They accept reality as it appears on the surface, and don't try to look for underlying principles that are not empirically verifiable. But this is a philosophical forum, so we don't calculate, we speculate. — Gnomon

I see it the same way. The latest example of an unphilosophical attitude to theology comes from a philosopher:

Massimo Pigliucci
@mpigliucci
I’m sorry but I can’t any longer take seriously any essay or paper that itself takes talk of god seriously. It’s simply a non starter. And a trite and (very) old one.

https://twitter.com/mpigliucci/status/1640908332327223296?s=20

The tweet has definitely caused irritation among one or the other.

Anyone who practices philosophy must also take God talk seriously. Philosophy, in my opinion, includes all philosophical fields, without exception.

my Deistic god-model is a non-intervening abstract philosophical principle. — Gnomon

The model I present is called by the philosopher of religion Paul Draper demergent deism.

(the opposite of emergent theism/deism, according to which the world evolves until it eventually becomes or produces God)

I am definitely sympathetic to your construction. It seems to me a plausible possibility of candidates for world explanation.

But I had the impression that Hart left the question of an alteration in God somehow ambivalent. He has, of course, the clear tendency or conviction towards unchangeability, but he is apparently aware of the more or less justified theoretical problems of the critics.

To take away, or subtract from the infinite leaves it no less infinite. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is definitely true for the quantitative infinite, but I'm not so sure about the qualitative.

I am personally not sure whether Schopenhauer is right or wrong with the following quotations:

"Finite and infinite are concepts that have significance only in relation to space and time, in that both are infinite, i.e., endless, as well as infinitely divisible. If one still were to apply these two concepts to other objects, then the latter must be such as fill space and time and partake of their qualities. From this we are able to measure how great is the abuse perpetrated with these concepts by philosophasters and windbags in this century."

(Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume 2
Chapter 13
On philosophy and its method
§20 Annotations)

"Sometimes it is said to be the absolute, which we have recognized in § 20 above as the cosmological proof, compelled to travel incognito; and sometimes, however, it is said to be the infinite, in contrast to the finite, since the German reader, as a rule, is quite content with this verbiage and does not notice that in the end nothing can be clearly understood by this, except ‘that which has an end’ and ‘that which has no end’."

(On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
§ 34 Reason)

The infinite God could perhaps only have the trivial and negative sense of "He is not a finite being". Nothing more.

This is what Socrates argued of "the idea". It doesn't matter how many things partake of the same idea, the idea remains the same regardless. — Metaphysician Undercover

Certainly, what you say has never been uncontroversial:

"In VI. 4. 2 Plotinus connects the problem of soul's presence in body with a larger issue, that of the presence of intelligible reality in the sensible world. He is aware that in doing this he is confronting one of the most difficult problems facing any Platonist. Among the difficulties presented by Plato in his Parmenides concerning the theory of Forms is that of the presence of a single Form in a multitude of particular sensible objects (131ac): how could one Form (for example, the Form of beauty) be present in many (beautiful) things without being divided up among them?
The presence of the Form in a multitude seems to mean destruction of the Form as a whole, as a unity. This cannot be right. But to save the Form's unity, one must abandon its presence in many things. This too is unacceptable. Plato himself gives no clear indication as to how one is to resolve this dilemma. Aristotle considered it as yet another decisive reason for rejecting Plato's theory of Forms (Metaphysics, 1. 6). The problem remained unresolved, lying deep, as a possibly fatal flaw, in the heart of Platonic philosophy. The Middle Platonists were aware of it, but they contented themselves with references to the ‘mysterious’ relation between intelligible and sensible reality. Plotinus' Ennead VI. 4–5 is the first Platonist text we have which faces the issue squarely." (Dominic J. O'Meara - Plotinus - An Introduction to the Enneads)

Plotinus' own solution is also considered controversial by some.

By the way, I have already lowered the ambition of my argument. So that no one thinks I want to defend it by hook or by crook, as it is written in the OP.

Okay, maybe I just need to lower the standard of my argument a bit.

Since my argument from simplicity would only be a possibility and not a necessity (assuming you are correct in your critique), and since the classical cosmological proofs of God strictly speaking do not prove a present existence of God (see last quotes in the OP; and provided that they otherwise work), the rational theist (hitherto always believing in the provability of a presently existing God), as I have called him/her, cannot be sure of a present God, and must therefore now believe fideistically (irrationally?) in it. — spirit-salamander

I am now thinking of a different approach: You write:

If God is necessarily one, then He cannot divide Himself. If He is capable of dividing Himself, you cannot describe Him as necessarily one. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps the act of dividing should be viewed merely metaphorically.

And on the other hand, perhaps what is traditionally said about God (in relation to his creation) metaphorically could be understood literally.

For this, I refer to passages by David Bentley Hart from his book THE EXPERIENCE OF GOD BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS, BLISS. The bold highlights were added by me.

"Another, very traditional way of putting the matter is to say that created things exist by subtraction: that is, they are finite and somewhat diffuse expressions of an infinite and indivisible reality, and their individual essences are simply special limits graciously set to the boundless power of being that flows from God, special definite modes in which God condescends to share his infinitely expressive plenitude. Or—one more very venerable metaphor—God is the infinite “ocean of being” while creatures are finite vessels containing existence only in limited measure." (David Bentley Hart - THE EXPERIENCE OF GOD BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS, BLISS)

subtraction comes from the Latin subtrahere and means as much as:

carry off
subtract
take away

To carry off or take away from God, I guess. There is no other way to make sense.

"their individual essences are simply special limits graciously set to the boundless power of being that flows from God"

The boundless power of being and God should be identical, shouldn't they?

God "condescends to share his infinitely expressive plenitude".

What does the dictionary say:

"condescend

1: to assume an air of superiority
The writer treats her readers as equals and never condescends to them.
2
a: to descend to a less formal or dignified level: UNBEND
would not condescend to respond to such a crass remark
b: to waive the privileges of rank"

God gives of his simplicity (which is his being) in sharing "to waive the privileges of rank".

"God is the infinite “ocean of being” while creatures are finite vessels containing existence only in limited measure."

The vessels contain water from the ocean, which in itself is spaceless.

If we take what I quoted literally, we come closer to my argument.

"In the end, the crucial question is whether any of the relations that finite contingencies have to God’s infinite absolute being require alterations in God himself; and the traditional assumption is that God is not like some finite bounded substance that undergoes change as a result of external forces but is the transcendent source of the actuality of all substances and forces, and so he does not receive anything from “outside” himself, for everything is always in him and already realized in his own essence in an immeasurably more eminent way."

My argument assumes total alteration.

"What I want to emphasize here is that, whatever elaborations the different traditions have worked upon the idea of divine simplicity—however ingenious or convoluted, clear or obscure—the elementary metaphysical premise remains constant: that God is not like a physical object, composed of parts and defined by limits, and so is dependent upon nothing and subject to neither substantial change nor dissolution. There is an old Aristotelian principle, which seems to me quite obviously true, that in any causal relation change occurs in the effect, not in the cause itself. If, when two finite substances are involved in a causal relation, each undergoes some change, this is because each is limited and lacking in some property the other can supply, and so each functions as both a cause and an effect in that relation. Ice melts upon a burning coal but also cools the coal; and neither can affect the other without being affected in turn. God, however, is not a limited physical substance, standing outside other such substances, and his particular spiritual intentions (acts of will and knowledge, that is) toward finite things involve no physical processes and no modifications of his substance from without. And if those intentions somehow “determine” anything about who God is, it certainly could not be a passive determination in any sense, but an eternal act of self-determination or self-expression. More important, they would certainly add nothing new in the order of real being to God, since the “subtracted” reality of finite things is always already embraced within the infinitely fuller reality of divine being."

"... [W]e can observe the divine simplicity’s plural expressions and effects in contingent things, and from those abstract toward the reality of their unconditioned source.But, in the end, how that simplicity might be “modulated” within itself is strictly unimaginable for us. At that uncrossable intellectual threshold, religions fall back upon inscrutable doctrines, philosophers upon inadequate concepts, and mystics upon silence. “Si comprehendis, non est deus,” as Augustine says: If you comprehend it, it is not God."

Hart does not seem totally averse to a "modulation" of God. That's my impression.

"modulation

1
: an inflection of the tone or pitch of the voice
specifically : the use of stress or pitch to convey meaning
2
: a regulating according to measure or proportion : TEMPERING
3
: a change from one musical key to another by modulating
4
: the process of modulating a carrier or signal (as in radio)
also : the result of this process"

"modulate

verb
Definition of modulate
as in to regulate
to make changes to (something) in order to keep a desirable balance, proportion, etc.
He takes insulin to modulate his blood sugar levels.
She kept talking during the performance, making no effort to modulate her voice.

