I just KNEW there had to be an easy solution to this!

To see what climate effects such a regional nuclear conflict might have, scientists from NASA and other institutions modeled a war involving a hundred Hiroshima-level bombs, each packing the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT—just 0.03 percent of the world’s current nuclear arsenal.

The researchers predicted the resulting fires would kick up roughly five million metric tons of black carbon into the upper part of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the Earth’s atmosphere. [...] The global cooling caused by these high carbon clouds wouldn’t be as catastrophic as a superpower-versus-superpower nuclear winter, but “the effects would still be regarded as leading to unprecedented climate change,” research physical scientist Luke Oman said during a press briefing Friday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C.

Earth is currently in a long-term warming trend. After a regional nuclear war, though, average global temperatures would drop by 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C) for two to three years afterward, the models suggest. At the extreme, the tropics, Europe, Asia, and Alaska would cool by 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C), according to the models. Parts of the Arctic and Antarctic would actually warm a bit, due to shifted wind and ocean-circulation patterns, the researchers said. After ten years, average global temperatures would still be 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) lower than before the nuclear war, the models predict.




  1. bobbo, a challenge to skeptic says:

    Go ahead, look at your post again. And to be fair, since I only read it once before posting my own first thought: can you make the “best” argument against what you wrote even though that best argument is wrong?

    Can you argue both sides of an issue before deciding which one is better founded or are you a one view kind of guy?–ie==not really a skeptic as that requires evaluation of at least two sides?

    BTW–how many issues do you think only have 1 or 2 sides? What percentage would that be in your skeptical mind?

    I’ve posted my answer many times. I’ll do it again as a bonus.

  2. bobbo, a challenge to skeptic says:

    That percentage would be Zero. Everything is connected to everything else: ergo, every issue has many, many sides/arguments/consequences/pro’s/con’s to be evaluated. The skeptic is limited only by the facts and imagination.

    Imagine the dearth of imagination and facts available to someone who can only see one side to an issue?

    Yes, imagine the world of the PUKE voter. Makes the hair stand up on my neck. Ugggh!

  3. bobbo, a challenge to skeptic says:

    Skeptic, to be fair, I reread your post #57. Depending on how you want to cut the baloney, I see 3 major faults in logic or “argument” and probably could squeeze out another 2-3 if I had to.

    I’ll give you one that is actually the weakest one which I could delete and lower my total “Errors in Logic by Skeptic” but I’ll post it to show my own errors, and learning thereby.

    You say the AGW religion is supported by many myths yet you post only one supposed myth that says NOTHING about the validity of AGW theory. IOW, the funding source or the bias of a research says NOTHING about the validity of the conclusions drawn. You have to go to the science of the issue, the testing, the modeling, the assumtions, the methodology–not the POTENTIAL BIAS of the researchers to “get at” the invalidity of a scientific hypothesis.

    Logic or argument error number one just to help you get rolling.

  4. JimD says:

    Ah, Stranglove – a great movie !!! And remember – “There is no fighting in the War Room” !!!

  5. JimD says:

    NEVER LISTEN TO NUKE ADVOCATES – THEY ARE LYING !!! They lied then and they are lying now !!!

  6. Skeptic says:

    bobbo, the myth I referred to, and accompanying sample, illustrates an ongoing attempt by AGW worshipers of the Climate Scientist gods (armchair critics) to discredit any and all theory that doesn’t support AGW… by often stating that scientists who don’t readily accept AGW as fact, are in bed with oil giants, who most people regard as untrustworthy, and so by association, climate scientists who question the validity of AGW must also be.

    That’s all it was. My post was not intended to address the validity of AGW theory, nor did I imply or say anything of the sort… so you put the “hole” there by inference.

    If I wanted to attack the validity of AGW on this thread I would have instead referred to the earlier comment about the Greenland GISP2 ice core and other ice core data (Yukon) that completely contradict AGW claims.

    But I’m not going there. I’ve lost the energy and desire to argue the subject in depth, and have relegated myself to comments supporting those who agree that the reasons for the current slice of Earth’s continuously changing climate have yet to be determined.

  7. MikeN says:

    >Ah, Stranglove – a great movie !!!

    Inferior to Fail Safe, which may be a remake done in the same year.

  8. MikeN says:

    Hmm, not a remake. The underlying novel is perhaps plagiarized from that of Dr Strangelove. Stanley Kubrick sued the makers of the movie and slowed down their production so that Dr Strangelove had the field to itself.

