Neil deGrasse Tyson shuts down climate change deniers

a reply to: Euphem

What the point of cleaning up if people continue to pump more fossil fuel waste? You know how most plastic are made right?

First people need to admit we have fossil fuel addiction and its causing us and the world problem.

We lower the consumption, the world will eventually clean itself.

originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Didn't realize he was a climate scientist. I'm a computer scientist, I have the same level of qualifications to discuss climate change

Lol what? He is an astrophysicist. pretty close to climate science... computer science is not even "real" science... its like political science.

The Sun will continue to get hotter and hotter as it ages, we cannot do anything to stop it.

of course it will, we are just making it faster. We can do something, not burn fossil fuels like its paper.

Instead of spending and taxing based on the carbon religion

yeah, not everyone who are for protecting the earth also loves taxing. but we have deniers who deny just because they think it will tax them. people deny science because of their political affiliations.

Computer science is far more important and pervasive than astrophysics, do you think that PC you are typing on came out of nowhere?

They are already taxing us and making moves to crush America's industrialization. Did you not see what Obama is pushing this week?

No one is denying science, we are questioning the "establishment" because their science does not meet the scientific standard. It is akin to back in the day when 97% of the scientist on the planet thought that the planet was flat. Absurdity at is absolute finest. When scientists believe something with a religious fervor, they seem to discount any evidence that refutes their beliefs.

I suggest you use some critical thinking and do some research on your own. I mean we are talking about a small increase in plant food. What is the perfect level of carbon dioxide in your opinion? What temperature do you think the Earth should be? When anyone can answer those to questions I will be happy to give their theories another look.

the earth will take care of itself, it will take a few thousand years to do it, but earth will come back into balance. humans on the other hand are in for a much more difficult time

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I totally agree with you 100%!

Climate Change, AGW etc etc are not good motivators.

However if you say. We need to clean up our act and reduce emissions because we are poisoning our environment and show them this.

www.chinahush.com...



People will jump onto that bad wagon quick to reduce our pollution and curb it's effects on us.

a reply to: Kali74

I am sorry, but I am confused as to what point you are trying to make with your reply. Did I say CO2 was not a greenhouse gas? Did I say the solar output has changed much during the last few hundred years?

I appreciate your effort, but wobble does not directly effect mean surface temperature. If you are talking about cyclical wobble and the change on particular seasons sure. Summers in the future will be hotter in the northern hemisphere due to wobble and winters colder. What was your point here?

Climate change is NOT AGW. I have never met someone who says that climate doesn't change or isn't changing. Nobody believes that, even the most hardcore bible banging science haters don't believe that. So when someone starts a thread titled Neil deGrasse Tyson shuts down climate change deniers, I will call them on it.

It turned from global warming deniers now to climate change deniers and they ARE different. Denying climate change is ignorant and is used to mislead and discredit people.

When people deny global warming it is implied AGW they are denying. If you can't understand that difference than we have no further point in talking.

I think to this when I hear about all these articles that "PROVE" global warming or massive man made climate change being proven.



Also like the poster above me, no one denies climate change. The only thing the entire world and the scientific community is in agreement with is that climate change exists. No one denies the ice ages followed by temperate periods.

All those surveys to scientists that are later reported to show a 98% consensus on man made global warming ask IF SOME CLIMATE CHANGE happens because of man. NOT if man causes climate change or if it is conclusive or even provable. HUGE difference.

SO, Neil deGrasse Tyson needs to take it down a notch. He has done nothing more than what was already been done. More BS lacking any provable examples of massive man made climate change requiring a more concerted effort in response(throw public money at it). The only thing we should do is not act like its the freaking end of times.

Tyson is a credible scientist and more than that he's a good communicator, in the vein of Sagan and even Hawking. Hawking's books explaining very complex theories are very accessible to the common man. Nye, who is not a scientist, is another really good communicator of science.

I quote an article by Robert Gonzalez here that sums up why I believe, although believe isn't really the right word, with Man made global warming and the scientific consensus.

In reviewing more than 2,000 peer-reviewed publications, authored by over 9,000 authors between November 2012 and December 2013, geochemist James Powell found just one author who rejected global warming.