Synonyms & Similar Words

regulate
adjust
improve
correct
change
adapt
modify
tune
alter"

"I will add only that philosophers often tend to overburden the notion of the simplicity and immutability of God’s metaphysical substance with questions regarding whether God might have had a somewhat different “personal identity” had he chosen not to create as he did, and whether then his decisions “change” him from what he might otherwise be. After all, the choices we make seem subtly to determine who we are in relation to a world of things outside ourselves; whether our choices actually change us as spiritual substances is a rather difficult question, but they do at least shape our personal histories. Whatever the case, however, and as interesting as that question may be, even after one has stripped away all the anthropomorphic imagery—the imagery, that is, of God deliberating over what to do in the future, in accord with various internal and external limitations, until he vanquishes his uncertainty—it is not very germane at this point.

I would say it is very germane at this point.

Hart would say that I operate on "stubborn anthropomorphism". Then I say, So what.

If I omit anthropomorphism, it does not follow that God cannot become defunct. This is evident from the quotation from Augustine alone: If you comprehend it, it is not God. My argument may thus not be necessary, but possible.

Here is another fitting quote:

God is whatever God is. I don't think It is constrained by human interpretations of what it can or should be, can or should do. — T Clark

If God is One, and was active prior to His creation, what prevents Him from being active currently? — Metaphysician Undercover

I leave open whether God was active in every way appropriate to him prior to his creation. At least as far as creation is concerned, he was inactive prior to it. Sounds logical to me anyway, and that's how I understand my construction.

If all that exists at a given time, is one substance, then all is one. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps the following quote will be helpful:

"According to stuff monism there is only one kind of stuff (e.g. material stuff ), although there may be
many things. According to thing monism there is strictly speaking only one thing. Spinoza is an exemplary thing monist." (Galen Strawson - Nietzsche’s Metaphysics?)

You mean thing-monism, whereas I mean stuff-monism.

unless there is something which is other than the one, which serves as a boundary, or divisor, within the one, to make two, or the proposed multiplicity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why should God, as One, not be His own divisor or boundary-puller, directed towards Himself?

The nature of "a principle" is such that it always consists of parts. There cannot be a principle which does not have constituent parts which comprise the principle. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, I wanted to avoid evoking too many technicalities with the term "principle". If it causes too many problems, I shall simply say "most original source" instead.

There cannot be a principle which does not have constituent parts which comprise the principle. — Metaphysician Undercover

Even if a principle must always have parts, I refer to the Injury Problem:

“There’s an objection—I’ll call it the ‘Injury Problem’—that I think poses a larger problem for the claim that God creates out of His proper parts. The objection is this: if the x’s are proper parts of God and God creates the universe out of the x’s, then God loses whatever functions or features the x’s conferred on God. And this would make God worse off or lessened. For instance, if Michelangelo created the statue of David not out of a block of marble but out of the flesh and bone in his right foot, Michelangelo would no longer be able to walk as he once did. It would seem that something just as injurious to God would take place if He were to create out of Himself. Perhaps we could reply that God creates out of parts that don’t really contribute to God’s properties or functions. But this response seems unappealing and ad hoc, for why did God have those parts in the first place and in what sense are they really parts of Him if they don’t really serve any function? A different response is to say that God could heal Himself—replace those parts from which He created the universe with new parts. But the problem (and the injury) would just be pushed back to where those parts were taken from.” (Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker - A Theory of Creation Ex Deo) — spirit-salamander

If God was active, then those three required parts of the principle "active" are necessary. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, then I say God was totally inactive before creation.

I conclude that your argument is misdirected in a number of ways. — Metaphysician Undercover

Would you agree thatcreatio ex nihilo in the strict sense can only mean creatio ex deo?

The scholars or experts in the philosophy of religion: Daniel Soars, Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker, Bill Vallacella (Maverick Philosopher) whom I quote in the OP see it that way. They all advocate panentheism instead of theism in order to avoid the logical problem. The same applies to the mystic Jakob Boehme.

If in theism stuff of God is the "material" for creation, and considering the following:

The ground of all being would thus be completely rounded, so to speak. This ground would be absolutely homogeneous as if flawlessly and seamlessly made from one piece. Why should the spawning of space-time parts not diminish it? “Diminish” would actually be an understatement in this case. It would have to be “destroy”, considering that to create would be to use God's “material”, as quoted in the original post. If you take a little of this “material”, you ultimately take all of it. — spirit-salamander

Doesn't it follow that God must use himself up completely in creation?

The alternative is panentheism: for in panentheism, creatures are not absolutely distinct from God, as in theism. Rather, there is a kind of continuum of the world to God.

There is another, much older, trope of a dead god. That one was put into service and gained critical historical significance. — Fooloso4

You seem to be alluding to something obviously familiar, yet I can't figure it out. Christ dying on the cross? Or Indian mythology? Or from indigenous cultures?

To what end do you think this idea of a defunct god serves? — Fooloso4

Probably not a practical end, rather only a theoretical one. But I would have to think about that further.

I would have to proceed systematically and ask what end is served by the idea of a world without God, who was not before, is not beside, nor will be after.

And what end is served by the idea of a presently existing God.

If I think about it carefully, the idea of a defunct God can yield the same values as theism or atheism. It would therefore simply cause more confusion.

How do you see it as an alternative to teleological/intelligent design arguments? — Fooloso4

I was thinking more of Hume's specific argument, if I recall it correctly. It's been a long time since I read it. Hume (or the character in the Dialogues with whom Hume can most readily be equated) admits that there is order in the natural world. Order seems to refer to an ordering principle. Theism says this principle is a perfect being co-existing with the world. Hume now brings alternatives. There could be a plurality of fundamental ordering principles (atomism?) Or the principle that orders the world is of inferior nature. And finally, that principle perished in creating order, which is now independent through conservation principles.

It could be argued that an acorn dies or is transformed in order to become an oak. The same teleological argument can be made about a god who dies or is transformed to become something else. — Fooloso4

Interesting approach, the world or its emergence would thus have something necessary, inevitable.

In the specific case here, simply defending the (new) title of my post. I am also looking for counter-arguments, which you have thankfully given me. These can then lead me to approach the matter somewhat differently. And, of course, I hope to gain the impression that the reader is enriched with something new, something she has not heard countless times before.

And in general, I hope that the idea of a defunct God will be further explored and elaborated within the philosophy of religion (what I have found in textbooks and treatises so far is rather meager). So, expanding the conceptual landscape in the service of truth. This can possibly be accelerated if a general public is interested. It's a bit odd that the great David Hume has already taken up this idea in his popular dialogues on religion without it getting much attention. Perhaps it is because he mentioned it in an amusing way.
But he actually saw it as a genuine alternative to the result of the usual teleological/intelligent design proof of God, that is my interpretation.

Okay, maybe I just need to lower the standard of my argument a bit.

Since my argument from simplicity would only be a possibility and not a necessity (assuming you are correct in your critique), and since the classical cosmological proofs of God strictly speaking do not prove a present existence of God (see last quotes in the OP; and provided that they otherwise work), the rational theist (hitherto always believing in the provability of a presently existing God), as I have called him/her, cannot be sure of a present God, and must therefore now believe fideistically (irrationally?) in it.

A likely point of attack would be C1 and C2. The idea of simplicity. It does not follow from the idea of simplicity that God cannot create out of himself without becoming other than himself. — Fooloso4

Let's say God is not simple, but that he has parts. Would you agree with the injury problem that is stated below?

“There’s an objection—I’ll call it the ‘Injury Problem’—that I think poses a larger problem for the claim that God creates out of His proper parts. The objection is this: if the x’s are proper parts of God and God creates the universe out of the x’s, then God loses whatever functions or features the x’s conferred on God. And this would make God worse off or lessened. For instance, if Michelangelo created the statue of David not out of a block of marble but out of the flesh and bone in his right foot, Michelangelo would no longer be able to walk as he once did. It would seem that something just as injurious to God would take place if He were to create out of Himself. Perhaps we could reply that God creates out of parts that don’t really contribute to God’s properties or functions. But this response seems unappealing and ad hoc, for why did God have those parts in the first place and in what sense are they really parts of Him if they don’t really serve any function? A different response is to say that God could heal Himself—replace those parts from which He created the universe with new parts. But the problem (and the injury) would just be pushed back to where those parts were taken from.” (Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker - A Theory of Creation Ex Deo) — spirit-salamander

If a God with parts “injures” himself at creation, then a God without parts must directly “die”, must he not?