  9. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Haven’t watched Failsafe in awhile but Strangelove is Top 5 and don’t make me choose after Citizen Kane. Interesting both movies are just as relevant today?

    Skeptic: Ha. You are back to sounding “reasonable.” So, let’s read your backpeddling and decide whether to deconstruct that or continue with your original fubar?

    Well, humorously after being pointed out the First Logic error, you go on to defend it by repeating the VERY SAME ERROR! What is it called when you can’t think your way out of an open paper bag? Oh, thats right==dogma.

    So, lets parse:

    # 66 Skeptic said, on February 28th, 2011 at 11:10 am

    bobbo, the myth I referred to, and accompanying sample, illustrates an ongoing attempt by AGW worshipers of the Climate Scientist gods (armchair critics) to discredit any and all theory that doesn’t support AGW… by often stating that scientists who don’t readily accept AGW as fact, are in bed with oil giants, who most people regard as untrustworthy, and so by association, climate scientists who question the validity of AGW must also be. //// Heh, heh. Rambling and disjointed. I CHALLENGE YOU SKEPTIC–to break this mishmash down into simple declarative sentences. Taking that exercise to heart may help you in other areas of your life as well. But to continue: what is the “myth” here? I’ll rephrase what I think you are trying to say: Supporters of AGW discredit critics by claiming their criticism is paid for by Big Oil. /// True or false, thats not a myth–its a criticism. But lets go on.

    2. That’s all it was. My post was not intended to address the validity of AGW theory, nor did I imply or say anything of the sort… /// Wrong. Your first two sentences do exactly that. The fact that your argument doesn’t support your thesis at all doesn’t change the import of your thesis. Another total fail.

    3. If I wanted to attack the validity of AGW on this thread I would have instead referred to the earlier comment about the Greenland GISP2 ice core and other ice core data (Yukon) that completely contradict AGW claims. /// Another Fail. A complicated theory is not “disproved” by a single set of data that is inconsistent with the theory. Theories are correct or not in their ability to predict and explain. If the ice core data really is evidence against whatever, then as the theory becomes honed, that inconvenient fact should be explained for the anomaly it is, form a special subset of conditions, or be the first indication the theory was wrong/incomplete in part and provide the “facts” for a change. Good illustration of “grasping at straws.”

    4. But I’m not going there. I’ve lost the energy and desire to argue the subject in depth, /// your ability to argue the subject in the shallows is also undemonstrated. Its not an “energy” or desire issue but rather the faulty logic you bring to it.

    5. and have relegated myself to comments supporting those who agree that the reasons for the current slice of Earth’s continuously changing climate have yet to be determined. /// The consensus of scientific thought says just the opposite. I’ll put you down for Devo.

    Logic Error No 2: From #57: “To Illustrate this, is the perpetual claim that big oil is funding the climate skeptic movement.” /// You provide no facts and figures, just a defective argument jumping to the work of Schneider ((who btw is an AGW supporter)) who AS A SCIENTIST, wants to understand the pro’s and the con’s of the subject he is studying (Schneider btw is an AGW supporter)) and so is finding results that need to be explained–he is not ignoring evidence “against” AGW, he published it==all the work of science. That says NOTHING about the funding of the opposition to AGW ((Schneider btw is an AGW supporter)).

    So, big oil funds anti-AGW efforts 100%, but they also fund some percentage of AGW efforts that cover both sides of the issue so that shills like yourself can be “fair and balanced” and arrive at your loopy conclusion that the science is all wrong. Note: neither one of us knows the percentage. I post for example, you post for a conclusion.

    Skeptic–when you have the energy, time, interest, and FACTS and ANALYSIS to post on any subject, I recommend you do. How else you gonna learn if you are open to it at all?

  10. Guyver says:

    11, MSBPodcast,

    If I hear one more idiot exclaiming that “Its cold today, so much for your global warming” as if he’d said anything, I’ll introduce him to the business end of a .50 Caliber.

    It seems you take these people out of context in your oversimplification. Those same persons are probably expecting less snow or shorter periods of the cold season with respect to “man-made” global warming.

    Climate evolves over decades, probably longer than you’ve been around.

    Climate “Scientists” were worried about man-made global cooling in the 1970s. All you had to say is reversing the cooling trend to a mass hysteria of man-made global warming happens within a 30-year window. Hardly “before you’ve ever been around”. :)

    29, Bobbo,

    Tea Dude: I predict, with 100% certainty, you will always be an idiot.