Writes Powell, inviting others to replicate his findings:


Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish—all of it if they like. Download an Excel database of the 2,258 articles here. It includes the title, document number, and Web of Science accession number. Scan the titles to identify articles that might reject man-made global warming. Then use the DOI or WoS accession number to find and read the abstracts of those articles, and where necessary, the entire article. If you find any candidates that I missed, please email me here.

That the number of authors agreeing with human-accelerated global warming comes in at over nine-thousand(!) is arguably less surprising than the almost total lack of cogent counter-positioning. As SciAm's Ashutosh Jogalekar puts it:


Isn't it remarkable that among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred out of ten thousand come forward to deny the phenomenon in the scientific literature? Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough? Even detractors of the peer review system would disagree that the system is that broken; after all, studies challenging consensus are quite common in other disciplines. So are contrarian climate scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science? The belief stretches your imagination to new lengths.

a reply to: amazing

geochemist James Powell found just one author who rejected global warming.

He should of tried harder. Thats BS. There are plenty that dont agree. Here is one I found on solar irradiation /carbon dioxide and I am noone at all. All I see is intellectual dishonesty.

Please....1 paper? What was it the only one in his house? There are MULTITUDES of papers saying that man made global warming is not possible. Others greatly diminish the impact of mans role while agreeing. Others still attribute it all to other factors ranging from volcanoes, to solar radiation to the earths magnetic field to a whole host of other factors. The only ones who seem to say they have proven it yet cant win that pesky nobel prize for doing what no one has been able to yet are those who are earsty for more grant money and are increasingly dishonest to that end.

Scientists, writing in the journals Science and Nature, have recently pointed out that the tropospheric temperature is not increasing, but is decreasing. Contrary to the predictions made by scientists linking the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with the warming of the atmosphere, the observations clearly show that the link is extremely weak or that it does not exist, and that the hypothesis on the effect of greenhouse gases (GHG) is scientifically incorrect and cannot explain the current state of the global climate.

I have written a peer reviewed paper on the impossibility of carbon dioxide causing global warming. I have also written another peer reviewed paper on the correlation of the Solar Irradiance and the Variation of Atmospheric Temperatures (VAT) where I refer to the evidence on the influence of solar activity on tropospheric temperature and the global climate since the medieval period to the present. Further assessments have been carried out by solar physicists to correct and calibrate the 2001 databases on the Intensity of Solar Irradiance (i.e. Lean. (2004), Preminger (2005) and Svalgaard (2007)). In this paper, I compare the calibrated databases of TSI with the new databases of VAT since 1610 AD to date and since 1700 AD to date. The TSI databases were provided by Dr. Judith Lean from NOAA. The VAT databases were provided by Dr. Craig Loehle and UAH.

www.biocab.org...

www.biocab.org...

www.biocab.org...

a reply to: tadaman

But he lists out how he did his work and how to replicate his search to find out for yourself. Maybe there is a few more maybe even a hundred more, but that would still be a pretty sizeable consensus. I don't see this as dishonest.

But furthermore, I see this type of article daily. All kinds of graphs and articles and statements and counter arguments and discussions and letters and papers etc. This isn't just about one guy, It's everyone.

a reply to: amazing

maybe, but I dont see it as everyone or most who agree. That is another incorrect assessment either willing or not, but still erroneous. I would say its 50/50 among scientists as is reflected by the population at large.

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

www.forbes.com...

a reply to: tadaman

It's way more than that with climatologists. Those scientists that only study the earths climate as a group are well over 90% agreed that we are experiencing man made global warming. Usually they say 97%, but I'll give you 7% as a gift.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: eriktheawful

I probably shouldn't talk science before morning caffeine. I'm on my phone headed to work but briefly I think it has more to do with the poles and the equator. I think my overall point stands though lol.

Hey! I'm right there with ya on that! COFFEE before I even open my mouth or try to think! heheheheeh



I'm pretty sure you meant how much sun falling at different angles at different places on the Earth, and what is under that sun light at those angles.

The Earth's "wobble" does change where that happens slowly over time (with a 26,000 year cycle). The good news is that our moon helps anchor us so that our axis doesn't wobble a lot more than it does.

However, we do have something that other planets in our solar system do not have: LOTS of liquid water on our surface, and plate tectonics.

I remember reading a paper (which I can't find now, been looking for it, so that's a bit frustrating), talking about the frequency of ice ages in our planet's distance past with a relation to the Earth's land masses moving around. The main thrust of the paper was that at times when our planet has land masses that form a super continent (like the last one, Pangea), that having the Earth's surface configured that way helped trigger ice ages more often. Or so they were theorizing (must stress that).