You seem to assume that a finite past entails the universe having been caused. Actually, a finite past entails an initial state of affairs, and this implies it is logically impossible for it to have been caused (there's no time prior to an initial point of time). — Relativist

My argument takes place within the framework of a more or less loose or strict theism. I have not made that too clear.

If you believe that God cannot be a cause of the world, my argument is doomed to fail for you from the start.

My criticism of theism would be that God can only transform himself into the world, either completely or in such a way that he is "injured" to such an extent that he must perish. This could be understood as causation.

My argument tries to build on the creative function that has been performed, regardless of the other functions that could have been performed. Why is that not enough in your view?

Some scholars I quote find that ex nihilo can only mean ex deo. This forces them to abandon theism and adopt panentheism:

“In any case, one thing seems clear: there is a problem with reconciling CEN with EEN. The reconciliation sketched here involves reading creatio ex nihilo as creatio ex Deo. The solution is not pantheistic, but panentheistic. It is not that all is God, but that all is in God.” (Maverick Philosopher – Creation ex nihilo or ex deo)

Of course, drawing the line between theism and panentheism is difficult. I would imagine that many do not find my argument seriously challenging because their God is already a panentheist God without them being aware of it.

After all, there are also biblical passages that are panentheistic:

"In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). “One God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:6). “…Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11). Theses verses hint us toward panentheism (not pantheism), the idea that the universe is in God and God is in every part of the universe, that God interpenetrates every part of nature, yet is distinct from it." (Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker - A Theory of Creation Ex Deo)

It is not a question of what I believe but of whether you accomplished what you set out to do in the title of the OP. You did not. — Fooloso4

That's fair, I agree with you. I have now changed the title of my OP.

I would argue that it is simply impossible for us to conceive. The universe need not conform to our limited understanding. — Fooloso4

To create literally out of nothing is logically impossible because “nothing” is the absence of anything that has any trace of “being”. Do you agree or disagree with ex nihilo nihil fit? If not, what are the basic thinking rules you follow when you philosophize?

A clumsy side step dance attempting to avoid the problem of ex nihilo nihil fit — Fooloso4

What clumsy side step dance? I don't understand what you mean.

a questionable interpretation of Genesis 1.1. — Fooloso4

I am not trying to interpret Genesis. I have given a formal argumentation, and the quotations are only meant to help in understanding. You should rather stick to the mere structure of argumentation.

What knowledge do you have of a transcendent substance and what it is capable of? — Fooloso4

If the origin of the world is credited to God and creatio ex nihilo is to be understood only as creatio ex deo, it follows that God stuff is capable of being transformed into worldly stuff.

The aim of my argument is only to put theism to the test. It is, I would argue, at least prima facie intuitively plausible.

This is also evident in the fact that the authors of the quotations that serve as an aid to understanding all advocate panentheism instead of theism in order to avoid the problems mentioned.

If you don't believe in a theistic god (or at least consider God to be very improbable), and don't believe that he can be rationally modelled and proven to exist (in an inductive, deductive or abductive way), then my argument won't be of much interest to you. I suppose.

So, my personal creation myth says that the Programmer converted some of Her ideas (mental essence) into a real world (material stuff). Hence, Mind was transformed into Matter — Gnomon

Would it be fair to describe your construction or model as panentheism? If so, I would get the point. For my argument is in principle directed only against ordinary (pure) theism (proper), which is put to a severe test.

Philosophers & Cosmologists don't "prove" anything, they merely argue for for their own mental model. — Gnomon

Basically, I agree with you. But perhaps one could say that proving mental model world explanations is possible after all. One only has to agree on a few conditions. The most important might be compliance with the law of excluded contradiction. Then the one that favors the theory that covers conceptually or rationally most aspects of being or all known so far. Every theory that has even a single contradiction in it would be disproved, and the contradiction-free and most all-encompassing one would be the proven one.

Since, in my opinion, there cannot be conceptually or factually an infinite number of theories, only an infinite variety of names and expressions, which, however, want to say the same thing, a proof is not theoretically impossible. The emphasis is on “theoretically”.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. — Gnomon

I had understood you to mean that energy and law of nature before creation were identical to energy and law of nature after creation. In other words, that the pre-existent energy and natural law remains unchanged in the post-existence.

What I wanted to say is that I thought that everything that pre-exists is infinitely warped and thus has no identity with what is understood to be energy and natural law after creation. Does what I'm saying make sense? It could be that I have simply misunderstood you.

No, I did not intend to imply that the Ground of Being is a composite entity. Instead, the Source of our space-time world is assumed to be a non-physical infinite Whole, which is not diminished by spawning space-time parts. — Gnomon

The ground of all being would thus be completely rounded, so to speak. This ground would be absolutely homogeneous as if flawlessly and seamlessly made from one piece. Why should the spawning of space-time parts not diminish it? “Diminish” would actually be an understatement in this case. It would have to be “destroy”, considering that to create would be to use God's “material”, as quoted in the original post. If you take a little of this “material”, you ultimately take all of it.

The only solution I can see would be to say that the ground of all being has an infinite number of parts (the parts don't have to be on a par, they could be in a hierarchical order).

the infinite power to create finite things. — Gnomon

Infinite power could mean an infinite number of power components.

a Qualia, not a Quanta — Gnomon

The Quantitative over the qualitative, after all.

EnFormAction transforms inexhaustible Potential (cosmic energy) into Actual physical things — Gnomon

“inexhaustible Potential” = an actual infinite set of potentials?

The power-to-enform does not involve a physical transmutation of one material thing into another physical thing (e.g. lead into gold). — Gnomon

I agree. That is why I wrote in my argument:

B 2. However, the transformation of a transcendent substance into mundane things is possible. — spirit-salamander

The non-physical can be “transmuted” into the physical.

To me, that sounds like a mythical humanoid god (e.g Thor), which is not what I have in mind as the Prime Mover of the Big Bang. — Gnomon

In fact, those who assume God without parts say that God with parts could be something like Thor.

I have a naïve expectation that they will speak up here of their own accord.

Haha, you're right in that it has to be seen as making sense for my reasoning to work. I am still not quite sure myself what to make of this discussion between parts and non-parts.

But many see it as sensical, and they would have to take my argument seriously, wouldn't they?

What do you think of the “God has parts – God has no parts” discussion in the philosophy of religion?

Thank you for your response. I agree with you that there are of course some alternatives to my construction which fits the God's Debris notion. (Aside from the fact that it is probably philosophically and empirically impossible to prove an absolute temporal beginning of the world.)

But the Big Bang theory assumes as an axiom, that both Energy and Natural Law, existed prior to the creation event. — Gnomon

But were energy as well as natural laws not rather completely distorted before the creation event? Infinitely distorted, perhaps, so that one can no longer speak of identity?

I draw my assumptions from the following sources:

From Katie Mack – The End of Everything (Astrophysically Speaking):

“What most physicists do think happened, a fraction of a second after whatever was the true “beginning,” was a dramatic super-expansion that effectively erased all trace of whatever went on before it. So the singularity is one hypothesis for what might have started everything off, but we can’t really be sure.”

From Katie Mack – The End of Everything (Astrophysically Speaking):

“Even if we did trust ourselves to dial back expansion all the way to that point, a singularity represents a state of matter and energy so extreme that nothing we currently know about physics can describe it. To a physicist, a singularity is pathological. It’s a place in the equations where some quantity that is normally well behaved (like the density of matter) goes to infinity, at which point there is no longer any way to calculate things that makes any sense.”

From John Hands – Cosmosapiens Human Evolution from the Origin of the Universe:

“singularity

A hypothetical region in space-time where gravitational forces cause a finite mass to be compressed into an infinitely small volume and therefore to have infinite density, and where space-time becomes infinitely distorted.”

From http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec20.html

“Our physics can explain most of the evolution of the Universe after the Planck time (approximately 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang).

The Planck time is the earliest moment in the history of the Universe where our physics still works.”

Does any of that techno-theorizing make sense to you? — Gnomon

To some extent, I can understand that. In the philosophy of religion, it is often discussed whether God, as the source of all being, has parts or not. Your remarks seem to imply that there are parts.

So at creation, parts would have to be converted, which could cause the injury problem mentioned in my original post. God would somehow suffer an injury. What is your assessment of this?

I feel I'm being charitable by doing so rather than ignoring you outright. — Xtrix

Why would it ever have entered your mind to ignore me, since I was and am ready for a discussion from the very beginning, and have shown doing so? Besides, you were already involved in the discussion in Global warming discussion -All opinions welcome. Being charitable should be part of any philosophical discussion, provided it comes from both parties.