    LOL. So the man challenges your religion and as usual your best “intellectual” comment is to call someone an idiot. Wow! Very persuasive. :)

    34, Bobbo,

    Why yes–the very same people who so richly deserved to be called those very names.

    Amusing how that works out so often–don’t you agree?

    Typically due to people with self-absorbed egos who can’t focus responding to the skeptical / dissenting point of view. :)

    39, FreddyBobs68k,

    Here is a website with the top 150 odd skeptic arguments, along with current scientific arguments in easy, intermediate and advanced form.

    When you say “science” do you really mean a religion of theories that have yet to be proven with empirical evidence to establish causality?

    51, Bobbo,

    And like Pedro, I don’t expect anything except repetition without even the effort to provide a fact or even argument.

    Unimaginative. Sad really.

    Sad like how there are no facts establishing CO2’s causality on global warming or whether mankind is the root cause.

    56, Bobbo,

    Science is all about disagreement and over time a consensus gets reached until it is overturned, just as it is now with AGW.

    Science historically has never been about consensus. Things get overturned due to the scientific method and empirical evidence. Not how it’s like with AGW.

    60, Bobbo,

    I’m always open to the learning process of finding out I’m wrong and trying to incorporate that into my own thinking without the urging of other people.

    Ha! Problem with saying things like always / never is that they’re usually not true. Science isn’t about finding out if someone’s ego-centric view of themselves and their position is right or wrong. It’s about discovery. It’s about a method and testing one’s theories. It’s based on empirical evidence.

    AGW is a theory (not to be confused with natural global warming). AGW has not been proven as a fact.

    63, Bobbo,

    IOW, the funding source or the bias of a research says NOTHING about the validity of the conclusions drawn.

    And how do you go about determining the validity of the conclusions drawn in the absence of the scientific method and empirical evidence?

  11. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Interesting article here, good to see we will finally have an answer, but why is it reported in the UK and not the GOUSA?

    http://guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war

    Did I see McGuyver trying to save his fellow skeptic? Let’s go see.

  12. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Guyver==we had all those dances before, nothing new.

    Maybe the key idea for those who follow “us” as closely as they might the Oscars: there never will be “proof” one way or the other in predicting future climatel, past climate, or even today’s weather.

    If you understand that ABSOLUTELY true statement, the arguments go away. Unless you like to argue.

    Silly hoomans.

  13. Gasparrini says:

    There have been over 2000 nuclear weapons detonations between 1945 and 1998.

  14. Guyver says:

    72, Bobbo,

    there never will be “proof” one way or the other in predicting future climatel, past climate, or even today’s weather.

    BS. It’s funny how man-made climate alarmists resort to Nostradamus-believer tactics. You can ever predict anything but when something happens, you go back and scream aloud it was foretold!

    If your climate models were THAT accurate, making 5 or 10 year predictions should not be far-fetched.

    Otherwise, the alarmists throw the scientific method out the window because it’s an inconvenient truth that AGW is nothing more than an UNPROVEN theory.

    In spite of the lack of validity for the theory, we should all be good stewards and try to minimize our impact onto our environment. We don’t need government regulations or crazy tax schemes to coerce people to exercise common sense in not peeing in one’s backyard.

    But I get it, the liberals want to chant AGW and say it’s obviously true (in the name of science) and that empirical evidence is not something needed to prove the crisis we are in. How convenient. :)

    http://tinyurl.com/yzb5urh

  15. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Guyver==”maybe” I assume too much that you can remember our past dances? You are very tiresome, but I will repeat for those who might fall across this thread and like you not have a clue:

    There can be no “proof” of AGW because there can be no controled experiment isolating the co2 effect or other man made green house gases: there is no sister earth to act as the control. So, when you argue there is no proof all anyone can do is say: “You are right.”

    What I have said from the start, but not everytime I post is: “AGW is the best theory we have, your alternative is what?”

    Meanwhile, the consensus of relevant/qualified scientists continues and the ocean continues to rise:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

    And 50 years from now when the Arctic Ocean is free of summer ice every year, and 100 years from now when all the glaciers are gone, and 300 years from now when the coastlines are 50 miles uphill and billions of people have been displaced/starved to death, there still will be no proof that AGW is occurring.

    Yes, you deniers have accepted the counter proposal: you can dump trillions of tons of c02 into the atmosphere and it will have zero effect on the weather.

