ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Catastrophism and Scientology

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Mimsey Borogrove, Dec 30, 2018.

  1. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    You went to the smear sites ... of course. And you found lots of stuff that agrees with your beliefs. Of course.

    But you didn't go to the "evil denier sites" I provided links to.
    You want to "discuss evidence" without reading any sites that might have, you know, evidence.

    You expect me, or anyone, to explain things in a few simple sentences where experts have written extensive papers refuting the alarmist creed.

    If you really want facts, you might start here: Four Reasons Alarmists Are Wrong on Climate Change
    And here is a nice list of articles refuting some alarmist claims one by one: Category Archives: Climate Change
    And, of course, those "evil denier sites" I mentioned before.

    Then we'd have something to discuss.

    EDIT: And, if you detect I'm a little annoyed, it's because I hate hypocrisy. You say "I am always interested in facts" and say you want to "discuss evidence" but categorically refuse to even look at skeptic sites.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  2. Teanntás

    Teanntás Silver Meritorious Patron

    "financial backing from the fossil fuel mob" You do know that the 'climate deniers' are funded with mere pennies compared with the alarmists? What is the 'fossil fuel mob'?
    Bill likes this.
  3. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    IDK anything about global warming as to how dire and all that but clean, non polluting fuel sources should be sought anyway. That just makes sense. I don't know how practical or feasible it is but it should be sought.

    The whole issue I have with global warming (now it's conveniently climate change) is the crowd it's popular in and how it's pushed.

    The same group for socialism, abortion, affirmative action, open borders, no guns, big government, common core, LGBQTIA stuff, Islam, welfare, tax everything, minimum wage, white privilege, male privilege, rape culture, systemic racism, intersectionality, STEM as misogynistic, standpoint theory, anti Christian, anti capitalist, multiculturalism, diversity, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, PETA, wealth distribution, healthcare as a right, education as a right, housing as a right, guaranteed federal wage are wrong, dead wrong on every point above in this paragraph are the ones supporting and pushing the global warming agenda.

    Is it a case where a broken clock is right twice a day or is this another unfounded herd panic like the current gender psychosis?
    Dulloldfart and Bill like this.
  4. Mike Holland

    Mike Holland Patron

    But you haven't told me anything I didn't already know, and you have told me nothing to support your case.

    Yes, 0.03% of the atmosphere doesn't sound like much, but so what? Your conclusion is worthless until you have done the physics and mathematics to back it up. According to the computer modelling, the increase in CO2 over the past 150 years is enough to explain the warming trend.

    Of course volcanos affect the weather, causing cooling that can last up to a year or two. But only the occasional major ones have that effect. Volcanoes do not account for the background gradual warming. Volcanoes release 200-300 megatons of CO2 per annum. Through coal-driven power generators, land clearance, etc, humans are responsible for 38 billion tons of CO2. That is the figure for 2017, and it is going up. So we produce much more than a hundred times what the volcanoes produced.

    The sunspot cycle and its affect on weather is well recorded over millions of years in tree rings and lake varves. I had thought that it was just due to fluctuations in the suns radiation, but now I have learned of the link from sunspots through coronal holes, solar wind and geomagnetism. But that makes no difference to the case. The Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing for the last 200 years, so it would be interesting if someone could show that this could be a cause of global warming (but I would insist on some maths and data to support it). Adding in the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does explain it, according to the computer models.

    I get tired of people criticising the computer modelling. If they don't like what the computers are saying, then they had better show where the computers are going wrong (input data, programming, physics?), show how this would invalidate the results, and then produce a better computer model (and prove that theirs is better). It is not good enough to just say the programmers are ignoring facts. Evidence is required. The whole subject is so complicated that I don't believe there is any way to sort it out except through computers which can handle the voluminous data and tremendous calculations.
  5. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Prove to me that Global Warming is primarily human caused.
  6. Teanntás

    Teanntás Silver Meritorious Patron

    "I don't believe there is any way to sort it out except through computers which can handle the voluminous data and tremendous calculations." If the computers forecasting continually get it wrong then the hypothesis must be wrong.
  7. Mike Holland

    Mike Holland Patron

    Bill, there is a simple cause and effect sequence. The current heating trend (and by that I mean heating that is not caused by any of the other known factors (seasons, precession cycles, etc) started around 1850, which just happens to coincide with the start of the industrial age and coal burning on a massive scale. Burning coal adds CO2 to the atmosphere, and we know that CO2 causes heat to be trapped in the atmosphere. We have countless measurements of all the other factors that release CO2, volcanoes, farting, etc, and our contribution is by far the greatest, more than 100 times all the volcanoes put together (including undersea ones).

