heavily to AGW (Anthropocentric Global Warming).

I am trying to separate RT from his reliance on others to do his heavy lifting. You see, in the end, he comes to my Facebook wall to merely “tell the world” he like committing logical fallacies:

An argument from authority, (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority’s support is used as evidence for an argument’s conclusion.

RT responds. And as you will see, a dislike for Republicans and Trump seem to always enter the conversation… stuff totally unrelated to my continued plea for dialogue:

You can really be an ass-hole, most if the time. You sit up on your self-righteous, self-aggrandizing,self-absorbed and self-important pedestal. You’re a far right conservative that no matter how much evidence is thrown in your face, you’ll always be a run of the mill classic denier in chief. We’ve had this discussion (?) in the past. I’ve seen evidence first hand on a huge scale. You’ve only read about it.

And honestly, the wimp factor aside, Democrats as a whole are a helluva lot nicer folks. Starting to lean back in that direction. My votes in the last election were mostly Democrats. Nevada put out a lousy Conservative candidate for Governor and waffling Dean Heller (helluva guy)no longer had Nevada’s best interests at heart. Threatened by Trump and he caved. Our stalwart Governor Sandoval despised our Right Wing Attorney General Adam Laxalt (Adam,You’re not your Grandfather, the Great Senator Paul Laxalt. Reagan was his greatest fan.) Adam defied the Governor at every turn and he cried during his loser’s speech. Wimpy ass NAVY dude.

I explain later in my responses why I quoted Larry Elder, but here is my response followed by his:

  • (ME) like Larry Elder says, “facts are like kryptonite to liberals.

RT:

You’re reading the wrong “facts.” Alice in Wonderland is a fairy-tale.

And nobody really cares about Larry Elder. Even to the concrete 28% that are stalwart Trump fans, few would even know the name. Why is it that the educated folks in this country are overwhelmingly in support of global warming facts? Maybe not happening as quickly as Gore predicted, but it is happening.

  • (ME) so you don’t want to discuss one idea that’s confirmed in your mind global warming.

He simply responded “no.” He said he has been-there-done-that. But he really has not. All his conversations are like these. He thinks he has made a point using facts to support generalization, but in reality just state his personal opinion in a way HE FEELS is like a dialogue. He feels like he has shared a deep meaning when in fact he has only meandered into unrelated territories.

In the previous conversation I was driving and using a hands free app. So the following is now when I am home, AND ONE SHOULD NOTE that I am about to show RT how to take positions in the negative and positive modes:

When I quote Elder, it is for this reason not only does the Left have an aversion for the truth they ALSO have a love in generalizing their opinions and solidifying them as true WITHOUT a single evidence suggested (a truth stated). Ergo, you run from a real dialogue because it would demand you take a position and defend it — scared that facts would cloud your idyllic vision. 

(POSITIVE) Here for example are just two evidences I would posit to suggest global warming is a plus for nature/mankind: we have a record number of Polar Bears, and almost all islands are growing, not disappearing.

(NEGATIVE) Here is an evidence that a main pillar of the AGW (Anthropocentric Global Warming) is wrong. Mankind has produced more CO2 in the past two-decades than the previous 100-years before it.

 

1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature?

2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?

(22)

And temperature has stalled and is again in the past two decades is decreasing a bit. Why? Two reasons: CO2 is not an important driver of climate, and two, sunspots are.

Data from NASA’s TIMED satellite show that the thermosphere (the uppermost layer of air around our planet) is cooling and shrinking, literally decreasing the radius of the atmosphere.

To help track the latest developments, Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center and his colleagues recently introduced the “Thermosphere Climate Index.”

The Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI) tells how much heat nitric oxide (NO) molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (meaning “Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (meaning “Cold”).

“Right now, it is very low indeed10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle,” says Mlynczak

(ICE-AGE NOW [BTW, I have read his book pictured to the left with the same title. Good stuff] | More at the SPACE WEATHER ARCHIVE)

AND my discussing your propensity to allow “experts” guide your beliefe based on failed computer models versus the evidence of climate, is just one of the many aspects of “what it means to be on the left.” Here are two of Prager’s six aspects dealing with “EXPERTS/MEDIA”:

— The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news sources report something, it is true. If the cover of Time magazine says, “Global Warming: Be Worried, Very Worried,” liberals get worried, very worried, about global warming.