    Are we Men of Science, or Devo?

  16. bobbo, google it, GDI! Just google IT!!! says:

    Gasp: that video is meaningless. I assume most of those explosions were “underground” without release of radiation/particles and what not?

    The point of nuke winter/cooling scenarios, more to the point by design, is that nukes could be set off with the primary objective of getting particles/gas into the upper atmosphere thereby cooling it. I assume that means a very shallow buried nuke so stuff really gets projected but just the opposite might be the case so that material is gasified first? Who knows? Probably take a few tests to get the position just right. It is actually an extreme/cheap solution though once we decide what area of earth to sacrifice for the remainder.

    The future is so bright, I gotta wear shades, and lead underwear.

  17. Guyver says:

    75, Bobbo,

    There can be no “proof” of AGW because there can be no controled experiment isolating the co2 effect or other man made green house gases: there is no sister earth to act as the control. So, when you argue there is no proof all anyone can do is say: “You are right.”

    You use that as a crutch. If you can conclude and quantify global warming is due to man-made emissions from simulations, then you can make near-term predictions.

    You skirt the most obvious point every time. Make predictions that actually come true for the next 5 to 10 years.

    What I have said from the start, but not everytime I post is: “AGW is the best theory we have, your alternative is what?”

    The burden of proof is on your shoulders. You claim that a crisis is upon us. So prove it. I have not seen anything leading me to believe causality. There is no alternative when a crisis has yet to be proven.

    From your favorite news source: http://tinyurl.com/49dtrp9

    And 50 years from now when the Arctic Ocean is free of summer ice every year, and 100 years from now when all the glaciers are gone, and 300 years from now when the coastlines are 50 miles uphill and billions of people have been displaced/starved to death, there still will be no proof that AGW is occurring.

    LOL. You alarmists are all alike. You make 50 to 300 year “predictions” but fall flat on your face trying to do 5 to 10 year predictions.

    Yes, you deniers have accepted the counter proposal: you can dump trillions of tons of c02 into the atmosphere and it will have zero effect on the weather.

    What EXACTLY have I “denied”? Did I deny that global warming is man-made? Or did I point out you haven’t proven your claim? As for the trillions (was it billions last time?) what % does that make up of all CO2 emitted? Mother Nature outputs about 30 times more CO2 than humans do.

    Are we Men of Science, or Devo?

    Is your billions / trillions of CO2 gripe statistically significant? Please be a little intellectually honest. Your billions / trillions issue is nothing more than environmental theater.

  18. bobbo, OK, I'll bite says:

    Guyver:

    1. You skirt the most obvious point every time. Make predictions that actually come true for the next 5 to 10 years. /// Invalid when the model itself states in cannot predict in smaller than I think it was 30 or 50 year timeframe with a large margin of error. Also very much dependent on what you define a “prediction” as. I fear once again you want the temperature at noon in one certain location or whether or not it will rain, snow, sleet, or hail but thats not what a climate model even predicts. What it predicts is average worldwide temperature.

    2. I’ve never said a crises is upon us. but yes, the consensus says we are very near the tipping point where moderate responses to lower the co2 pollution will make no difference to the ultimate outcome: climate shift to the north, warmer temps, atlantic conveyor belt interruption, etc. How far past the tipping point can a few nukes save us? More variables still.

    3. “The burden of proof is on your shoulders.” /// Why is this burden not on those who choose to pollute?

    4. “Mother Nature outputs about 30 times more CO2 than humans do.” /// I haven’t looked that one up. Given the validity of everything else you spew, I will lazily assume that mother nature’s role averages out in the carbon cycle as a “constant” or close enough thereto to be non-controlling leaving only what hoomans are doing to the environment.

    5. You have denied that asking for proof is the guile of an idiot.

    6. billions/trillions–yes, I forgot which it is so use them interchangeably. The model prediction/warnings though are based on the doubling of co2 in the atmosphere ((I think?)) and whatever we are putting into the atmosphere past its considerable accomodating mechanisms, which is where we are now, is the issue. You quibble.

    Much of “science” is based on the best theory available without “proof” that deniers will demand when they don’t want to take action for the various reasons that apply. Cigarettes cause cancer. No proof of that, and the best evidence is that tobacco products of combustion only increase the risks of cancer. By your school of thought, If I can’t tell YOU the date when you will get cancer, then there is no proof that smoking causing cancer. Well done, Marlborough Man.

    so what of the null hypothesis?==that dumping carbon should have no effect at all?

    or that the ocean continues to rise?