But let me say from the beginning: you don't know what you're talking about. — Xtrix

Yes, you're right, I'm ignorant about most of the detailed points on the subject. But surely that should not prevent me from forming my own opinion? I mean, it is part of human nature that opinions or intuitive judgments arise in the mind without the mind being able to fight against this arising. The mind can examine them afterwards, and discard or accept them, but it cannot prevent them from the outset. It is also undeniable that sometimes, in rare cases, an intuitive judgment directly hits the truth.

and you're being deluded by climate denial propaganda. — Xtrix

I had learned about a cosmological alternative model, according to which, as an incidental consequence, man-made climate change makes little sense. I am not saying that this alternative model is absolutely correct, but I had the impression that there might be something to this model. At the very least, it points to something that might be neglected in mainstream cosmology.

So it is not the typical propaganda you are thinking of.

From the point of view of philosophy of science, it is possible to include all empirical data under an alternative cosmology. Then all the details you provide as an argument would have to be interpreted differently. If this were to happen coherently, which I don't know that it could actually happen that way, then there would indeed be reason to doubt the mainstream model.

Wherever you got these "sources," they're either misleading, half-truths, out of context, cherry-picked, or outright lies. — Xtrix

It was my intention to suggest said alternative picture. I wanted to be one-sided on purpose. You will admit that in a parallel universe such a picture might be true, where the climate on planets is mainly influenced by electromagnetic forces. My quotes, I think, created such an image.

The climate "always changes," yes -- but human's contributions the last 150 years, since the industrial revolution, has added trillions of tons of CO2 and methane to the atmosphere while also cutting down billions of trees. This added amount, even after the oceans absorb a lot of it, has accelerated the rate of change of the global average temperature. — Xtrix

I agree with you that this is a new, unprecedented situation for the Earth's atmosphere. And very likely, the Earth will become a greenhouse as a result.
But whether the Earth's atmosphere really functions like a built greenhouse in the lab is a question that may be asked, isn't it? And this question is ultimately at issue when an alternative explanation is offered. Because one could say that the other factors about which we do not yet have full knowledge do not occur at all in the laboratory experiment.

Since you are much more knowledgeable than I am, what do you say about these papers? Are their thesis completely ruled out? I have no way of telling. I can only say one thing, which is that scientific consensus doesn't mean much.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Reply to "Comment on 'Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics' by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann"

https://arxiv.org/a/tscheuschner_r_1.html — spirit-salamander

Abstract from the paper
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.

As an aside, do you think it's possible that the natural climate change you admit could take a course that would effectively counteract the change we're causing?

The "controversy" exists for one reason: there's a massive and powerful industry that benefits from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. — Xtrix

That may definitely be the case here and there. But on the other hand, there is also the accusation of ideological and political influence of the so-called alarmists.

Be that as it may, the proponents of the alternative cosmological model I mentioned don't give the impression that the oil industry is behind them. I would consider that highly unlikely.

I myself, for example, cannot drive a car and I would be happy if there were no more noisy, smoking cars on the streets. So I am completely unaffected by the fossil fuel car industry.

Consensus is collusion — Xtrix

Would you at least admit that an alarmist spirit among climate scientists might make their objectivity suffer somewhat?

It's worth at least reading this site for some balance. — Xtrix

I will visit that sometime.

Taylor is not doubting the greenhouse effect. He's saying there's a lot we don't know about how quickly it can skyrocket, like Venus did -- because new information is being learned about Venus. If you read the whole article, you'd see this. — Xtrix

So it can be said that with his statement tending to exaggeration, which I quoted, Taylor is completely misleading and not at all in harmony with that which you further quoted and explained.

You say:

He's saying there's a lot we don't know about how quickly it can skyrocket, like Venus did -- because new information is being learned about Venus. — Xtrix

Taylor says:

'It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth ... It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.' — spirit-salamander

Your description seems to be correct, nevertheless, one cannot miss a contrast in the language.

In this book (The Scientific Exploration of Venus, Fredric W. Taylor · 2014 · ‎Science), Taylor states:

“the absence of viable theories which can be tested, or in this case [Venusian polar vortex] any theory at all, leaves us uncomfortably in doubt as to our basic ability to understand even gross features of planetary atmospheric circulations.”

The link you provide didn't work. — Xtrix

From my country, the link works. Maybe you can google it and then come to the site.

But claims about the sun being a main driver of climate change has long been argued, and is a frequent denialist talking point. It has been thoroughly debunked numerous times. — Xtrix

Now we come to a point where you don't fully convince me.

Let's say hypothetically that the previously assumed electromagnetic force of the sun has 1% influence on global warming. Now it turns out that it is 10 times stronger than assumed. Then it is perhaps not improbable that the influence on earth climate is now 10% percent. And this would not be a small matter?

Bottom line: There’s no evidence that Earth’s climate has been significantly impacted by the last three magnetic field excursions,

No proof of significant impact, or no proof of impact at all? I think that is already an important difference. But they seem to be saying that there is a minimal impact that now, however, has to be thought of as possibly tenfold due to new knowledge.

Here again the title of the article.

New insight into how Sun's powerful magnetic field affects Earth
The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously assumed

It only says indefinite affect on the earth. But why should the climate be excluded there?

You quote:

Physical Principles
1. Insufficient Energy in Earth’s Upper Atmosphere

Air Isn’t Ferrous

Finally, changes and shifts in Earth’s magnetic field polarity don’t impact weather and climate for a fundamental reason: air isn’t ferrous.

But isn't that at odds with what I quoted?

The whole atmosphere response to changes in the Earth's magnetic field from 1900 to 2000: An example of “top-down” vertical coupling

Magnetic field changes from 1900 to 2000 cause significant changes in temperature and wind in the whole atmosphere system (0–500 km) in DJF

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890

And:

Coupling between Geomagnetic Field and Earth’s Climate System

Historical and contemporary changes in climate system put a lot of questions, the answers to which are difficult. This motivates scientists from different branches to look for various factors with a potential influence on the climate system. Geomagnetic field is one of the proposed factors, due to the rendered multiple evidence for spatially or temporary co-varying geomagnetic field and climate, at different time scales. In this chapter, we clarify that hypothesized geomagnetic influence on climate could be reasonably explained through the mediation of energetic particles, propagating in Earth’s atmosphere, and their influence on the ozone density in the lower stratosphere.

https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/81193

And maybe:

Atmospheric Metal Layers Appear with Surprising Regularity

The metals in those layers come originally from meteoroids blasting into Earth’s atmosphere, which bring an unknown amount of material to earth; and the regularly appearing layers promise to help researchers understand better how earth’s atmosphere interacts with space, ultimately supporting life.

https://cires.colorado.edu/news/atmospheric-metal-layers-appear-surprising-regularity

And:

Connections between deep tropical clouds and the Earth's ionosphere

During the daytime, neutral winds at lower thermospheric heights (ca. 110–150 km) interact with the ionospheric plasma in the so-called E-region, causing the comparatively massive ions to be dragged along by the neutral particles, separating them from the electrons whose motion is constrained by the magnetic field.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030142

What do you say to that? You've dodged these quotes so far. Or have I taken something completely out of context?

The next find is interesting. The scientist affirms man-made climate change, and yet he says that climatologies are not aware of certain forces:

The basic premise of this article is that human generated electromagnetic radiation is contributing to global warming.

The reality of climate change is finally being acknowledged by world leaders. While of little comfort to those already subjected to disastrous weather conditions, there is optimism that efforts to reduce industrial carbon emissions will lead to more stability in the world’s weather system. Climatologists are unlikely to be aware of recent research pointing to a natural force termed KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction).

This article outlines a possible scenario in which KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction) brought to the earth by cosmic rays, participates in the formation of heat-reflective cloud cover by activating cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). This process may be rendered less effective if some of the KELEA is removed from cosmic rays by its attachment to fluctuating electrical fields that accompany the increasing electromagnetic radiations present within the earth’s atmosphere. The proposed reduction in cloud formation may potentially be remediated by devising alternative means of delivering KELEA to the atmosphere. Moreover, an understanding of KELEA can immediately lead to significant worldwide reductions in carbon emissions.

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=64084

We understand a lot, yes. Not everything, and not "almost everything." In the totality of what there is to know, human beings understand a fraction of it. If you added up everything we've written and experienced and were able to download into your brain, it'd still amount to a tiny fraction. — Xtrix

You want to say that we are still going to learn a lot of things. Countless new discoveries. But implicitly, you are saying that all the new discoveries will no longer contribute significantly to our already established picture of climate change. Isn't that scientifically dubious? Cumulatively acquired new knowledge may very well change our picture meaningfully.

