ClimateSanity
New member
From what I've read, only about 2% of climate papers make a judgement that mankind is mainly responsible for global warming
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric (Electric Universe Theory)
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
There is a valid appeal to authority. It is only a fallacy if it is an invalid appeal to authority. Such as, the authority is not really an authority. That's invalid. Also, if the authority is a bona fide authority, but they diverge with most of their peers; that's also an invalid appeal, and a fallacy.
gcthomas
New member
That's more than I expected, since most climate papers are about untangling mechanism and making measurements rather than being about climate change specifically.
But what fraction of passports about "climate change" come in to the yes, no, or don't know yet camps? 2% of something irrelevant is still an irrelevancy. As you could guess, an author not mentioning climate change in a paper nor about climate change doesn't tell us that they haven't decided yet.
Right Divider
Body part
You have no idea what the fallacy of the appeal to authority is.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority
Logical Form:
According to person 1, Y is true.
Therefore, Y is true.
ClimateSanity
New member
One of the papers assigned by the Cook et al 2103 as definitely on the AGW side was by scaffeta. Here is what he had to say about his actual position in response to a email written to him:
ClimateSanity
New member
Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.
By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."
Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.
What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.
They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.
Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the "+") of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.
And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006."
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.
By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."
Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.
What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.
They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.
Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the "+") of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.
And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006."
I get that global warming is your favorite topic but can you not discuss this on threads that are intended for that purpose? One of the reasons I wanted to start this thread on the topic of the Electric Universe is the fact that I don't think there has ever been a thread on this topic before. It's something new to discuss and something that, if people would be just half way intellectual honest, would be rather interesting and rather challenging on an intellectual level for anyone on either side of the issue. Why on Earth does any thread on any topic that even seems a little science related always have to get hijacked by evolution and global warming? Go discuss that in one of the million other threads where that's the intended topic.
Clete
gcthomas
New member
And further down on the same page, which you neglected to mention, is
"Exception: Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument. "
Did you hope no one would check the authority you were appealing to to support your assertions? Haha.
Right Divider
Body part
Nope. That's you.
There is a valid appeal to authority.
"Logical Form:
"According to [named authority], Y is true.
"[Named authority] is a legitimate authority, in the field in which the appeal is made
"[Named authority] claims what the vast majority of the field claims
"The field is substantially unified on the point in question"
It's the weakest of arguments, but it is not a fallacy.
A short statement giving the gist of each video has been added to the opening post.
That is not the form of the arguments in question.
The form of argument is...
According to [named authority], Y is true.
Therefore Y is true.
That is what almost everyone who believes that the United States is causing global warming or that we evolved from inanimate matter created in super novas. They don't believe in these things because the science supports it but because scientists support it. There is a difference. That difference being that the latter is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. It happens to be the same error that most Christian make when they believe in things like predestination and immutability. They believe what the man behind the pulpit preaches. In the case of science, its just a different pulpit with different preachers, preaching a different religion.
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
:thumb:
Thanks. I'll read them.
For people who don't get the science, that's probably true. And it's no different than letting your accountant work out the best tax strategy for you, even if you don't understand all the details.
However, any elements heavier than iron are made in supernova explosions, so there's really no point in denying the fact.
It's more religious or mysterious than when my accountant tells me that I should have about $20,000 in cash readily available for emergencies. It's not that hard to understand his thinking, and evidence for his opinion.
It's different when you (anyone) shows up to debate scientific issues.
I totally deny it. It isn't true and no one - NO ONE - has proven it nor do they have the means to do so. If you think otherwise, you'd better think again. Everything you think are facts about the ways stars work is 100% pure theory based almost entirely on mathematics and computer modeling rather than observational and experimental science. Science today is about putting a theory together and then going to look for evidence to confirm it. Calling such things facts is proof that you are indeed guilty of the very fallacy we are discussing.
Your analogy is flawed in several ways. First of all opinions about how much of your money should allotted to what investments is just that, an opinion. 50 different accountants could all say something different and none of them be wrong, whether you understand their reasoning or not. Science is not about opinions.
Further, accountants (i.e. non-criminal ones) act as a fiduciary. In other words, they act in your best interests rather than their own. Scientists have no such fiduciary responsibility and very often act in the best interest of their own careers.