  19. Guyver says:

    78, Bobbo,

    Invalid when the model itself states in cannot predict in smaller than I think it was 30 or 50 year timeframe with a large margin of error.

    So now it’s a 50-year window, eh? :) Just go back and take the quantified 40 to 45 years of data to help predict the next 5 to 10 years. If CO2 is causal, you have all the data you need.

    I fear once again you want the temperature at noon in one certain location or whether or not it will rain, snow, sleet, or hail but thats not what a climate model even predicts. What it predicts is average worldwide temperature.

    I thought we were talking about GLOBAL warming.

    I’ve never said a crises is upon us. but yes, the consensus says we are very near the tipping point where moderate responses to lower the co2 pollution will make no difference to the ultimate outcome: climate shift to the north, warmer temps, atlantic conveyor belt interruption, etc. How far past the tipping point can a few nukes save us? More variables still.

    Science isn’t about consensus. What does that consensus actually know and what are they assuming? Has causality been established?

    Why is this burden not on those who choose to pollute?

    I make no claim with or without a “consensus” that the sky is falling. The mere fact that you exhale makes you a polluter. If you want to say the sky is falling, then prove it. I merely sit back skeptically and try to see the merits of your claim. If your best response is your “millions / billions” CO2 comment or that there is a “scientific” consensus, then you’re not being very persuasive. You may appeals to some people’s emotions, but that’s about it.

    I haven’t looked that one up. Given the validity of everything else you spew, I will lazily assume that mother nature’s role averages out in the carbon cycle as a “constant” or close enough thereto to be non-controlling leaving only what hoomans are doing to the environment.

    From everything I’ve looked at, human contribution is minuscule in proportion. But nice tap dance on the “constant” comment. :)

    The model prediction/warnings though are based on the doubling of co2 in the atmosphere ((I think?)) and whatever we are putting into the atmosphere past its considerable accomodating mechanisms, which is where we are now, is the issue. You quibble.

    And how much more would man-made CO2 increase by in order to actually double the CO2 in our atmosphere? Is that even realistic?

    http://tinyurl.com/3ywsvpj

    Much of “science” is based on the best theory available without “proof” that deniers will demand when they don’t want to take action for the various reasons that apply.

    The difference is politics and a left-leaning mainstream media is determining what is valid or invalid nowadays. Dissenting scientific opinion is largely ignored in favor of the “consensus” which you speak of.

    Case in point, about 15% of National Academy of Scientists believe in a God. These are the brightest of the brightest scientists. If the consensus of scientists is that there is no God, then why do 15% of the smartest minds still believe in one?

    Neil deGrasse Tyson on Religion & Science… From 6:25 to 12:36 (leads in with Newton but it makes sense when applying to today’s limit of scientific “knowledge”)… if you want to skip most of the Newton tie in, start at 9:42: http://tinyurl.com/4gfhr36

    so what of the null hypothesis?==that dumping carbon should have no effect at all?

    Is the man-made CO2 contribution SIGNIFICANT on a global scale? You may say or feel yes, but the statistics don’t seem to support your belief.

    or that the ocean continues to rise?

    So what?

    A complete list of things caused by global warming: http://tinyurl.com/f4xnr

    It’s gotten so bad that some are suggesting that Global Warming could cause cancer. Seriously. :)

  20. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Gee Guyver–seriously==the more you post, the more your reveal your abysmal ignorance on this subject as well as science in general. Quite telling that a post here and there doesn’t reveal that, or not as completely as a continuing thread? There’s an old joke about that……..

    1. So now it’s a 50-year window, eh? :) Just go back and take the quantified 40 to 45 years of data to help predict the next 5 to 10 years. //// Not now. Every “model” has such a time frame depending on it complexity. But the whole point is that the shorter the time frame, the more you are talking about weather rather than climate. The data involved includes 100,000/s of years–ice cores, fossil records and I think the directly measured data is closer to 100 years–but I don’t follow the issue that closely.

    2. Now here, you sound intentionally the buffoon: “If CO2 is causal, you have all the data you need.” /// No, dumb-dumb, thats why it is “complex.” Water vapor, particulates, methane, ozone, orbital cycles, tilt, 50 other variables are also casual. You reveal you have no grasp at all on “the basics.”