I often wonder if having the continent of Antarctica where it is now, helps act more like a heat sink, since it is harder for warmer ocean currents to melt ice that is on land than of course along it's coast or ice packs like at our north pole.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure that is what you meant: that the Earth's wobble can affect where the oblique sunlight is over long periods of time, and as water vs. land both heat and cool differently.

a reply to: amazing

it's way more than that with climatologists

Look above. My last post addressed the 97% consensus. It is not an agreement on MASSIVE MAN MADE climate change. We all agree that climate change happens. The divide is among those who argue the extent of mans impact and the extent of natural factors being the over all driving force. The abstracts of over 12000 papers dealing with climate change were looked at. They werent looking at like microbiology papers or something. The results of the study were doctored since they didnt define the parameters honestly. SOME climate change caused by man is not MOST climate change driven by man. The scientific community and especially climatologists are not in agreement on that one.

That my friend is still 50/50. NOT 97% consensus. Just read what I posted.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: amazing

Look above. My last post addressed the 97% consensus. It is not an agreement on MASSIVE MAN MADE climate change. We all agree that climate change happens. The divide is among those who argue the extent of mans impact and the extent of natural factors being the over all driving force. The abstracts of over 12000 papers dealing with climate change were looked at. The results of the study were doctored since they didnt define the parameters honestly. SOME climate change caused by man is not MOST climate change driven by man. The scientific community is not in agreement on that one.

That my friend is still 50/50. NOT 97% consensus. Just read what I posted.

Well maybe you're right, but then what about this From NASA with statements and links from hundreds of scientific organizations that have concluded that man made global warming is real? I mean, I have to go with science and not your skeptical link or Cook or Gore or Skeptical Science but with real science and scientists and scientific organizations.

Are we then at an impasse?

climate.nasa.gov...


Just editing to add for clarity on my position. I don't just read liberal or alarmist or popular blogs or left leaning eco friendly environmental sites and articles and I definitely oppose new taxes. Just looking for truth and I'm putting my faith in real scientists from multiple sources.

a reply to: tadaman

You keep posting the same guy and article, but have you searched and read what was available on the net about him?

Nasif S. Nahle

Citizen's challenge...

There is a conversation at the bottom:

citizenschallenge said...
Nahle, I was not examining your personality!

I was examining the various search results for your work… which seem to all track back to your own handy work.

Then I was pointing out how easy it is to convince anyone of anything if you control all the information sources. It's what I call "Science in a Vacuum."

Case in point, you are ignoring my points A and B. Why not respond to them? Rather than hand waving. And instead of inviting me to investigate the 'substance' of "Your" science - why not show me where you've summited your science to accepted experts to have them look at your work?

What do they have to say?
April 5, 2014 at 9:40 AM

a reply to: amazing

I guess we are at an impasse. I think the links I provided were not biased and were based on sound science and the facts at hand. NASA has several departments and thousands of people working for them with different specialties and fields of work. Those in NASA dealing with the suns weather argue that solar irradiance is causing the temperature of the entire solar system to fluctuate for example. Thats just one department out of MANY. Who do we trust? The guys looking for more money out of an already feeble budget that are themselves heavily underfunded and are constantly at risk of unemployment?

Have a good one.

a reply to: LDragonFire

I could post a conversation you had here on ATS and catch you on a bad day. That wouldt say much. I dont see what you posted as being more than hearsay.

Is there a factual argument backed by science and math that can be contested? Flaws with method? What? A conversation that the guy didnt feel like entertaining? LOL

I post his work because I agree with it. You can post who ever you agree with or your own work in the subject if you like.

We are now at 400ppm CO2 and the trend is still rising. This is a result of human industrialization.

What I really like about Cosmos is how Tyson attacked junk pseudo science that many industries pull to keep selling a dangerous/harmful product. It happened with lead in gasoline and it continues to happen today.

originally posted by: jrod
We are now at 400ppm CO2 and the trend is still rising. This is a result of human industrialization.

What I really like about Cosmos is how Tyson attacked junk pseudo science that many industries pull to keep selling a dangerous/harmful product. It happened with lead in gasoline and it continues to happen today.