It's the same ploy used in Holocaust denial, in creationism, in 9/11 conspiracies, etc. "How can we be SURE?" "There's a lot we don't know!"

They pick on the "gaps" in knowledge, which always exist, or else fall back on skeptical epistemology. — Xtrix

I go with my claim strongly down, and say only that the influence of the sun can be bigger than assumed up to now. Saying that is not scandalous.

The article cited has a paywall, so I can't read all of it. But in any case, they're saying only that it MAY effect WEATHER. Weather is not climate. — Xtrix

Strange. For me it is not behind a paywall. Must be due to the country IP.

This is a trivial objection. Climate is weather only stretched over long time. If it can possibly effect weather, why not for decades, then it also effects the climate.

Think for a second. Do you really believe climatologists have ignored this possibility (namely, the influence of the sun on climate change)? — Xtrix

Climatologists are unlikely to be aware of recent research pointing to a natural force termed KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction

If they miss that, then they might miss some other things, too. Whatever that is. Even if they know about it, they can't immediately integrate it into their understanding. Keyword Thomas Kuhn. What cannot be integrated immediately is first pushed aside.

I can well imagine a climatologist answering my question about how far the earth's atmosphere reaches, that it does not go as far as the moon. You overestimate scientists. They are usually too specialized. Too fixated on what they are doing at the moment.

This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978

I have found this opinion:

Exactly how the sun works is not well understood. Some scientists believe the suns activity is a direct cause similar to a camp fire while other scientists believe the sun's activities are tied to electromagnetic forces that flow throughout the solar system. Some solar researchers reported in 2015 that the sun is entering into a period of very low activity which will result in global cooling around 2030-2040. If these scientists are correct decades from now we may be worrying about global cooling.

https://eu.gastongazette.com/story/opinion/columns/2017/10/14/my-turn-natural-causes-of-climate-change/18293386007/

In summary, although solar forcing is real, the implications of that are often rather overstated.

My point is that the electromagnetic effect of the sun is possibly underestimated, as it is not yet sufficiently researched. So it's not about solar heating alone.and visible solar irradiance. It is mainly about electromagnetic effects that are not easily detectable. That they are explored slowly, some of my quotations have made clear.

It does make the world warmer. There is no "maybe" involved. — Xtrix

I have expressed myself badly. I meant that CO2 could only cause warming, but the storms and hurricanes may only be due to the magnetic influence of the sun.

Bjorn Lomborg. — spirit-salamander

What would you say he is right about. Or is he always wrong?

You can call me whatever you like, I am not hot on -ismic identification, I am describing why I think some things are science and others are not. — unenlightened

I didn't so much want to label as to inquire what your position is more precisely. If I gave the impression of merely labeling you, then I apologize. But knowledge of philosophical positions in philosophical discussions is very important, in my opinion.

but if you wonder about the world heating up, you cannot beat a good thermometer. — unenlightened

Yes, that's right. But even that is not a simple task, especially when it comes to the world's climate. Any physicist would confirm that.

For one can ascribe fundamentality exclusively to the maximally small (microphysics) or to the maximally large (cosmos) or represent an Aristotelian substance priority or just a pure instrumentalism.

These views have influence on which physical theory one comes to.

If we were talking about values or human society, or psychology, or God, I would be saying very different kinds of things, — unenlightened

The important thing is to remain logically consistent overall, otherwise there is nothing wrong with it.

First: we do understand a great deal about the atmosphere. — Xtrix

But it looks more to me that we have only begun to learn about it. How is it that in 2006 an expert admitted a complete lack of knowledge? If it is so clear that Venus is without doubt a greenhouse case, how could the expert utter such a statement?

'It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth,' said Professor Fred Taylor, a planetary scientist based at Oxford University and one of the ESA's chief advisers for the Venus Express mission.' It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.'

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/apr/09/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration

This does not seem to validate your point either:

The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed, according to study, which can potentially change our understanding of the solar atmosphere and its effects on Earth.

https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/04/01/New-insight-into-how-Suns-powerful-magnetic-field-effects-Earth.html

Only in 2019, after many years of discussions about how much the sun influences the climate, we found out that it is 10 times stronger than assumed. Perhaps even stronger, because we are still learning. This puts all previous discussions in a completely different context. This new discovery with a lot of room for improvement can potentially change our previous assumptions. I would say, perhaps completely change.

Surely this is no small matter? The IPCC claims that the sun has only a very minor and negligible influence on global warming. But this thesis seems to me to be potentially faltering. Perhaps CO₂ will remain the main factor as before, but perhaps only with a 60 to 40 superiority. Surely these are questions that can be asked?

You seem to be saying that we already know a lot, or almost everything. And we're just learning a lot of little details, and we're not going to finish finding all the little details. That's at least the impression I have of you. But my quotes seem to create a different impression. At least from my point of view.

It may not sound dramatic, but this moment, scheduled for early 2017, will mark a new era in human exploration. The probes will investigate a forbidden zone surrounding our planet.

Electrical disturbances in this region can scramble GPS signals and other communications. And its influence may even stretch down to ground level and alter our weather.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130870-400-nofly-zone-exploring-the-uncharted-layers-of-our-atmosphere/

Again, something scientifically major is taking place very late, long after the experts have already come to terms with the fact that the sun is not contributing much to climate change. From the point of view of the philosophy of science, I think this is problematic. After all, my point was that we don't really know about the interaction of the Earth's atmospheres yet, you denied that. But this quote confirms my point. We have only begun to learn, because how else could it still be an open question in the quote that influences might reach down to the earth's ground?

We know that the earth's atmosphere extends even beyond the moon:

Earth’s atmosphere stretches out to the Moon – and beyond

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Earth_s_atmosphere_stretches_out_to_the_Moon_and_beyond

And we know that the earth still lies in the atmosphere of the sun:

Although we live in the atmosphere of Earth, the entire Earth lies in the atmosphere of the Sun—and the upper reaches of our own atmosphere are inextricably linked to the Sun’s activity.

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/is-there-a-greenhouse-effect-in-the-ionosphere-too-likely-not

These are amazing facts, which create a whole new picture about the solar system in our minds. This picture alone makes the idea that variations in solar influence on global climate change is insignificant somewhat dubious.

Even part of the earth's atmosphere is hotter than the surface of the sun:

the plasmasphere has between 10 and 10,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 58,000 degrees C - hotter than the surface of the Sun!

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/research/solar-system/space-plasma-physics/what-space-plasma

And these energies are probably getting through to us:

geomagnetic influence on climate could be reasonably explained through the mediation of energetic particles, propagating in Earth’s atmosphere, and their influence on the ozone density in the lower stratosphere.

https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/81193

And:

Magnetic field changes from 1900 to 2000 cause significant changes in temperature and wind in the whole atmosphere system (0–500 km) in DJF

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890

This is done via electromagnetism:

"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," NASA scientist David Sibeck said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-12/magnetic-ropes-connect-earth-to-sun/985232

All this is not conveyed to the layman by the media. It is also clear why. Because this picture undermines the thesis of the IPCC, that the sun has little influence on climate change.

Electromagnetism in space is only now being explored. However, it has apparently influence on planetary formations, and thus probably also on the planetary climates.

Astronomers are discovering that magnetic fields permeate much of the cosmos.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/

And:

Is the earth hanging by cosmic ropes inside a magnetic tunnel? Some scientists think so

Scientists are only beginning to learn more about these magnetic fields, and West is determined to understand as much as possible about why they exist and how they influence star and planet formation.

West noted hopefully, someday include our own solar system.

https://www.salon.com/2021/10/27/is-the-earth-hanging-by-cosmic-ropes-inside-a-magnetic-tunnel-some-scientists-think-so/

Maybe more CO₂ will make the world warmer, but may have little to do with storms and natural disasters.

Connections between deep tropical clouds and the Earth's ionosphere

During the daytime, neutral winds at lower thermospheric heights (ca. 110–150 km) interact with the ionospheric plasma in the so-called E-region, causing the comparatively massive ions to be dragged along by the neutral particles, separating them from the electrons whose motion is constrained by the magnetic field.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030142

The connections reach at least to the very bottom.

Climate research depends mainly on modeling. But how can the models be meaningful if many factors cannot yet be properly assessed?

So I pose that very question to you: what would you consider satisfactory evidence? — Xtrix

I offer you a theoretical, speculative, but not outlandish compromise. 50 percent of global warming goes to us, as you put it, and 50 goes to electromagnetic processes triggered by the sun.

