Dr Euan Nisbet - Methane Climate Termination [a technical word] Event - Wetlands are turning on - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15298082
Truth To Power wrote:All previous warming episodes similar to the post-Little-Ice-Age warming episode we are now in were natural. Claiming that the most recent such episode must be man-made because human beings have used fossil fuels in this period is a blatant post hoc fallacy: i.e., it is a claim that because modern warming came after our use of fossil fuels, it must have been caused by our use of fossil fuels. The fact of previous natural warming episodes similar to the modern one proves that the CO2 narrative is a post hoc fallacy. That is why Lyin' Michael Mann had to falsify his hockey stick graph to erase the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, and lying AGW scaremongers are constantly trying to remove the MWP -- and the Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period and Holocene Optimum -- from the climate record.


This was not even my claim,

So my argument is not a post hoc fallacy.

Nor is the theory of anthropogenic climate change a post hoc fallacy since there are multiple lines of evidence supporting it,
#15298136
late wrote:During the 80s, scientists were doing the basic work.

The basic work on CO2 was done by Angstrom in the 1920s.
Then the fighting started. Mostly it was about the details of why it was happening.

And the anti-fossil-fuel crowd did, and still do, their best to stop anyone from finding out.
Around 2000, climatology reached consensus, a couple years later the larger scientific community added their support.

The "consensus" and "community support" were imposed politically, through ownership of the peer-reviewed climate journals and political control of scientific societies.

Sleazy, crazy propaganda does not change that.
#15298137
Pants-of-dog wrote:This was not even my claim,

Sure it was.
So my argument is not a post hoc fallacy.

Sure it is, as I proved.
Nor is the theory of anthropogenic climate change a post hoc fallacy since there are multiple lines of evidence supporting it,

No there aren't. There are nothing but post hoc fallacies, cherry picking, non sequiturs, ad hominems, equivocations, red herrings, and flat-out lies.
#15298145
Truth To Power wrote:
The basic work on CO2 was done by Angstrom in the 1920s.

And the anti-fossil-fuel crowd did, and still do, their best to stop anyone from finding out.

The "consensus" and "community support" were imposed politically, through ownership of the peer-reviewed climate journals and political control of scientific societies.

Sleazy, crazy propaganda does not change that.




Actually, greenhouse warming was discovered by Eunice Foote in the 1800s.

In the early 1980s, the work was simply teasing the signal from the noise. They didn't know it, but they were repeating the work done in secret by the government and an oil company, which were the first research to find climate warming.

The science then worked on the details.

The rest of your comments are lies.

You see, I was around back then, and followed the science. Which means I was also aware of the early attempts by oil companies to subvert climate research. It was quite crude. They would do things like go to retirement homes and get very old scientists to sign documents.

Oil companies have an extensive history of playing dirty.
#15298166
Two more experts and their published reports on Methane being released in massive amounts from mostly tropical wetlands, aka swamps. This was not predicted by any climate scientist, AFAIK. It is a tipping point that has been tipped.

This started in 2006, accelerated in about 2015, and accelerated more in about 2018.
We know it is from wetlands because of satellite measurements and the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13.
Additionally, the Arctic and cows are also releasing more methane.

I also just saw a separate report, that at COP-28 it was reported that the +1.5 deg.C target will not be met.

Link=>


. 5032 views now
#15298200
late wrote:Actually, greenhouse warming was discovered by Eunice Foote in the 1800s.

But it was Angstrom who showed that adding CO2 to ordinary surface atmospheric air has almost no effect on its greenhouse properties, an experimental result that can easily be confirmed by any competent physics undergraduate with access to a university physics lab.
In the early 1980s, the work was simply teasing the signal from the noise. They didn't know it, but they were repeating the work done in secret by the government and an oil company, which were the first research to find climate warming.

Garbage. The work in the early 80s that you are referring to was incompetent nonscience that misattributed natural warming caused by increased solar activity and internal cyclical factors to CO2. It had been known for decades that the earth had warmed since the LIA. It is now known that the so-called "pre-industrial" climate was the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, and our current temperatures are simply the return to more normal Holocene conditions.
The science then worked on the details.

And the details showed that CO2 was at most a minor factor compared to the sun and cyclical factors like ocean circulation patterns.
The rest of your comments are lies.

Disgraceful.
You see, I was around back then, and followed the science.

So was I; but unlike you, I actually learned some of the science -- planetary physics, including atmospheric physics -- at an internationally respected university.
Which means I was also aware of the early attempts by oil companies to subvert climate research. It was quite crude. They would do things like go to retirement homes and get very old scientists to sign documents.

Your conspiracy theories lack evidentiary support.
Oil companies have an extensive history of playing dirty.

You are the one being played by the oil companies. Their profits are much higher now thanks to anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers. You just don't know enough economics to understand why that has happened.
#15298201
Truth To Power wrote:
You are the one being played by the oil companies. Their profits are much higher now thanks to anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers. You just don't know enough economics to understand why that has happened.





Their profits are higher due to war and sanctions... OPEC plans on cutting production, but they often fail to pull off production cuts, so we will see..

