Trump orders EPA to delete all climate change information from its website

[Dr. Arch]

There's no such thing as "proving" something in science. What you just quoted is how scientific articles are written when they've hit upon a strong, working theory.

Exactly. If anything, Ljube just proved my point. The correlations strongly indicate that it is due to human activity since no other plausible variable factors change the outcome of the experiment, including the addition of methane effects.

The analysis that Ljube just quoted is based on the data, and it is extrapolated from multiple computer models as well as human calculations.

Arch, no other plausible variable factors based on observations of that scientists, or currently known to the scientific community, or currently suspected to have influence.

It does not indicate that it is due to human activity. It is only strongly correlated with the historical data on CO2 content increase.

Extrapolation is not a valid scientific technique.


Arch, answer a question for me please. What is/are the postulate/s of the Climate Change Theory?

No, extrapolation is not a valid scientific technique, but it is an amazing method of analysis. The techniques are applied to the testing and the data gathering process, which is evident in the heaps of data available everywhere.

The "postulates" have already been given above throughout the discussion.

"The definition of a postulate is something accepted as truth and used as the basis for an argument or theory."

Greenhouse Gas Effects, Etc.

Addressing your previous point on future predictions based on the theory, future predictions cannot be appropriately made because the variables to make such predictions are not constant (changing policies, differing gas emissions, economic growth, carbon usage). ALTERNATIVELY, multiple models have been made demonstrating variating effects based on current observations.

[Ljube]

Arch, the inconvenient truth you are trying to avoid is that future predictions cannot be appropriately made because the variables to make such predictions are not KNOWN.

Until we are sure what causes global warming we cannot predict what will happen in the future. It's as simple as that.


I have another question for you. Why are you so fascinated with the idea of taking steps to prevent global warming from progressing further?

[Dr. Arch]

Arch, the inconvenient truth you are trying to avoid is that future predictions cannot be appropriately made because the variables to make such predictions are not KNOWN.

Until we are sure what causes global warming we cannot predict what will happen in the future. It's as simple as that.


I have another question for you. Why are you so fascinated with the idea of taking steps to prevent global warming from progressing further?

Ljube, the necessary variables are known, but they cannot be determined because they change erratically, unlike say, carbon decay. We don't know how much coal China will use 10 years from now, nor do we even know what our environmental policy will be in the US a year from now and how that will affect our emissions. These are just two, which is why multiple predictive models are used instead.

Preventing it from progressing further allows us to have more time to take the appropriate measures to prevent disasters involving countless deaths, both human and of other animals. Furthermore, moving away from fossil fuels (something we should do even without climate change) prevents needless damage to our ecosystem and gives a better energy infrastructure that is independent of other countries and global market pressures. It makes our country more independent and, thus, stronger.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

There's no such thing as showing something "can't be disproved" in science. Undisprovable claims are non-scientific by definition. This is basic, elementary philosophy of science and scientific practice. Even I know this and I'm very proudly a humanities person.

[Ljube]

There's no such thing as showing something "can't be disproved" in science. Undisprovable claims are non-scientific by definition. This is basic, elementary philosophy of science and scientific practice. Even I know this and I'm very proudly a humanities person.

Precisely why Climate Science is no science.

[AtorBoltox]

Guys, there's no point trying to argue facts with climate deniers, just ignore them

[Ljube]

Arch, the inconvenient truth you are trying to avoid is that future predictions cannot be appropriately made because the variables to make such predictions are not KNOWN.

Until we are sure what causes global warming we cannot predict what will happen in the future. It's as simple as that.


I have another question for you. Why are you so fascinated with the idea of taking steps to prevent global warming from progressing further?

Ljube, the necessary variables are known, but they cannot be determined because they change erratically, unlike say, carbon decay. We don't know how much coal China will use 10 years from now, nor do we even know what our environmental policy will be in the US a year from now and how that will affect our emissions. These are just two, which is why multiple predictive models are used instead.

Preventing it from progressing further allows us to have more time to take the appropriate measures to prevent disasters involving countless deaths, both human and of other animals. Furthermore, moving away from fossil fuels (something we should do even without climate change) prevents needless damage to our ecosystem and gives a better energy infrastructure that is independent of other countries and global market pressures. It makes our country more independent and, thus, stronger.

No, Arch, the necessary variables are not known.

Have you studied the history of science? There were people in the past who claimed that all necessary variables were known and that the science was settled. But they were invariably wrong.


Again, you are starting from the following premise: Greenhouse effect is causing global warming, therefore all the variables are related to that. The main variable constituent in that equation is CO2 content.

However, the existence of the greenhouse effect has never been proven. There is no experiment that can prove it. At least we haven't thought of one. Moreover, the greenhouse effect is not something we know from experience. It is quite unlike gravity, combustion, or any similar phenomenon with known effects.