    3. I make no claim with or without a “consensus” that the sky is falling. /// Its not.

    The mere fact that you exhale makes you a polluter. /// No.

    If you want to say the sky is falling, then prove it. /// I don’t.

    I merely sit back skeptically and try to see the merits of your claim. /// I agree. That is all you do. Very telling the shallowness of your skepticism.

    If your best response is your “millions / billions” CO2 comment or that there is a “scientific” consensus, then you’re not being very persuasive. You may appeals to some people’s emotions, but that’s about it. /// Me? Try the IPCC.

    4. From everything I’ve looked at, human contribution is minuscule in proportion. /// The amount of certain poisons that can kill you is also minuscule. Things in perfect balance are off balance when a minuscule amount is added to one side of the equation. Silly ignorant comment/attitude/lack of recognition to have and yet still feel competent to even think about the issue.

    5. And how much more would man-made CO2 increase by in order to actually double the CO2 in our atmosphere? Is that even realistic? /// Yep. THATS the issue. Got ADD?

    6. The difference is politics and a left-leaning mainstream media is determining what is valid or invalid nowadays. Dissenting scientific opinion is largely ignored in favor of the “consensus” which you speak of. /// What do you want? Scientific consensus to be formed by minority views? Flat earth views? 6000 year old intelligent design? You just get dumber and dumber. While there is one consensus, which of the dozens of minority views should society act on?

    7. Is the man-made CO2 contribution SIGNIFICANT on a global scale? You may say or feel yes, but the statistics don’t seem to support your belief. /// Its the IPCC panel of relevant experts that has made this conclusion. I just follow the best science until better science comes along==not the ravings of objectively ignorant people who ignore basic scientific principle with their individualistic “common sense.”

    8. So what? /// Yes, the constant increase in ocean volume indicates our ice coverage is melting so all the yap yap about “its the coldest winter ever” is BS. Of course, there are minority views to this as well.

    9. It’s gotten so bad that some are suggesting that Global Warming could cause cancer. Seriously./// Context is everything–something you have lost.

    On to your links. Thanks for providing them.

  21. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Guyver–why is Tyson such an amiable personality?

    but I found the Isaac Newton lead in to be very informative: These early scientist found/understood/translated the limits of their knowledge as “religion” or the God Head. What they “knew” they describe without god, what they were ignorant of was god’s domain.

    Your process is very similar: what you don’t understand, what is beyond the limits of your knowledge, you call “skepticism.”

    Amusing. but now back to “Beyond Belief”–and I will find the address by Michael Schermer as well. Good Stuff.

  22. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    “15% of the nations most brilliant minds believe in god.” /// Its a fact standing alone that Tyson doesn’t do anything with.

    I think it means nothing to this thread as EVERY opinion has detractors and a minority view. Science is not a club/political party/religion that kicks people out for having minority views. Not often, but enough to matter, minority views become accepted as the majority view (ie-consensus) that has its own detractors.

    What do you want? A simple on/off, black/white, right/wrong, proven/not proven universe?

    Yea, well bunky, thats not the universe you live in. If you want certainty–go for religion. If you want proof–go with the scientific method. When neither provides an answer: go with the best science has to offer.

    Simply really. Mindless skepticism is for dolts.

  23. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    at 19:50===”Intelligent Design is a philosophy of ignorance.” /// Heh, heh. as is mindless skepticism. the kind of analysis that rejects well founded scientific consensus with “that seems minuscule to me?”

    Ha. ha.

    so silly.

  24. Guyver says:

    80, Bobbo,

    the more you post, the more your reveal your abysmal ignorance on this subject as well as science in general.

    For someone who claims you can’t use the scientific method that’s rather funny.

    Every “model” has such a time frame depending on it complexity. But the whole point is that the shorter the time frame, the more you are talking about weather rather than climate.

    Given what we know now, what would the predictions have been 30 to 50 years ago using today’s “causal” formulas? Would those predictions fit what has actually happened?

    If the system is so complex, why do the liberals obsess over the trends? Clearly there’s a disconnect between the “trends” and your “complexity” theory of being able to make accurate predictions of global warming. :)

    No, dumb-dumb, thats why it is “complex.” Water vapor, particulates, methane, ozone, orbital cycles, tilt, 50 other variables are also casual. You reveal you have no grasp at all on “the basics.”

    No dumb dumb. We’re talking about man-made CO2 that you can quantify annually. That’s what this whole theory is about, no? Stop obfuscating things and stick to your theory of global warming is man-made instead of a natural occurrence. It’s been about human CO2 output.