Oil companies play pretty much every dirty trick in the book. You are just one of their minor pieces.
#15298215
late wrote:Their profits are higher due to war and sanctions...

And also due to anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering that has reduced exploration and production in the USA and other countries, blocked pipeline and refinery construction, etc.
OPEC plans on cutting production, but they often fail to pull off production cuts, so we will see..

Right: OPEC production cuts depend on producer governments not defecting when it is highly profitable for them to defect. Anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering production cuts, by contrast, just depend on duped governments enforcing laws that aggravate scarcity.

Oil companies play pretty much every dirty trick in the book. You are just one of their minor pieces.
#15298220
Steve_American wrote:Two more experts and their published reports on Methane being released in massive amounts from mostly tropical wetlands, aka swamps. This was not predicted by any climate scientist, AFAIK. It is a tipping point that has been tipped.

Actual physical events -- not bogus "published reports" -- will continue to prove that there is no such "tipping point." If there were, it would have been tipped many times in the past, and it wasn't.
This started in 2006, accelerated in about 2015, and accelerated more in about 2018.
We know it is from wetlands because of satellite measurements and the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13.
Additionally, the Arctic and cows are also releasing more methane.

None of which has any significant effect on climate.
I also just saw a separate report, that at COP-28 it was reported that the +1.5 deg.C target will not be met.

Because it was always nonscience with no basis in fact.
#15298266
Truth To Power wrote:Sure it was.

Sure it is, as I proved.

No there aren't. There are nothing but post hoc fallacies, cherry picking, non sequiturs, ad hominems, equivocations, red herrings, and flat-out lies.


No, you do not know what I am arguing.

Again, I am claiming that evidence of anthropogenic climate change is visible from my window.
#15298379
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, I am claiming that evidence of anthropogenic climate change is visible from my window.

But as a matter of fact, it isn't. Nothing you can see from your window constitutes evidence that climate change is not as natural as it has always been in the past. What do you see from your window that you could not have seen from the same place in the Medieval Warm Period, or the Roman Warm Period, or the Minoan Warm Period, or the Holocene Optimum?

Thought not.
#15298435
Truth To Power wrote:Actual physical events -- not bogus "published reports" -- will continue to prove that there is no such "tipping point." If there were, it would have been tipped many times in the past, and it wasn't.

None of which has any significant effect on climate.

Because it was always nonscience with no basis in fact.


We can agree, I hope, that the actual future events and temps will prove one of us to be correct. However, this claim is not evidence that I'm going to be the one who is wrong.

The rest is just clams with no evidence that we have already shown to be wrong.
#15298456
Truth To Power wrote:But as a matter of fact, it isn't. Nothing you can see from your window constitutes evidence that climate change is not as natural as it has always been in the past. What do you see from your window that you could not have seen from the same place in the Medieval Warm Period, or the Roman Warm Period, or the Minoan Warm Period, or the Holocene Optimum?


Streets that are paved.

Cars.

Machines that burn fossil fuels.

Humans everywhere.

All these things ate different, are visible from my window, and are responsible for anthropogenic climate change.

In fact, the window itself is an indication that the environment has been radically changed by humans.
#15298497
Steve_American wrote:We can agree, I hope, that the actual future events and temps will prove one of us to be correct.

At most one of us.
However, this claim is not evidence that I'm going to be the one who is wrong.

I'm just inviting you to consider the evidence as it has already unfolded and unfolds in the future (you won't).
The rest is just clams with no evidence that we have already shown to be wrong.

No, of course you haven't. Don't be ridiculous.
#15298499
Pants-of-dog wrote:Streets that are paved.

Cars.

Machines that burn fossil fuels.

Humans everywhere.

All these things are different, are visible from my window,

Correct.
and are responsible for anthropogenic climate change.

False, absurd, and lacking any evidentiary support.
In fact, the window itself is an indication that the environment has been radically changed by humans.

No it isn't. As Freud might have said, "Sometimes, a window is just a window."
#15298558
Truth To Power wrote:Correct.

False, absurd, and lacking any evidentiary support.

No it isn't. As Freud might have said, "Sometimes, a window is just a window."


These are just sentence fragments.

Anyway, the theory of anthropogenic climate change is well supported with many lines of evidence.

You are incorrect to claim there is none.
#15298562
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Anyway, the theory of anthropogenic climate change is well supported with many lines of evidence.

You are incorrect to claim there is none.



It's been the dominant theory for 2 generations, and supported by over a hundred scientific organisations.

He's lying or nuts.
#15298589
Pants-of-dog wrote:These are just sentence fragments.

No they aren't.
Anyway, the theory of anthropogenic climate change is well supported with many lines of evidence.

No it isn't. And more to the point, none of the claimed evidence can be seen from your window.
You are incorrect to claim there is none.

No I'm not.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

As David Hume pointed out, @wat0n , one cannot d[…]

@Deutschmania tell the truth, you are right now[…]

Well , for one thing , the very idea of whiteness […]

I see those rockets being clearly fired next to a […]