Clete
P.S. To clarify, I deny that all the heavy elements came exclusively from super-nova explosions. There may well be observational evidence that super-novas produce such elements but going from that to saying that all heavy elements that exist were created in this manner is going much further than the evidence can support and is, at best, speculation.
Barbarian observes:
However, any elements heavier than iron are made in supernova explosions, so there's really no point in denying the fact.
It's directly observed to happen. We can see it in such explosions, and we can also see what elements are in other stars. Nothing heavier than iron, unless there's a supernova.
And we can now experiment with energies similar to those found in supernovae, and it turns out that yes, that's how heavier elements are made. Everything up to iron can be formed in ordinary stars by fusion. That's how they shine.
No. We observe starts and we can tell what elements are in them. And we can experiment with the sorts of forces that go on in those stars and see what elements are produced.
Show us your evidence that it happens in a different way, aside from lab experiments.
However, any elements heavier than iron are made in supernova explosions, so there's really no point in denying the fact.
It's directly observed to happen. We can see it in such explosions, and we can also see what elements are in other stars. Nothing heavier than iron, unless there's a supernova.
And we can now experiment with energies similar to those found in supernovae, and it turns out that yes, that's how heavier elements are made. Everything up to iron can be formed in ordinary stars by fusion. That's how they shine.
No. We observe starts and we can tell what elements are in them. And we can experiment with the sorts of forces that go on in those stars and see what elements are produced.
Show us your evidence that it happens in a different way, aside from lab experiments.
Why would lab experiments be exempted?
Doesn't matter.
You are wrong. They do NOT know that most of the heavier elements are made in supernova explosions. They just don't.
This is what about fifteen minutes of searching the internet on the subject will get you...
From an article entitle "Nucleosynthesis" on a NASA website...
"Our Sun is currently burning, or fusing, hydrogen to helium. This is the process that occurs during most of a star's lifetime. After the hydrogen in the star's core is exhausted, the star can burn helium to form progressively heavier elements, carbon and oxygen and so on, until iron and nickel are formed. Up to this point the process releases energy. The formation of elements heavier than iron and nickel requires the input of energy. Supernova explosions result when the cores of massive stars have exhausted their fuel supplies and burned everything into iron and nickel. The nuclei with mass heavier than nickel are thought to be formed during these explosions."
From an article entitled, "New insight into atomic nuclei may explain how supernovas formed elements crucial to humankind", published May 2012 on ScienceDaily.com
Astrophysicists have believed that half the elements which are heavier than iron were formed in gigantic star explosions, known as supernovas.
However, there is one little snag with this theory: Astrophysicists have huge problems to make computer simulations of a supernova.
"Once the core cannot be compressed any further, the compressed matter must expand again in a gigantic explosion, or supernova. This is where the heavy elements of the universe may have been formed."
However, there is one little snag with this theory: Astrophysicists have huge problems to make computer simulations of a supernova.
"Once the core cannot be compressed any further, the compressed matter must expand again in a gigantic explosion, or supernova. This is where the heavy elements of the universe may have been formed."
From an article describing the findings of the Chandra X-Ray observatory observations of Cassiopeia A...
A comparison of the illustration and the Chandra element map shows clearly that most of the iron, which according to theoretical models of the pre-supernova was originally on the inside of the star, is now located near the outer edges of the remnant. Surprisingly, there is no evidence from X-ray (Chandra) or infrared (Spitzer Space Telescope) observations for iron near the center of the remnant, where it was formed. Also, much of the silicon and sulfur, as well as the magnesium, is now found toward the outer edges of the still-expanding debris. The distribution of the elements indicates that a strong instability in the explosion process somehow turned the star inside out.
Note the automatic dismissal of contrary evidence to their theory. Their theory wasn't wrong, the star, in violation of every law of physics know to us, turned inside out "somehow".
Also from the same article...
Tallying up what they see in the Chandra data, astronomers estimate that the total amount of X-ray emitting debris has a mass just over three times that of the Sun. This debris was found to contain about 0.13 times the mass of the Sun in iron, 0.03 in sulfur and only 0.01 in magnesium.
Again, there isn't enough time to account for even all the iron in the universe, never mind all the other heavier elements. In fact, it wasn't until 2013 that evidence of phosphorus, a substance needed for life as we know it to exist, was detected in a supernova for the first time. That discovery was also made during observations of Cas A.