    If you don’t have all the data you need, all you needed to say is you guys are screaming the sky is falling before you have all the facts in. :)

    I make no claim with or without a “consensus” that the sky is falling.

    /// Its not.

    Oh yeah! That’s right. It’s ocean levels rising! :) Same hysterical paranoia.

    The mere fact that you exhale makes you a polluter.

    /// No.

    Wow! So you’re going to split hairs over good vs. bad CO2? Should have known you liberals rationalize even the most basic of things. :)

    CO2 is CO2. If you liberals get any more control of government, we’ll be seeing a one-child policy in every country.

    If you want to say the sky is falling, then prove it.

    /// I don’t.

    So when you say: “And 50 years from now when the Arctic Ocean is free of summer ice every year, and 100 years from now when all the glaciers are gone, and 300 years from now when the coastlines are 50 miles uphill and billions of people have been displaced/starved to death, there still will be no proof that AGW is occurring.

    that this isn’t demonstrative of “sky is falling” hysteria? LOL. Yeah right.

    I agree. That is all you do. Very telling the shallowness of your skepticism.

    Shallow skeptic, eh? :) Nice try in trying to fault me for scrutinizing the “consensus” BS. You may want to consider your powers of persuasion instead. Give me facts and not your interpretation / hasty conclusions por favor.

    The amount of certain poisons that can kill you is also minuscule. Things in perfect balance are off balance when a minuscule amount is added to one side of the equation. Silly ignorant comment/attitude/lack of recognition to have and yet still feel competent to even think about the issue.

    Which I already accounted for and you still beat your drum that the sky is falling in the absence of empirical evidence.

    Yep. THATS the issue. Got ADD?

    “The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day — it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can’t make it any darker”: http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

    What do you want? Scientific consensus to be formed by minority views? Flat earth views? 6000 year old intelligent design? You just get dumber and dumber. While there is one consensus, which of the dozens of minority views should society act on?

    If you look back at some of the great scientists, they broke from the mainstream and were the minority point of view. Surely a man of “science” such as yourself can appreciate that.

    Dissenting opinions should get similar air time so that people get a full exposure of the points and counter points. The mainstream media should just report instead of editorializing everything to a particular viewpoint that they happen to support.

    Regardless, it’s pretty funny to see you resort to name calling when you’ve got no point to make. :)

    Its the IPCC panel of relevant experts that has made this conclusion. I just follow the best science until better science comes along==not the ravings of objectively ignorant people who ignore basic scientific principle with their individualistic “common sense.”

    Basic “scientific principle”?!?!?!? Many of the people who editorialize the IPCC reports don’t even have a scientific background. The IPCC has also been criticized for being politically biased (not to mention motivated in exaggerating things to the sky is falling proportions). Even past contributing authors of the IPCC reports have pointed this out. What a dope.

    Yes, the constant increase in ocean volume indicates our ice coverage is melting …

    CAUSED by what exactly? Are you too dense to see that you’re simply making an assumption based on your dogmatic faith?

    Context is everything–something you have lost.

    In conclusion the mass hysteria the liberals are pushing is that MAN-MADE global warming is responsible for just about every problem on the planet. What’s next? Diabetes? :)

  25. Guyver says:

    81, Bobbo,

    Your process is very similar: what you don’t understand, what is beyond the limits of your knowledge, you call “skepticism.”

    Just because you interpret something is happening doesn’t make it so.

    My skepticism kicks in when you fail to be persuasive.

    82,

    Its a fact standing alone that Tyson doesn’t do anything with.

    Not his job. He makes the point and hopefully someone will pick up on that and go further with that survey.

    I think it means nothing to this thread as EVERY opinion has detractors and a minority view.

    The point you ignore is that the trend for being atheistic among the brightest people hits an asymptote as he states.

    Science is not a club/political party/religion that kicks people out for having minority views.

    Science doesn’t but there are those in that community who do if you don’t conform to the mainstream view (i.e. IPCC). Regardless, I find it very intriguing why spirituality / religion hasn’t been completely flushed out even among the smartest of our species.

    What do you want? A simple on/off, black/white, right/wrong, proven/not proven universe?

    If you want to change behavior because you claim to know something, then you will need proof.

    Yea, well bunky, thats not the universe you live in. If you want certainty–go for religion. If you want proof–go with the scientific method. When neither provides an answer: go with the best science has to offer.