All we know is that temperature records show that there is a rise in temperature and that measurements of atmospheric CO2 show that there is an increase of its content.

[Ljube]

I don't know why y'all are arguing with a climate change denier. The coast of California could become submerged and I doubt these people would attribute it to climate change.

LOL!

I certainly am not a climate change denier. How can one deny that the climate is changing?

The coast of California will not become submerged, at least not in our lifetime.

[Dr. Arch]

Arch, the inconvenient truth you are trying to avoid is that future predictions cannot be appropriately made because the variables to make such predictions are not KNOWN.

Until we are sure what causes global warming we cannot predict what will happen in the future. It's as simple as that.


I have another question for you. Why are you so fascinated with the idea of taking steps to prevent global warming from progressing further?

Ljube, the necessary variables are known, but they cannot be determined because they change erratically, unlike say, carbon decay. We don't know how much coal China will use 10 years from now, nor do we even know what our environmental policy will be in the US a year from now and how that will affect our emissions. These are just two, which is why multiple predictive models are used instead.

Preventing it from progressing further allows us to have more time to take the appropriate measures to prevent disasters involving countless deaths, both human and of other animals. Furthermore, moving away from fossil fuels (something we should do even without climate change) prevents needless damage to our ecosystem and gives a better energy infrastructure that is independent of other countries and global market pressures. It makes our country more independent and, thus, stronger.

No, Arch, the necessary variables are not known.

Have you studied the history of science? There were people in the past who claimed that all necessary variables were known and that the science was settled. But they were invariably wrong.


Again, you are starting from the following premise: Greenhouse effect is causing global warming, therefore all the variables are related to that. The main variable constituent in that equation is CO2 content.

However, the existence of the greenhouse effect has never been proven. There is no experiment that can prove it. At least we haven't thought of one. Moreover, the greenhouse effect is not something we know from experience. It is quite unlike gravity, combustion, or any similar phenomenon with known effects.

All we know is that temperature records show that there is a rise in temperature and that measurements of atmospheric CO2 show that there is an increase of its content.

Are you kidding me? Why do you think the greenhouse effect is named "the greenhouse effect"? The existence of greenhouses alone is proof enough of its effects. Not enough? Try locking yourself in a garage with your car on. Come on. That's a ridiculous statement to make.


@Everyone, I understand what you're saying, but it's our duty to at least try. It seems it was to no avail in this instance. However, this discussion could change other minds that were not involved, and that's enough for me.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

There's no such thing as showing something "can't be disproved" in science. Undisprovable claims are non-scientific by definition. This is basic, elementary philosophy of science and scientific practice. Even I know this and I'm very proudly a humanities person.

Precisely why Climate Science is no science.

You're not even making the same point from post to post.

[Ljube]

Are you kidding me? Why do you think the greenhouse effect is named "the greenhouse effect"? The existence of greenhouses alone is proof enough of its effects. Not enough? Try locking yourself in a garage with your car on. Come on. That's a ridiculous statement to make.


@Everyone, I understand what you're saying, but it's our duty to at least try. It seems it was to no avail in this instance. However, this discussion could change other minds that were not involved, and that's enough for me.

Arch, that name is purely figurative. The main effect in greenhouses and in cars left in the sun is not the "greenhouse effect" but prevention of convection.

Regarding the atmosphere, convection is not prevented, therefore it cannot be compared to greenhouses.

What is considered a greenhouse effect is a theoretical process whereby CO2 would absorb energy, get into an excited state and later emit that energy again. Given that CO2 would emit some of its energy toward the ground that could, in theory, cause increase of surface temperature. No proof of that effect exists, though.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Scentifc theories primarily emerge as ways to explain observable natural or experimental phenomena. We can test these theories by making predictions based on how things should happen if the theory is true. Science is littered with older theories that seemed to explain some form of natural phenomona, but when were unable to cope with the results from further experimentation (or further observation) fell apart. Phlogiston. Spontaneous Generation. Group selection. Lamarckian inheritence. The plum pudding model. Aether. Orthogenesis. All of these were mechanisms to explain natural phenomena that ultimately were not able to explain enough, and so were discarded when more sophisticated models emerged.

Now the basic bones of greenhouse effect theory: that carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation (like most gases that have polar attributes) and therefore raises the ambient temperature was explored (and fully mapped out in terms of mechanism) in labs (with IR spectrometry) a few decades before the global temperature rise was observed to be rising in the 80's. So it is, in fact, predictive. There is no remotely feasible explanation for the bulk of the observed changes seen in the last few decades rather than a greenhouse effect produced from gases of an anthropogenic origin. (and it's hilarious that you target the greenhouse effect which is probably the easiest part of the climate change hypothesis to defend - look at Venus, lol!)