(From one of your sources. Just FYI. Maybe read them next time.) — Xtrix

I had even seen that while skimming. I was only interested in giving an impression, so I also cherrypicked, and in this one case omitted important information. But this information is weakened again by the other quotes.

this stupidity — Xtrix

If you want to insult me, please do so directly.

Bjorn Lomborg. — Xtrix

Then forget about Lomberg and co. They could all be idiots, although I don't think they give that impression.

But you will admit that many scientists were alone with their thesis at first. And later the correctness of their idea has been confirmed. This is a triviality in the history of science.

But maybe - who knows? - the German physicist Ralf D. Tscheuschner suffers from a similar situation:

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Reply to "Comment on 'Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics' by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann"

https://arxiv.org/a/tscheuschner_r_1.html

So to you, I am a cretin.

For me, you are a dishonest, disingenuous interlocutor.

You believe in God?

But I'm no longer interested in your answer either way.

You are philosophically a nothing.

To all. What aPicture arises when you read the following quotes? Please read with an open mind.

Venus: the hot spot

'It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth,' said Professor Fred Taylor, a planetary scientist based at Oxford University and one of the ESA's chief advisers for the Venus Express mission.' It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.'

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/apr/09/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration



THE CURIOUS CASE OF EARTH'S LEAKING ATMOSPHERE

Earth's atmosphere is leaking. Every day, around 90 tonnes of material escapes from our planet's upper atmosphere and streams out into space. Although missions such as ESA's Cluster fleet have long been investigating this leakage, there are still many open questions. How and why is Earth losing its atmosphere – and how is this relevant in our hunt for life elsewhere in the Universe?

[...]

Solar storms and periods of heightened solar activity appear to speed up Earth's atmospheric loss significantly, by more than a factor of three. However, key questions remain: How do ions escape, and where do they originate? What processes are at play, and which is dominant?”

https://sci.esa.int/web/cluster/-/58028-the-curious-case-of-earth-s-leaking-atmosphere#:~:text=Earth's%20atmosphere%20is%20leaking.,are%20still%20many%20open%20questions



No-fly zone: Exploring the uncharted layers of our atmosphere

It may not sound dramatic, but this moment, scheduled for early 2017, will mark a new era in human exploration. The probes will investigate a forbidden zone surrounding our planet. It’s a realm where planes can’t fly, balloons can’t float, and satellites soon plunge to a fiery end. So seldom have we visited it and so scanty is our knowledge of it that some scientists call it the ignorosphere.

This slice of the atmosphere is, at the same time, forbidden and forbidding. It holds both the coldest and the hottest air on Earth. It hosts elusive, shimmering clouds that can only be seen at night. And its moods can change in an instant, as turbulent winds from lower down mix with plasma arriving from the sun.

This unknown zone increasingly matters to us. We are sending up ever more satellites, which are vulnerable to flare-ups in the ignorosphere. Electrical disturbances in this region can scramble GPS signals and other communications. And its influence may even stretch down to ground level and alter our weather.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130870-400-nofly-zone-exploring-the-uncharted-layers-of-our-atmosphere/



Earth’s atmosphere stretches out to the Moon – and beyond

A recent discovery based on observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Earth_s_atmosphere_stretches_out_to_the_Moon_and_beyond




New insight into how Sun's powerful magnetic field affects Earth

The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously assumed

The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed, according to study, which can potentially change our understanding of the solar atmosphere and its effects on Earth.

[...]

Everything that happens in the Sun's outer atmosphere is dominated by the magnetic field, but we have very few measurements of its strength and spatial characteristics, Kuridze said.

https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/04/01/New-insight-into-how-Suns-powerful-magnetic-field-effects-Earth.html



What is Space Plasma?


Despite what a lot of people think, space isn't actually empty, and the Earth's magnetosphere is no exception! The magnetosphere is full of plasma of many different temperatures and densities - though most of it is too tenuous to see with the naked eye or even with a telescope. The air at sea level has a 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 20 degrees C. The densest, coldest part of the magnetosphere, the plasmasphere has between 10 and 10,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 58,000 degrees C - hotter than the surface of the Sun!

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/research/solar-system/space-plasma-physics/what-space-plasma



Coupling between Geomagnetic Field and Earth’s Climate System


Historical and contemporary changes in climate system put a lot of questions, the answers to which are difficult. This motivates scientists from different branches to look for various factors with a potential influence on the climate system. Geomagnetic field is one of the proposed factors, due to the rendered multiple evidence for spatially or temporary co-varying geomagnetic field and climate, at different time scales. In this chapter, we clarify that hypothesized geomagnetic influence on climate could be reasonably explained through the mediation of energetic particles, propagating in Earth’s atmosphere, and their influence on the ozone density in the lower stratosphere.

https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/81193




The whole atmosphere response to changes in the Earth's magnetic field from 1900 to 2000: An example of “top-down” vertical coupling

Magnetic field changes from 1900 to 2000 cause significant changes in temperature and wind in the whole atmosphere system (0–500 km) in DJF

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890



Can we solve the mysteries of Earth's atmosphere?

Earth’s atmosphere still holds many secrets for science, but with the latest satellite launches and long-running observations from the ground, we are now gathering far more and better quality data about the weather and climate than ever before.

https://www.euronews.com/next/2017/10/19/can-we-solve-the-mysteries-of-earth-s-atmosphere




Revisiting the Mystery of Recent Stratospheric Temperature Trends

Better understanding of causes of stratospheric trends and whether they are properly represented in climate models also has implications for understanding recent tropospheric climate change

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL078035




Mysteries of some atmospheric halos remain unexplained after 5,000 years

The origins of some atmospheric optical illusions remain unknown, even after millennia of observation.

https://www.space.com/atmospheric-halo-inventory-mystery-unsolved




Atmospheric Metal Layers Appear with Surprising Regularity

The metals in those layers come originally from meteoroids blasting into Earth’s atmosphere, which bring an unknown amount of material to earth; and the regularly appearing layers promise to help researchers understand better how earth’s atmosphere interacts with space, ultimately supporting life.

https://cires.colorado.edu/news/atmospheric-metal-layers-appear-surprising-regularity




Mysterious new type of Northern Lights spotted in the ‘ignorosphere’

“In terms of physics, this would be an astounding discovery, as it would represent a new and previously unobserved mechanism of interaction between the ionosphere and the atmosphere.”

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/new-northern-lights-discovered-dunes




The Hidden Magnetic Universe Begins to Come Into View

Astronomers are discovering that magnetic fields permeate much of the cosmos. If these fields date back to the Big Bang, they could solve a major cosmological mystery.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/




Climate 'mysteries' still puzzle scientists, despite progress

Scientists are still unsure what part clouds play "in the energy balance of the planet" and their influence on the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases, he said.

https://phys.org/news/2021-07-climate-mysteries-puzzle-scientists.html



Is There a Greenhouse Effect in the Ionosphere, Too? Likely Not

Controversial observations of long-term changes in the ionosphere appear to be explained by the Sun’s 11-year cycle of activity, not human greenhouse gas emissions.

Although we live in the atmosphere of Earth, the entire Earth lies in the atmosphere of the Sun—and the upper reaches of our own atmosphere are inextricably linked to the Sun’s activity.

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/is-there-a-greenhouse-effect-in-the-ionosphere-too-likely-not



'Magnetic ropes' connect Earth to Sun

NASA satellites have uncovered giant magnetic ropes linking the Earth's atmosphere to the Sun and channelling solar energy to create the spectacular northern and southern lights shows.

"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," NASA scientist David Sibeck said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-12/magnetic-ropes-connect-earth-to-sun/985232



Is the earth hanging by cosmic ropes inside a magnetic tunnel? Some scientists think so

Scientists are only beginning to learn more about these magnetic fields, and West is determined to understand as much as possible about why they exist and how they influence star and planet formation.

We need to understand what we're looking at close-up in order to get a sense of the bigger picture. I hope this is a step towards understanding the magnetic field of our whole Galaxy, and of the Universe."

This might even, West noted hopefully, someday include our own solar system.

https://www.salon.com/2021/10/27/is-the-earth-hanging-by-cosmic-ropes-inside-a-magnetic-tunnel-some-scientists-think-so/

And your thesis is wrong. — Xtrix

I have no interest in taking time to read articles you Google (which don’t seem to support your position at all). — Xtrix

I think that's a bit disingenuous on your part.

If you read my listed snippets from scientific articles, then you will realize, hand on your heart and frankly speaking and free from prejudice, that we still understand very little about the mechanisms in the atmosphere. And until we know a lot in this area, we can't say that CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily responsible for warming. Sorry, you are just wrong and blinded.