    There are other contributions which follow on from the warming. The tundra permafrost holds about a third of the world's soil bound CO2, and this will be released as the tundra warms. The ocean is another great store of CO2, and it has been releasing CO2 as it warms up. The melting of the Arctic ice cap has exposed water which absorbs the suns rays causing further heating.

    So while some natural processes are helping us along in this process, all the evidence points to us being the ones who started it, and still being the major contributors.

    If you can find a fault in the sequence - "we release carbon - carbon blocks heat radiation - the earth gets hotter" please let me know. And if you have an alternative explanation for the heat levels rising, I would love to hear that too.

    Over the past two years just about every temperature record in Australia has been broken. But of course that is just one large island. I haven't seen figures on how other countries are faring, but there seem to be a lot more hurricanes and tornadoes.
  8. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    As a main overall indicator, I pay attention to the polar ice caps.
  9. Mike Holland

    Mike Holland Patron

    '"I don't believe there is any way to sort it out except through computers which can handle the voluminous data and tremendous calculations." If the computers forecasting continually get it wrong then the hypothesis must be wrong.'

    First question. In what way are the computer models wrong, and by how much? Of course they will be wrong. We just don't have all the climate data to feed in, and we can't write a mathematical equation to correctly process all the data we have and come out with a correct prediction. So all the various factors of solar radiation, orbital mechanics, air flow at various altitudes, ocean currents, land features - lakes, mountains, have to be approximated, and different weightings given to then. This is why supercomputers are required, and why the programs are repeatedly refined and rerun. The models have to match up to the past as well as predict the future, and all the predictions have levels of confidence and ranges in their predictions.

    But computers are the best we've got. There is no other possible approach to the voluminous data and the complexity of climatology.
    DagwoodGum likes this.
  10. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Your suppositions are not proof. What I want you to do is prove that Global Warming is primarily caused by humans. Correlation does not prove causation.

    Did the increase in CO2 cause warming or did warming cause more CO2. It is known that warming does increase CO2 as permafrost melts. Can you prove which CO2 came from humans and which from any natural warming process? The increase in CO2 started, gradually, after the climate started warming. What about that? I need some proof here of what you are claiming.

    In addition to CO2, have you tracked all the other components in the atmosphere since 1850? How to they correlate? Which of those components affect temperature?

    You say "by that I mean heating that is not caused by any of the other known factors (seasons, precession cycles, etc). I'm sorry but I don't buy that. How can you claim to know all the possible factors? Are you an expert in climatology, geology, helioseismology, astronomy, etc.? Any and all of those are complex subjects that do affect this planet. Where is your proof that all these factors had no effect?

    The primary greenhouse gas, above all others by far, is water vapor. Changes in clouds has a huge effect on the climate. Prove that clouds have had minimal effect and human caused CO2 was predominant. How do you know?

    You've made a lot of claims but no proof. Correlation does not prove causation and your whole "proof" is correlation. Science (and proof) doesn't work like that.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019
  11. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    "First question. In what way are the computer models wrong, and by how much? Of course they will be wrong. We just don't have all the climate data to feed in, and we can't write a mathematical equation to correctly process all the data we have and come out with a correct prediction. So all the various factors of solar radiation, orbital mechanics, air flow at various altitudes, ocean currents, land features - lakes, mountains, have to be approximated, and different weightings given to then. This is why supercomputers are required, and why the programs are repeatedly refined and rerun. The models have to match up to the past as well as predict the future, and all the predictions have levels of confidence and ranges in their predictions."

    This is a silly argument.
    I posted a graph showing some 44 computer simulations were wrong - they erred on the high side. There is a later one that shows some 75 simulations that were equally wrong. All were equally too high.