Just like big tobacco.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: coastlinekid
CO2 is our friend... the earth's plants need it by the way... as for humans making the earth warm up?... Doubt it...

In years that followed, Idso and his colleagues at Arizona State University's Office of Climatology received more than $1 million in research funding from oil, coal, and utility interests. In 1990, he coauthored a paper funded by a coal mining company, titled "Greenhouse Cooling."

Source
Guy and his dad were corporate big oil stooges that have no credibility, published peer reviewed papers, and are clearly on the dole.
Bit like having Ronald McDonald explain to you why McDonalds makes great diet food...

There is no credibility period, on either side. One side is funded by fossil fuels and the other side is funded by government. You can't trust either one to tell you the truth because they both have an agenda. You mention Idso received millions from big oil, well, every other AGCC priest is receiving billions (collectively) from governments and foundations promoting AGCC.

A little common sense goes a long way;

1. If you cut down huge swaths of jungle and forest, CO2 isn't going to be absorbed at the same rate
2. If you pollute the oceans, your going to lose 90% of your capacity to absorb CO2 and produce oxygen
3. Temperature rise is the precursor for a lack or reduction of CO2 absorption
4. If you prevent nature from performing automatic compensation through its CO2 feedback loop (by reducing growing space and destroying oceans) CO2 levels will rise, but more importantly, so will methane and water in the atmosphere.

As far as someone's comment that we have been causing change for 60 years, BS! We have have been polluting in increasing levels since the start of the industrial revolution, what's that, a few hundred years? If we are the major cause, which is unlikely and a BIG IF, we are probably well past the tipping point, a few hundred years is a long time.

Personally, and I think many share the same view, I believe we are experiencing anomalous climate change, I just don't believe we as a species are the cause. So hopefully we can agree to disagree on the cause of the potential problem, but still admit there is a problem and work towards a solution, however frivolous that attempted fix may be.

Tyson, like all "good" shills, is playing the party line and he has a platform, bought and paid for by the priests of AGCC. What Tyson didn't tell you is that in "his" model, Venus had an eco system and the SUN was increasing its output in an almost linear fashion, the SUN drove the temperature increase system on Venus, NOT CO2, CO2 was a symptom. His job is to rationalize the party's story line and to cause a mix of fear and guilt to make everyone more pliable to the idea that we as a species are at fault in order to separate us from our "guilt" dollars. The AGCC priests would probably get a greater and more rational response by simply stating that temperature increases caused by X, Y and Z are driving increased CO2 retention, plus our portion and that we have to grow trees, clean the ocean to fix the problem and find an alternative energy source that does not produce heat as a byproduct. It still fits into their tax rape program and gives people a common cause and an enemy in X, Y and Z, rather than all of us.

However, the present AGCC approach uses guilt to drive the process, eg. we are our own enemy, and therefore reduces the chances that anyone will question the use of tax funds that drives their program of engorging the few and hiding any research into alternative energy (which has been happening for a long time). The alternate approach I suggest would hopefully produce public oversight which would at least steer the bulk of the tax money into alternative energy development.

I can play both sides of this argument, so let's look at us as well.

The one thing everyone seems to not be looking at, is that pretty much all energy produces heat, either deliberately or as a byproduct. If we increase the amount of energy we generate as a species, it is possible that the heat we are producing is helping to drive anomalous weather. So, we have to reduce energy consumption, not CO2 emissions. That seems the real problem, the earth has a finite energy value as a semi-closed system. If you increase the total energy content of the earth, you get temperature increase and global warming, if you remove energy, you get temperature drop and a global ice age.

This brings about a problem with alternative energy, Boeing, I think it was, had the "brilliant" idea of using large orbiters that converted solar radiation to microwaves and beaming it down to the earth for conversion back to electricity, fun huh! And a total injection of external energy that would not normally hit the planet, thereby driving global temperature increase. Let's say someone could make a zero point energy device and then marketed the hell out of it, again, external energy, not part of the original system and therefore a net energy increase and subsequent global temperature increase.

If we want to fix the energy problem of the earth, we have to fix our energy consumption and the way we produce energy plus rectify any additional external energy influences, eg. the SUN, and to do at least part of that, we have to get rid of the rich that drive rabid consumerism, get rid of governments that drive the agendas of the rich and all move to the tropics so the only time we use energy is to cook food. It's not about CO2, it's about heat.

Cheers - Dave