[Ljube]

Scentifc theories primarily emerge as ways to explain observable natural or experimental phenomena. We can test these theories by making predictions based on how things should happen if the theory is true. Science is littered with older theories that seemed to explain some form of natural phenomona, but when were unable to cope with the results from further experimentation (or further observation) fell apart. Phlogiston. Spontaneous Generation. Group selection. Lamarckian inheritence. The plum pudding model. Aether. Orthogenesis. All of these were mechanisms to explain natural phenomena that ultimately were not able to explain enough, and so were discarded when more sophisticated models emerged.

Now the basic bones of greenhouse effect theory: that carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation (like most gases that have polar attributes) and therefore raises the ambient temperature was explored (and fully mapped out in terms of mechanism) in labs (with IR spectrometry) a few decades before the global temperature rise was observed to be rising in the 80's. So it is, in fact, predictive. There is no remotely feasible explanation for the bulk of the observed changes seen in the last few decades rather than a greenhouse effect produced from gases of an anthropogenic origin. (and it's hilarious that you target the greenhouse effect which is probably the easiest part of the climate change hypothesis to defend - look at Venus, lol!)

Ambient temperature is raised by convection and to a smaller degree conduction. CO2 absorbing IR radiation does not raise the ambient temperature. What is considered a greenhouse effect is its reemitting of the same IR radiation towards the ground. This effect has not been proven to be realistic. It cannot be demonstrated by experimentation in labs, at least not yet. Nobody has devised an appropriate experiment for that yet.

Nobody knows what made Venus the way it is. The premise that there is a greenhouse effect is too prevalent to consider other alternative explanations. Venus is not a proof of the greenhouse effect.

[Badger]

What part of America first don't you get? We're putting AMERICANS first.

Not the inhabitants of random islands that hate us anyways.

These EPA hoaxers are apparently crying  in the office. Maybe they will get fired!

Get a job

[Xing]

FFS, this is not a game. If we don't address climate change seriously, MILLIONS of lives will be at stake from flooding, an increase in natural disasters, and droughts. When Bernie Sanders claimed that climate change is a moral issue, he was absolutely right. I'll say it: Ignoring climate change, or worse yet, trying to suppress information about it is morally unacceptable. Trump is endangering the entire planet, and for what? So that he can claim that he's "telling off" us lefties? Yeah, totally a good cause. I'm sure that the millions of people who either die or become refugees from global flooding will be very understanding, since pissing off liberals is totally worth f***ing over the planet. Conservatives, if there is one issue where I beg you to consider pushing back against Trump, it is climate change. This is much bigger than any of us, and denying reality for the sake of political expediency is wrong. You know that.

Nobody is trying to suppress information. Quite the opposite.

We are no longer going to allow domination of only one school of thought, suppressing the dissenting voices. There will no longer be an official truth. A dogma imposed on everybody at the pain of social exclusion.

Provable facts are not dogma. I can't claim that 2+2=5 is just as valid of a school of thought as 2+2=4, and accuse people of saying otherwise of dominating the narrative with dogma. Among those who have studied climate science, there is no debate. The debate is on how severe climate change will  be, which is partially contingent on the choices we make.

We can debate how to address climate change, which policies are the most effective, and how to prepare for the impact of it. What we should not be debating are scientific facts, which do not change based on how we feel or which political party believes them to be true. The reality of climate change is not contingent upon what Donald Trump claims about it.

It is not provable. You are completely dogmatized.


Let me quote from one of the articles provided by Arch:


How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.



As you can see, even the scientist proposed by Arch cannot prove any of that. He has not been able to devise an experiment that would prove causation. The most he can claim is correlation and then challenge everybody else to come up with a better correlation.

I am sorry, but that's not science.

Why don't you look up the definition of "dogma" before hurling insults? If I said that climate change was real regardless of evidence or findings, that would be dogma. And if scientists were to find a cooling trend over the next five years, a reduction in CO2 in the atmosphere, and an abrupt end to the trend of polar ice caps melting at increasingly high rates in the summer, they'd have to seriously rework their theory at the least, and skeptics would have a lot of evidence on their side. And indeed, it's one thing to be skeptical of climate change, and believe that projections of the impact of climate change are overblown. It's another to call climate change a hoax, and call for the deletion of information relevant to it. That attitude is much closer to what we would call "dogma."

The sad truth is that recent findings suggest that initial projections about the impact of climate change may actually be too conservative, and consequences could be more severe than expected. These projections are estimates, that is true, but if your only evidence backing by up your position is a argument over the semantics of the word "prove", you may need to rethink your position. If Trump said tomorrow that climate change is real and serious, would you suddenly find yourself embracing that position instead?