    I also provided a link for a web page that goes into all of the inaccuracies in the data being used in their simulations.

    I don't think you understand computers very much. It's all in the programming. People write the programs to suit the parameters they are told to follow. If they are told to ignore certain information, then the computer gives bad results.

    Having a supercomputer won't get any better results if the programming is skewed. The classic computer meme: "garbage in = garbage out" says it all.

    But, I really am beginning to think you have a different agenda. I ran into this with another poster who apparently was born in Missouri, "the show me state", where he wanted me to expend hours upon hours providing him all manner of proof before he would deign to cast his gimlet eye over it, and pronounce it not up to his standards.

    Seriously - take the time to do some research. I provided a bunch of links as Bill has done. Do us all a favor and read them. Cast your preconceived ideas aside for a moment, and do you due diligence, and read them. Stop wasting our time, lest we wonder if you are a common, garden variety troll.

    Here's yet another one, packed full of recent scientific papers and graphs containing a plethora of data for you to peruse:

    200 Non-Hockey Stick Graphs Published Since 2017 Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented, Global-Scale Warming By Kenneth Richard on 22. March 2018

    During 2017, there were 150 graphs from 122 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals indicating modern temperatures are not unprecedented, unusual, or hockey-stick-shaped — nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019
  12. Mike Holland

    Mike Holland Patron

    I'm busy cooking my supper, so just a quick note on my background. I did my degree in physics and mathematics, and then spent a few years doing solid state research. Then I got into computers - more money. I started as a programmer, then got into software and finally became a senior systems engineer working for IBM. I am now 80 years old, and all my life I have studied science, and that includes astronomy, quantum mechanics, cosmology, geology, evolution, cell biology, plate tectonics, relativity, psychiatry, psychology, neurology, as well as philosophy and spiritualism/religion.
    My hobbies now are Scottish dancing, motor scooters (Vespas), model trains, science fiction and science.

    And just a note on science - nothing is ever proved. There is just the best theory until it is disproved or a better one comes along. I cannot prove anything. I can only present evidence. But I will read your analysis of computer simulations again before posting.
    DagwoodGum likes this.
  13. Mike Holland

    Mike Holland Patron

    OKL, had my supper and had my bath, but I had to get this off before going to bed.

    The link that shows how wrong the simulations are is a deceit. It compares the predictions against measurements in particular levels of the atmosphere, and then says global warming has stopped. Satellite measurements of the earth and ocean surface temperatures tell a very different story. These measurements agree extremely well with the models.

    Here is my reference. I have read yours, so I hope you will have the good grace to read mine too. This was just about the first thing I got when I googled "climate change models". I found the discussion about clouds most interesting, one of the hardest parts of climate modelling.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019
    Enthetan likes this.
  14. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    One alternate theory about climate has the Sun having an effect on Earth's climate.

    The Sun is variable. If you look at the historical records, the Sun goes through periods of high and low sunspot activity


    The Maunder Minimum happens just before the Little Ice Age. The Sun's sunspot activity is an indicator of the strength of the solar magnetic field. The Sun's magnetic field helps shield the solar system from cosmic rays (high energy charged particles from supernovae explosions). There is some research indicating that cosmic rays help cloud formation, which would affect how much sunlight gets reflected away. We will have a better indication in a few years.
  15. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    Since you are a software guy, you might appreciate the personal notes of the developer of the simulations for the Climate Research Unit, which were leaked as part of the "Climategate" emails some years back.

    His little diary talks about all his various frustrations with the crappy data he has to deal with, and massaging the data to fit the theory. When you have some time, read it. It gives insight into just how bad the data is, that they are basing their simulations on.
    Mimsey Borogrove likes this.
  16. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Well, that article was a response to a previous article, and judging from the comments section below it, it's not held in that high regard. For instance:

    Greg F at 13:34 PM on 11 September, 2007
    Look at plate 1 in Hansen's 88 paper, the model includes the oceans. Hansen's Scenario C is the one that most closely matches the "Land – Ocean" temperature.
    John Cook wrote:
    "A way to test the accuracy of models is through hindcasting - see whether they successfully predict what has been observed over the past century."
    Not true for any model. All that shows is they can fit the model to the history. That is beside the point as the IPCC does not claim that the models can predict anything.
    John Cook wrote:
    "The key point is that all the models fail to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account."
    Given enough "tunable parameters" that should come as no surprise. The modelers also assume that there is some positive feedback, there is no proof that this is the case. Here is one for you straight from the IPCC, Chapter 8, page 596:
    "The number of degrees of freedom in the tuneable parameters is less than the number of degrees of freedom in the observational constraints used in model evaluation."
    IOW, the models are nothing more then sophisticated curve fits.
    Calling the models "predictions" does not instill confidence that you have done your homework.