    All you had to say is you have no proof of causality. And the best “science” has to offer is a consensus based off of no proof. It’s a theory at best. Should this theory be used to force people to change behavior? Nope. Should we encourage people to not pee in their backyards? Yup. Do we need to use the force of government? Nope.

    Mindless skepticism is for dolts.

    Awww… first I was shallow… now I’m mindless. :) Look, if you claim to know something, then show me what you know. From what you’ve just explained you don’t know much but you’ll blindly follow a theory because it’s better than science because real science isn’t about right/wrong. It’s about unprovable theories…. hey isn’t that what religion is? :)

    the kind of analysis that rejects well founded scientific consensus with “that seems minuscule to me?”

    Just like correlation isn’t causation, a consensus does not make for a scientific discovery / fact / conclusion. Consensus is what is popular… in this case what is politically popular.

    Are you that much of a lemming? :)

  26. Guyver says:

    81, Bobbo,

    Your process is very similar: what you don’t understand, what is beyond the limits of your knowledge, you call “skepticism.”

    Just because you interpret something is happening doesn’t make it so.

    My skepticism kicks in when you fail to be persuasive.

    82,

    Its a fact standing alone that Tyson doesn’t do anything with.

    Not his job. He makes the point and hopefully someone will pick up on that and go further with that survey.

    I think it means nothing to this thread as EVERY opinion has detractors and a minority view.

    The point you ignore is that the trend for being atheistic among the brightest people hits an asymptote as he states.

    Science is not a club/political party/religion that kicks people out for having minority views.

    Science doesn’t but there are those in that community who do if you don’t conform to the mainstream view (i.e. IPCC). Regardless, I find it very intriguing why spirituality / religion hasn’t been completely flushed out even among the smartest of our species.

    What do you want? A simple on/off, black/white, right/wrong, proven/not proven universe?

    If you want to change behavior because you claim to know something, then you will need proof.

    Yea, well bunky, thats not the universe you live in. If you want certainty–go for religion. If you want proof–go with the scientific method. When neither provides an answer: go with the best science has to offer.

    All you had to say is you have no proof of causality. And the best “science” has to offer is a consensus based off of no proof. It’s a theory at best. Should this theory be used to force people to change behavior? Nope. Should we encourage people to not pee in their backyards? Yup. Do we need to use the force of government? Nope.

    Mindless skepticism is for dolts.

    Awww… first I was shallow… now I’m mindless. :) Look, if you claim to know something, then show me what you know. From what you’ve just explained you don’t know much but you’ll blindly follow a theory because it’s better than science because real science isn’t about right/wrong. It’s about unprovable theories…. hey isn’t that what religion is? :)

    the kind of analysis that rejects well founded scientific consensus with “that seems minuscule to me?”

    Just like correlation isn’t causation, a consensus does not make for a scientific discovery / fact / conclusion. Consensus is what is popular… in this case what is politically popular.

    Are you that much of a lemming? :)

  27. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    I’ll put you down for Devo.

    Still watching the vids but I’ve lost interest in your continuing nonsense. Too much repeating the swirl around the drain.

    Lack of formal proof in the scientific sense should not be and never will be an excuse not to take action in our best interests.

    So, yes, I will go with the consensus of scientist who reject a personal god leave you to the remaining groups.

  28. Guyver says:

    87, Bobo,

    Still watching the vids but I’ve lost interest in your continuing nonsense. Too much repeating the swirl around the drain.

    It’s amazing how you seem to bring up the same non-sensical rants. :)

    Lack of formal proof in the scientific sense should not be and never will be an excuse not to take action in our best interests.

    There’s no need to take action for something that isn’t proven, is there? Heck if I used your flawed logic in other scenarios, I suppose you make a good case for WMDs in Iraq. :)

  29. Guyver says:

    87, Bobo,

    Still watching the vids but I’ve lost interest in your continuing nonsense. Too much repeating the swirl around the drain.

    It’s amazing how you seem to bring up the same non-sensical rants. :)

    Lack of formal proof in the scientific sense should not be and never will be an excuse not to take action in our best interests.

    There’s no need to take action for something that isn’t proven, is there? Heck if I used your flawed logic in other scenarios, I suppose you make a good case for WMDs in Iraq. :)

  30. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Guyver–hypothetically, what would constitute “proof” to you that should be acted on? Or even “non proof” that should be acted on?