When do you think they first talked about man-made climate change caused by CO2? I can tell you that in that time period, much less was known. So the thesis was absolutely speculative. Any honest researcher should exercise caution and restraint. Because he can quickly be completely wrong with lack of knowledge, which includes the unexplored and unknown factors.

If you were intellectually honest, you would have to admit that my thesis is not absurd.

And I have already read such graphs as you have posted. So you are not telling me anything new. Do you really think that there is absolutely rigorous methodology and precise science behind these graphs?

I've seen official climate graphs that showed that there have been times in Earth's history when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was higher than it is today and it was still much colder, and conversely times when there was less CO2 and it was much hotter than it is today.

But I'm sure you didn't know the points I posted in my list.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/737258

I have no interest in taking time to read articles you Google (which don’t seem to support your position at all). — Xtrix

You're not serious, are you? You only need to read the quotes I copied out, then it is clear that other mechanisms can primarily influence the climate. My thesis is thus not unfounded.

Please admit that a scientist should not make any statements yet, if not all influencing factors are known.

Do you admit that a majority of scientists can be wrong about a shared opinion?

Please read the quotes from the articles in such a way that they convey a general picture. Which picture do you think emerges?

Your favorite philosophers Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger would agree with me at least partially, if not completely. They would see that I do not tell nonsense. As a philosopher, you should admit that I may be on the right track.

That is a claim you can test or not, it is not an argument. — unenlightened

So you're an instrumentalist, a pragmatist, a non-realist?

I hate to be picky, but there is no demonstration of anything there — unenlightened

And you are a skeptic?

So you don't think that ideals should be pursued. Isn't that what one teaches children? Ideal parents, ideal politicians, ideal students, etc., even if they are only weakly realized or counterfactual.

I'm not a native English speaker, but "poking fun" doesn't sound too bad, or it seems to me to be very general and cover a spectrum, from mild friendly humor to wicked mocking. Genuine humor is, after all, a virtue.

I had rather imagined mean bullying, tasteless scorn wrapped in jokes.

Astrology is unconvincing because the magic does not work. — unenlightened

Maybe it's not magic:

Astrophysicist Dr. Percy Seymour magnetic theory of astrology

Sure, but still there is an ideal of the scientist. A standard to which all scientists want and should adhere. Love of truth and objectivity, sobriety, modesty, contempt for money and fame, apoliticalness, being factually nuanced and fair, patience, more head-driven than emotion-driven, frankness and honesty, and much more are part of the ideal. Also very important is fearlessness.

There's nothing wrong with having some fun. — Olivier5

And not to forget: He laughs best that laughs last.

Science is convincing because the magic works. Astrology is unconvincing because the magic does not work. — unenlightened

Do you say so because you have already studied the history and systematic astrology in depth and have tested it on yourself and others? Or do you say so in advance because it just seems absurd to you?

The latter attitude among scientists was, as is known, rightly criticized by Paul Feyerabend, in my opinion. Here you can read about it:

https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/paul-feyerabends-defense-of-astrology-i/

the magic does not work. — unenlightened

Astrologers would object, of course. The astrological "laws" are inviolable for them just like the Newtonian ones, but they concern qualities of experience instead of quantities. That's their theory.

This is what a German astrologer (Johannes Vehlow) once said: “Astrology is deep truth, and everyone, if he makes an effort, can verify these truths on his own body, and if the investigations are not made too superficially, surely many a "Saul" will become "Paul".” [Astrologie ist tiefe Wahrheit, und jeder kann, wenn er sich bemüht, diese Wahrheiten am eigenen Leibe überprüfen, und wenn die Untersuchungen nicht zu oberflächlich vorgenommen werden, wird sicher mancher "Saulus" zum "Paulus".]

For the sake of argument and per impossibile, what do you think you would feel if the claims of astrology, in whatever sense, turned out to be true: sad, disappointed, happy, fascinated, thrilled?

Science is convincing because the magic works. — unenlightened

Would you say then that something cannot be valid concerning the ontological interpretations of Newton's formulas? Because the principle of the sufficient ground must still be accepted?

There must be a very good reason why ideas like astrology didn't make the cut so to speak - academics reject them outright as rubbish. — Agent Smith

Paul Feyerabend once played the devil's advocate and defended astrology, and he saw that the arguments against the very ancient tradition of astrology were exceedingly weak.

How people say they will react is usually quite different from how they would react. Generally speaking if someone’s worldview (axis mundi/weltanshauung) is X it will remain X even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The reason being the human mind can only become so stressed. — I like sushi

That's right. But I think everyone can soberly say for themselves, what if. For example, a friend of mine once said that if astrology proved to be correct in any sense, his world view would be completely turned upside down. Of course, this is all very hypothetical, because, as you say, if any "evidence" would have been brought to him, he would not have accepted it. And I also heard once, an opponent of the moon conspiracy theories say: Even if NASA, set the case, would deny someday officially the moon landings in the 60s and 70s with reasons, he would not believe it nevertheless, and he would also be confident to be able to disprove NASA in this.

The history of Science is a history of ideas that challenged orthodoxy. — yebiga

And many do not realize how spiteful, how contemptuous, how prejudiced and biased the scientific debates have been throughout history. Many scientists took their view for granted and made fun of other views, mocking their inventors/discoverers.

If you go by academia, the Western mind is (extreme) materialism manifest and doesn't tolerate the preternatural, reflexively dumping such ideas in the trash can. — Agent Smith

Would you say that this fact is problematic?

My question was intended as a psychological test. I think many might say: should astrology turn out to work by whatever means, then I no longer believe anything science has told me so far. And that would reveal quite a bit about the mindset of these people.


What do you think about my list of articles?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/737258

Of course it has. Astrology is nonsense. — Xtrix

Just for the sake of argument, what if astrology were true? How would it affect your scientific worldview and philosophy?

Knowing more is relative. Yes, they know more than I do. Still, they would say they know very little and are only beginning to slowly understand these things. My opinion is an interpretation of their little knowledge. And it is well-founded, as I show via the articles.

I just asked you what the basis was for such a claim, and you say "read scientific articles about this." WHAT scientific articles do you have in mind? By all means share — Xtrix

So my thesis is that we know very little about the interactions between the sun and the many layers of the earth's atmosphere. And very little about the processes in and between these layers.

Why is this important? Well, the denier of man-made climate change, needs to show that other factors are of much greater importance to climate change. That is, after all, what the debate is about. No one is denying change per se.

That other factors are mainly responsible for climate change I can't show to your satisfaction yet, unfortunately, but I can point out by means of mainstream science articles that we really still know very little about the possible other factors such as solar influence. I honestly think we also know less than the articles would have us believe.

There are therefore good reasons to be skeptical, to say the least. Skeptical about the fact that humans alone really control the climate and can change it through CO2 emissions or reduction. It is probably hubris to believe that we are changing the climate, and more likely that we are simply helplessly exposed to it. After all, before there was any human being, there was already climate change. And The Science says that in an ice age, in which we are, the climate is particularly unstable.

There are countless articles more. These are just the ones I could find at first go:



Venus: the hot spot

'It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth,' said Professor Fred Taylor, a planetary scientist based at Oxford University and one of the ESA's chief advisers for the Venus Express mission.' It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.'

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/apr/09/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration



THE CURIOUS CASE OF EARTH'S LEAKING ATMOSPHERE

Earth's atmosphere is leaking. Every day, around 90 tonnes of material escapes from our planet's upper atmosphere and streams out into space. Although missions such as ESA's Cluster fleet have long been investigating this leakage, there are still many open questions. How and why is Earth losing its atmosphere – and how is this relevant in our hunt for life elsewhere in the Universe?

[...]

Solar storms and periods of heightened solar activity appear to speed up Earth's atmospheric loss significantly, by more than a factor of three. However, key questions remain: How do ions escape, and where do they originate? What processes are at play, and which is dominant?”

https://sci.esa.int/web/cluster/-/58028-the-curious-case-of-earth-s-leaking-atmosphere#:~:text=Earth's%20atmosphere%20is%20leaking.,are%20still%20many%20open%20questions



No-fly zone: Exploring the uncharted layers of our atmosphere

It may not sound dramatic, but this moment, scheduled for early 2017, will mark a new era in human exploration. The probes will investigate a forbidden zone surrounding our planet. It’s a realm where planes can’t fly, balloons can’t float, and satellites soon plunge to a fiery end. So seldom have we visited it and so scanty is our knowledge of it that some scientists call it the ignorosphere.