    Will Nitschke ( at 21:50 PM on 20 December, 2007
    Leaving aside the silly notion that you can 'prove' a model's accuracy by checking it's fitting to the historical record--I mean honestly, you are aware that these models are tweaked *until* they fit the historical record, aren't you? The past is not the problem.
    The Hansen forecast sounded impressive, so I looked over the paper and did some googling. There is definitely a different spin on the accuracy of the forecast. Discussed here:
    which demonstrates that scenario B is nowhere near the perfect fit implied by your article or Hansen. Hansen could be right, but he doesn't seem to explain where he is getting his data from. I can only find vague references to 'Station Data' and 'Land-Ocean'. What data is it he is using? How has it been adjusted? At least the sceptical article above is up front on where the data is coming from. This doesn't prove that Hansen is wrong. But it doesn't leave one with a high degree of confidence either.

    Or this:

    stevecarsonr at 15:54 PM on 5 April, 2008
    I thought this comment was interesting and relevant.
    It is taken from the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works -
    Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, is a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London. Dyson called himself a "heretic" on global warming.
    "Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.," Dyson said in an April 10, 2007 interview. Dyson is also a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London.


    Carrick at 08:46 AM on 23 April, 2008
    I'm repeating here what I've said in another place on your blog:
    The IPCC summary of computer simulations you link above only go back to 1850 and blurs out problems with individual models by replacing the spaghetti curve with a grayed out region. (Errors in the simulations are highly correlated from year to year, the figure makes it seem they are not, which is false and misleading.)
    Also did you notice the huge 0.3°C anomaly around 1940-1950 that the models, even with the fuzzing provided by IPCC, are unable to explain?
    Where did that warming come from? I would conclude from that, that we aren't at the place yet, even for a 150-year period with a lot of fudge factors thrown in, where we can accurately describe past climate, let alone accurately predict future climate.
    Secondly did you notice that there was very little anthropogenic forcing before 1970, according to the models? Have you ever considered how disingenuous it is, given this fact, to compare glaciers from e.g. 100 years ago to current, when the models say that almost all warming prior to 1970 was natural?
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019
  17. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    We are experiencing a warming since the "Little Ice Age" and you claim the warming is "not caused by any of the other known factors", so it must be humans.

    Would you like to learn a little bit? Here's a snippet from NOVA .
    So your "known factors" aren't so known. If it "must be humans" then how is the current warming trend different from the other 20 warming periods of our current ice age? Or do you believe humans were the cause every time?
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019
    Teanntás and Enthetan like this.
  18. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    For the past two million years or so, Earth's climate has been characterized by its going in and out of Ice Ages, with the most recent one only having ended about 12 thousand years ago, according to the graph below from the Utah Geological Survey


    Consider a few things from studying the above graph:
    1) All of human civilization has happened in the brief post-glacial period.
    2) The NORM has been for the Earth to be in an Ice Age.​
    3) Prior inter-glacials have had average temperatures HIGHER than current "oh my God it's the end of the World" averages.​
    4) Prior inter-glacial periods have been relatively brief​

    I'm thinking that the real catastrophe would be a return to an Ice Age. We can deal with a certain degree of warming. Some warming might even be good for the world, over all. We could see better growing seasons in Canada and northern Eurasia, leading to better food production. COLDER temperature, on the other hand, would lead to crop failures and mass starvation.