From a caption under a NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day...
Where did the gold in your jewelry originate? No one is completely sure. The relative average abundance in our Solar System appears higher than can be made in the early universe, in stars, and even in typical supernova explosions. Some astronomers have recently suggested that neutron-rich heavy elements such as gold might be most easily made in rare neutron-rich explosions such as the collision of neutron stars.
I wonder how many neutron star collisions happen per year in a Milky Way sized galaxy?
And I could go on for quite some time. Such things are easy to find if you're looking for them.
Maybe supernovas do produce all the heavy elements! I seriously doubt it because I think that large portions of the whole theoretical paradigm is flawed but I could be wrong about that. The point here is that the observational evidence that you thought existed for most of the heavy elements being formed in supernova explosions just does not exist. The idea stems mostly from mathematical theories and computer models that even astrophysicist will readily admit have failed to realistically recreate what is seen in telescopes and ALL of which almost totally ignore electromagnetic forces and rely instead almost entirely on gravity and the heat of nuclear fusion to account for the forces involved in stellar evolution and the energies needed to form heavier elements. If you allow electromagnetism to add energy to the system, (the electric force is trillions of trillions of trillions times stronger than gravity - about 1033 times stronger than gravity) you wouldn't need a supernova explosion to account for the energy required to form these heavier elements.
Incidentally, there is a whole list of ad hoc assumptions scientists make that would no longer be necessary if the electric force were not discounted to the extent that it is. The theories surrounding things like Dark Matter and Dark Energy, black holes, neutron stars and pulsars and even comets and impact craters are all based on a gravity-centric paradigm that is not supported by observational evidence. In fact, quite the contrary, there is plenty of falsifying evidence as these videos have and will continue to present.
Clete
Last edited:
For those of you think that the EU is just a bunch of unpublished science hacks...
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/09/07/peer-review-of-plasma-cosmology/
Note that the above article was posted more than 6 years ago.
In fact, if any of you want a relatively short primer on the sort of thinking you'll find in the Electric Universe community presented in a published paper read this...
On Gravity-centric Cosmology and the Implications of a Universe Awash with Plasma by David Smith - The Open Astronomy Journal, 2011, 4, (Suppl 2-M2) 165-179
Clete
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/09/07/peer-review-of-plasma-cosmology/
Note that the above article was posted more than 6 years ago.
In fact, if any of you want a relatively short primer on the sort of thinking you'll find in the Electric Universe community presented in a published paper read this...
On Gravity-centric Cosmology and the Implications of a Universe Awash with Plasma by David Smith - The Open Astronomy Journal, 2011, 4, (Suppl 2-M2) 165-179
Clete
Because we can, by applying energies similar to those in supernovae, produce heavier elements. Where, other than supernovae, does this happen.
Matters a lot. We see only one way in nature that heavier elements form. If you believe it happens otherwise, show us your evidence.
We observe them being formed in supernovae. We can analyze the composition of stars, and elements heavier than iron only form in those explosions. And, as I pointed out, if we apply those kinds of energies to atoms, we can make heavier elements.
https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/making-new-elements
So we've observed heavy elements being made in supernova explosions. We've been able to duplicate that process in the lab by applying the same energies to matter, so we know it works.
This is like the engineer, who analyzed the flight of bumblebees, and concluded that it was impossible for them to fly. The bumblebees weren't in the least concerned with the theoretical problems in bumblebee flight; they continued to fly anyway. Likewise, supernovae really aren't affected by the fact that we don't know exactly how those elements form; they continue to do it, in spite of the theoretical difficulties.
Incidentally, the bumblebee problem was solved when entemologists discovered tiny pads of resylin under the "levers" that move the wings. Resylin returns almost 100% of the energy used to compress it, thereby moving the wings for the return stroke with almost no energy expended.
And no supernova will pay the least mind. It will continue to produce heavy elements.
As the bumblebee paradigm was flawed. But bumblebees and supernovae go on, completely unconcerned.
Astronomers watch them being made in such explosions. Reality trumps any theoretical issues. Do you understand how we can tell what elements are being made?
We observe heavy elements being made in such explosions. Do you have any evidence whatever for them being made in nature, some other way?