The climate “changes all the time”

My belief is a currently standing theory of science. Your belief rejects that theory of science even though it has yet to be falsified.

 

Gosh, when you put it that way... First you assert a knowledge you don't have, and second, you construct a fallacy to choose from. So, delude yourself if you must, it still doesn't change the basic set of facts that are being discussed here. The fact you don't know them, or were unware of them doesn't help your own credibility.

 

All basically true, except the last part that somehow then translates into what an average of all those disparate climates then represent.

 

Here's a mirror for that glass house of yours.

I hate to break it to you, but the internet does not give out Doctorates of Climatology - no matter how many blogs you read ...

 

I suppose that if you looked deeply in your own mirror you could say the same thing to yourself. However, some of us can, and do actively present evidence for discussion. I don't simply rely on tribal faith as is your method. The simple observation is right now, many folks, it would seem to include you, are concerned because you believe that you are negatively impacting the environment around you. I can only counsel you to do what you can then to fix or otherwise remediate your own actions as probably that is the best you're going to be able to do...

 

You can't measure the absolute temperature of the Earth with an IR thermometer...

 

Yes, you could, assuming you had an accurate thermometer at your house. That is a localized location.

Well, you could accurately average temperatures for a particular location within the city, but the whole city itself would require more than a single thermometer in order to be accurate.

See above, but even more thermometers than needed for directly above are required.

See above, but even more thermometers than needed for directly above are required.

See above, but even more thermometers than needed for directly above are required.

See above, but even more thermometers than needed for directly above are required.

See above, but even more thermometers than needed for directly above are required.

See above, but even more thermometers than needed for directly above are required.

At this point, we are talking well over 200 million thermometers to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis...

 

What can you measure

 

And in fact there are lots of thermometers in any given city to check the consistency

And, if course there are thousands of thermometer records across the usa and the world.

Then we come to satellites which measure via radiation like infra red. These measurements can and are Compared to ground thermometer records. And the satellite records are found to be a close approximation of ground thermometer records. satellite records can then approximate the 200 million thermometers

 

Here's the problem that just isn't sinking into the heads of true believers. Yes the earth's climate does change extremely rapidly all on it's own and we need only go back a short time to see this with the rapid onset of the little ice age and the equally rapid end of that period. The myth that the climate changes in slow predictable natural rhythms is just that, a myth.

 

The absolute temperature of a specific object of which the emissivity of said object is known. You can also measure relative temperature to discover things such as poorly insulated areas of houses.

 

Are those thermometers uniformly spaced? Are they simultaneously read by the same observer? If not, then you have location and time biases in your data...

Are those thermometers uniformly spaced? Are they simultaneously read by the same observer? If not, then you have location and time biases in your data... Are "thousands" of thermometers enough?? My post #4 argues why we would need upwards of 200 MILLION thermometers to even come up with a semi-accurate reading of Earth's temperature.

Again, see my post #4 for why this isn't the case. In order to convert IR readings into absolute temperature readings, one needs to, per the Stefan Boltzmann Law, know the emissivity of Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown, so the conversion can't be done outside of pure guesswork, thus rendering any data resulting from that guesswork to be meaningless. We first need to know the temperature of Earth in order to know the emissivity of it... Satellites are not magick.

 

A. Climate changes constantly based on many factors, mostly solar activity
B. Any human who belives they can understand and predict changes in climate is a complete moron.

 

What was the most recent one and when was it?

When? And what was the high reading of CO2 ppm for that period?

That you fail to acknowledge that the rate of CO2 rise and of average temperature change is much, much more rapid than at any time in the last 600,000 years is what's astounding. That you actually believe that the world's climate scientists are all onboard with a "scam" while a handful of American "scientists" who are mostly beholden to the fossil fuel industry devise theories of why/how it's a "scam" is what's astounding. That you actually believe so many other countries are fooled into spending billions to mitigate this climate "scam" is what's astounding.

 

I think it is pretty obvious that you should take your PhD degrees in climatology, geology, and physics and hold talks for the climate scientists around the world to alert them to their errors.

 

"Climate Scientists" are anything but...

Science is not a degree nor is it a university course. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

Care to address any of the arguments I made?

 

Fires happen naturally all the time therefore any fires we see aren't caused by humans but by nature.

 

Jeez, you ever hears of arson, or campfires gone awry?
If there were a war, that would cause fires
Over heated catalytic converters can cause fires
Children playing with matches can cause fires
Terrorists can cause fires
Electric lines can cause fires
A normal house fire can spread
Obviously people can and do cause fires

many rural municipalities and or the insurance companies require brush to be cut back because they realize doing so reduces fire danger for naturally cased fire.... they certainly realize that we can mitigate, or exacerbate the impact of naturally caused fires

Bottom line

Sometimes DO people CAUSE fires
Sometimes people do things which cause fires to be more, or less destructive
IF it is a fact that humans can make the climate warmer,
that would be something that would increase the frequency and severity of NATURALLY CAUSED fires

 

Reports of human caused fires are simply fear mongering. Scientists receive a lot of funding to study fires and so have a motive to defend a lie. The government also maintains this lie so it gets to make a lot of regulations to prevent fires which gives it a lot of political power. There is no real way to prove arson in the case of forest fires. If I saw a bunch of burned forest rubble, how could I prove it was caused by people?

 

Aw man! BURN!

Not to mention the number of variables to input into any climate model would be in the millions plus the impossibility of calculating all the various interactions of such a great number of variables. Even with an AI supercomputer 100 X better than any known to man couldn't give a single accurate prediction, but rather a wide variant of possibilities from which to choose.

 

When they reject inconvenient science in favor of the dogma they are in fact ignoring the science.

 

Sure. I trust scientists in their field far more than I trust the right.

 

There are similar variables to calculate for a weather forecast, or a hurricane storm track.... and yet scientists do that pretty well

All such forecasts depend upon probabilities
But then again, lots of things in similarly depend on probability
And, if you look at any climate model projections.... they always acknowledge probability

Probably there WILL be a very large earthquake in california within 100 years.... and cities insist that building codes reflect that probability. Probably you will have health problems if you smoke. Probably you will become an addict if you experiment with heroin.

People make life choices all the time based on probability.... not certainty. We make decisions based our best guess

 

Correct.

A big problem that AGW proponents have here is that "models" (even whichever models they find to be "holy") are not science in any way. Models are not falsifiable theories.

Karl Popper's philosophy is correct. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories.

 

Appeal to False Authority Fallacy.
Bulverism Fallacy.

Scientists are not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The proper authority with regard to this discussion is science itself, not any person or group of people.

It is not logical to dismiss an argument simply because someone from "the right" is making it.


Also, be careful with saying that you don't trust "the right"... Inferring that all "righties" are not trustworthy from the fact that some "righties" are not trustworthy would be a compositional error involving people as the class. That would be bigotry... I'm not accusing you of that particular fallacy, but just noting that it would be a good idea to be careful about that sort of thing.