    Wouldn't it be a kick in the head if we were actually overdue for another Ice Age, and increased CO2 was the only thing holding it off?
    Teanntás, Mimsey Borogrove and Bill like this.
  19. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    OK, so now that we've learned, from a real climate scientist, that the warming and cooling cycles of this current ice age are normal and have been repeated over 20 times in the last 20,000 years, your "proof" isn't proof, just as I said. The latest warming after the Little Ice Age is normal.

    So you need to try again. Prove to me that Global Warming is primarily caused by humans.
  20. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Getting back to the OP - a micro nova - or a massive CME or flare, the premise by Vogt is that the CIA /NASA were certain happens with regularity, apx. every 12K years, however they needed proof. The best place would be on the moon. As an airless planetoid, there would be no weather / erosion etc. to obscure the evidence. Vogt's assertion is that is the reason for the moon landings, to search for evidence validating a micro nova or massive flare. Well, they found some lunar glass, and thus having established the needed proof, there was no longer any need for future trips to the moon.

    In the below video - there are videos from the moon landing including their audio feed, and pictures of the rock samples they took. You can see that they were looking for such evidence from their audio and not just wandering around randomly.

    Quite possibly Vogt's analysis is in error, because it does not follow the mainstream positions as discussed below. The clip in the video of the micro holes in one of the samples, though are not air bubbles evaporating from the molten glass. This is a concerning sample, as it lends credence to his argument.

    A one-Kg (2.2 lbs) Apollo 16 breccia rock formed from meteorite impact. Shiny, black impact-generated glass was splashed on the side.

    Apollo 15 green glass clod 15426. This sample has a mass of 224 grams. The clods as a whole are several centimeters in size, but the individual glass beads are typically about 0.2 millimeters across. NASA/Johnson Space Center photograph S71-43584.

    Mare Volcanism
    The surface rocks in Mare Imbrium are basalt, as was the case for both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 samples. Basalts are dark-colored rocks that solidified from molten lava and consist primarily of the minerals pyroxene and plagioclase. The basalts in Mare Imbrium formed 3.3 billion years ago, 500 million years after the Imbrium impact basin formed. Like the Apollo 12 basalts from Oceanus Procellarum, the Imbrium basalts have low abundances of the element titanium. The basalt photo shown above includes numerous holes, which geologists call vesicles. The vesicles formed as gas bubbles when the lava approached the Moon's surface. The gas later escaped, but it was most likely a combination of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Basalt samples without vesicles were also found on Apollo 15. Vesicles are also found in some basalts on Earth.
    Hadley Rille is 135 kilometers long. Near the Apollo 15 landing site, the rille is 1.5 kilometers wide and 300 meters deep. Observations by the crew indicate that the rille formed as a volcanic feature, probably originating as a lava tube whose roof later collapsed. Volcanic channels and lava tubes are also known to occur at many basaltic volcanos on Earth, such as in Hawai'i, but Hadley Rille is much larger than terrestrial volcanic channels.
    Mare basalts were emplaced as fluids that flowed easily across the Moon's surface. Another type of volcanic material found at the Apollo 15 landing site is pyroclastic glass. In order for lava to form a glass rather than to crystallize into mineral grains, it must cool very quickly. This sort of rapid cooling can occur if an explosive volcanic eruption hurls material high above the Moon's surface and the material falls back down in the form of small beads. This type of explosive volcanic eruption is also known to occur on Earth and is called a pyroclastic eruption or fire fountain by geologists. Several types of volcanic glass occur in the Apollo 15 samples, the most common and famous of which is the green glass. This glass is very rich in the element magnesium, which causes the green color. Studies of the green glass indicate that it originated at about 400 kilometers below the Moon's surface. Pyroclastic glass was also collected on Apollo 17.

    Over the decades after the Apollo missions concluded, technology continued to advance. In 2011, a team was able to analyze the samples that Schmitt and Cernan brought back, and found something spectacular: evidence that water was included during this volcanic eruption. The glass beads, based on the dryness of the Moon, should have had water concentrations of no more than 1 part-per-million (ppm), but instead exhibited water concentrations some 50 times as great. Moreover, there are olivine inclusions identified by the recent analysis, showing the presence of water in up to ~1,200 ppm concentrations.

    That number is important to someone who's a geologist, because it's the same concentration of water as rocks found in Earth's interior!
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019
    Bill likes this.