It is noteworthy that liberals, one of whose mottos is “question authority,” so rarely question the authority of the mainstream media. Now, of course, conservatives, too, often believe mainstream media. But conservatives have other sources of news that enable them to achieve the liberal ideal of questioning authority. Whereas few liberals ever read non-liberal sources of information or listen to conservative talk radio, the great majority of conservatives are regularly exposed to liberal news, liberal editorials and liberal films, and they have also received many years of liberal education.

— The Left believes in experts. Of course, every rational person, liberal or conservative, trusts the expertise of experts — such as when experts in biology explain the workings of mitochondria, or when experts in astronomy describe the moons of Jupiter. But for liberals, “expert” has come to mean far more than greater knowledge in a given area. It now means two additional things: One is that non-experts should defer to experts not only on matters of knowledge, but on matters of policy, as well. The second is that experts possess greater wisdom about life, not merely greater knowledge in their area of expertise.

That is why liberals are far more likely to be impressed when a Nobel Prize winner in, let us say, physics signs an ad against war or against capital punishment. The liberal is bowled over by the title “Nobel laureate.” The conservative is more likely to wonder why a Nobel laureate in physics has anything more meaningful to say about war than, let us say, a taxi driver.

These are the three things one has to believe in order to be…well… you, I presume:

(Prager Again) ….“In the belief that there are people on the left who are more interested in understanding the right rather than in simply dismissing its decency, I would like to briefly explain why many thoughtful people are skeptical of the claims made on behalf of global warming.”

Those claims are:

  1. The Earth is warming to an unprecedented extent (in terms of man’s recorded existence on Earth).
  2. This warming is caused by human beings burning fossil fuels.
  3. This warming will lead to worldwide catastrophe by the end of this century.

One must believe all three postulates, otherwise the issue is moot. So, for example, even if one believes the Earth is warming but doesn’t believe this will lead to worldwide catastrophe, then global warming is irrelevant.

I don’t believe that all three postulates are true. And, more important, neither do many thoughtful scientists. The notion that virtually every scientist believes that man-made carbon emissions are leading to a global warming that will have apocalyptic consequences — in other words, that “the science is settled” — is repeated so often by the liberal media that many people believe it.

But it is not true [see my post on this]. Many distinguished scientists and many scientists who are not well known but who are in climatology and related fields question this alarmist thesis….

(also see Prager’s great list of links to the subject)

SO RT, rather than deal with any one inconvenient FACT, you belittle by saying my position is “Alice in Wonderland.” 

You can really be an ass-hole RT, most of the time. You sit up on your self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, self-absorbed and self-important pedestal. You’re a far left kook that no matter how much evidence is thrown in your face, you’ll always be a run of the mill classic denier in chief.

RT’s response? No response:

  • It’s hysterical how the far right dismisses science out of hand. Trump dismissed it without even perusing the reports. He doesn’t read anything. And his 28-32%’s will continue to fall on their swords for him. Sharpened yours lately? I know it gets a lot of use.

What his response failed to do is offer any evidence. Which I will note in the following response to how the Left and the media refuse to report about the falling temperatures in the past two years showing that the sun (not CO2) is the main driver of climate, and why one should be concerned about the cold and not warming.

Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes, “was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.

Isn’t this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?

In this case, it didn’t warrant any news coverage.

[….]

There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsvilleshowing that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven’t seen any increase in violent weather in decades?

Crickets….

Not only that, but the man that programmed most of the satellites NASA uses to measure temperature (he is one of about three people that can do such a task) shows the same:

But remember, facts don’t matter. Just Trump Derangement Syndrome does. No worry about what evidence supports or refutes a position, just name the Donald and act as you brought information for others to be able to digest in supporting the claims initially stated further up in the conversation.

In fact, since we got out of the BIG ICE-AGE, temperatures have been fairly stable:

Facebook Comments