This slice of the atmosphere is, at the same time, forbidden and forbidding. It holds both the coldest and the hottest air on Earth. It hosts elusive, shimmering clouds that can only be seen at night. And its moods can change in an instant, as turbulent winds from lower down mix with plasma arriving from the sun.

This unknown zone increasingly matters to us. We are sending up ever more satellites, which are vulnerable to flare-ups in the ignorosphere. Electrical disturbances in this region can scramble GPS signals and other communications. And its influence may even stretch down to ground level and alter our weather.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130870-400-nofly-zone-exploring-the-uncharted-layers-of-our-atmosphere/



Earth’s atmosphere stretches out to the Moon – and beyond

A recent discovery based on observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Earth_s_atmosphere_stretches_out_to_the_Moon_and_beyond




New insight into how Sun's powerful magnetic field affects Earth

The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously assumed

The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed, according to study, which can potentially change our understanding of the solar atmosphere and its effects on Earth.

[...]

Everything that happens in the Sun's outer atmosphere is dominated by the magnetic field, but we have very few measurements of its strength and spatial characteristics, Kuridze said.

https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/04/01/New-insight-into-how-Suns-powerful-magnetic-field-effects-Earth.html



What is Space Plasma?


Despite what a lot of people think, space isn't actually empty, and the Earth's magnetosphere is no exception! The magnetosphere is full of plasma of many different temperatures and densities - though most of it is too tenuous to see with the naked eye or even with a telescope. The air at sea level has a 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 20 degrees C. The densest, coldest part of the magnetosphere, the plasmasphere has between 10 and 10,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 58,000 degrees C - hotter than the surface of the Sun!

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/research/solar-system/space-plasma-physics/what-space-plasma



Coupling between Geomagnetic Field and Earth’s Climate System


Historical and contemporary changes in climate system put a lot of questions, the answers to which are difficult. This motivates scientists from different branches to look for various factors with a potential influence on the climate system. Geomagnetic field is one of the proposed factors, due to the rendered multiple evidence for spatially or temporary co-varying geomagnetic field and climate, at different time scales. In this chapter, we clarify that hypothesized geomagnetic influence on climate could be reasonably explained through the mediation of energetic particles, propagating in Earth’s atmosphere, and their influence on the ozone density in the lower stratosphere.

https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/81193




The whole atmosphere response to changes in the Earth's magnetic field from 1900 to 2000: An example of “top-down” vertical coupling

Magnetic field changes from 1900 to 2000 cause significant changes in temperature and wind in the whole atmosphere system (0–500 km) in DJF

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890



Can we solve the mysteries of Earth's atmosphere?

Earth’s atmosphere still holds many secrets for science, but with the latest satellite launches and long-running observations from the ground, we are now gathering far more and better quality data about the weather and climate than ever before.

https://www.euronews.com/next/2017/10/19/can-we-solve-the-mysteries-of-earth-s-atmosphere




Revisiting the Mystery of Recent Stratospheric Temperature Trends

Better understanding of causes of stratospheric trends and whether they are properly represented in climate models also has implications for understanding recent tropospheric climate change

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL078035




Mysteries of some atmospheric halos remain unexplained after 5,000 years

The origins of some atmospheric optical illusions remain unknown, even after millennia of observation.

https://www.space.com/atmospheric-halo-inventory-mystery-unsolved




Atmospheric Metal Layers Appear with Surprising Regularity

The metals in those layers come originally from meteoroids blasting into Earth’s atmosphere, which bring an unknown amount of material to earth; and the regularly appearing layers promise to help researchers understand better how earth’s atmosphere interacts with space, ultimately supporting life.

https://cires.colorado.edu/news/atmospheric-metal-layers-appear-surprising-regularity




Mysterious new type of Northern Lights spotted in the ‘ignorosphere’

“In terms of physics, this would be an astounding discovery, as it would represent a new and previously unobserved mechanism of interaction between the ionosphere and the atmosphere.”

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/new-northern-lights-discovered-dunes




The Hidden Magnetic Universe Begins to Come Into View

Astronomers are discovering that magnetic fields permeate much of the cosmos. If these fields date back to the Big Bang, they could solve a major cosmological mystery.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/




Climate 'mysteries' still puzzle scientists, despite progress

Scientists are still unsure what part clouds play "in the energy balance of the planet" and their influence on the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases, he said.

https://phys.org/news/2021-07-climate-mysteries-puzzle-scientists.html



Is There a Greenhouse Effect in the Ionosphere, Too? Likely Not

Controversial observations of long-term changes in the ionosphere appear to be explained by the Sun’s 11-year cycle of activity, not human greenhouse gas emissions.

Although we live in the atmosphere of Earth, the entire Earth lies in the atmosphere of the Sun—and the upper reaches of our own atmosphere are inextricably linked to the Sun’s activity.

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/is-there-a-greenhouse-effect-in-the-ionosphere-too-likely-not



'Magnetic ropes' connect Earth to Sun

NASA satellites have uncovered giant magnetic ropes linking the Earth's atmosphere to the Sun and channelling solar energy to create the spectacular northern and southern lights shows.

"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," NASA scientist David Sibeck said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-12/magnetic-ropes-connect-earth-to-sun/985232



Is the earth hanging by cosmic ropes inside a magnetic tunnel? Some scientists think so

Scientists are only beginning to learn more about these magnetic fields, and West is determined to understand as much as possible about why they exist and how they influence star and planet formation.

We need to understand what we're looking at close-up in order to get a sense of the bigger picture. I hope this is a step towards understanding the magnetic field of our whole Galaxy, and of the Universe."

This might even, West noted hopefully, someday include our own solar system.

https://www.salon.com/2021/10/27/is-the-earth-hanging-by-cosmic-ropes-inside-a-magnetic-tunnel-some-scientists-think-so/

The temperature at which water boils isn’t uncertain. — Xtrix

I'm not talking about boiling the water. That should have been obvious after all. I think more about e.g. cloud formation as one example.

So there’s no reason to believe scientists, but Bjorn Lomborg is a citable source. — Xtrix

Now you're reading me uncharitable. I never said Lomberg was right. Only that he holds a different opinion that might be right.

I mean the totality of the theses of every single scientist in every generation. Most of the theses can be said to have turned out to be wrong. I really think of all scientists up to the most unknown. — spirit-salamander

You’d know this if you spent a little time reading beyond the WSJ editorial pages and fringe books by pundits and other non-climatologists. — Xtrix

This is an expression of your bias.

Regardless, I’m not talking about the media, I’m talking about the scientific community. The IPCC is hardly mass media. — Xtrix

But I have talked about the media, and by that I mean reports, documentaries on television. Koonin, I know you don't take him one iota seriously, but he still said that a reason for strong alarmism isn't to be found in the scientific paper, but is generated only by the IPCC or UN Council and eventually raised immensely in the news.

No, it isn’t. What is the basis for such a claim? — Xtrix

Yes, it is. Read scientific articles about this, and you will discover that I am right. This is where my argument lies. What would you say if I were right per impossibile. Would it make you doubt? Please answer me this question, because your answer would interest me very much.

And the alternative to the overwhelming evidence and consensus is what? Bjorn Lonborg? — Xtrix

No alternative. One should only not lose one's mind and lay down one's life for the time-conditioned current state of science.

No. — Xtrix

Good, I only got the vague impression from you that it might be so.

Today’s science says NOTHING of the kind. — Xtrix

So the influence from outside can be very large after all? So the earth and its climate is not a closed system in your view?

Begging your pardon, but you’re just another example of someone who’s been duped in my view. This cheap, uninformed skepticism you’re displaying isn’t an accident. — Xtrix

No, it is not cheap skepticism. If you knew the critical history of science and also read philosophy of science, you might get similar ideas. The alarmism deniers or the man-made climate change deniers I evaluate, I admit, only intuitively. I trust my judgment of human nature that they take it seriously. I can be wrong, of course. It is only enough for me that they are intellectually honest, which does not mean that they are right.

The issue has been politicized by a very powerful industry. There’s been years of massive propaganda— also well-documented. — Xtrix

Climategate was also a real thing.

It’s funny to see that climate deniers make many of the same arguments as creationists. — Xtrix

Now you're getting arrogant and taking cheap shots. I don't deny climate change, I believe all aspects of the universe are subject to flux. But what do the creationists have to do with all this?

By the way, do you think that your favorite philosophers Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger would have advised to take empirical science at face value? Since you have read them, you know that they would all be enemies of scientism.

Apparently you don't take my questions seriously. I repeat, do you think astrology has been debunked? I just need a yes or no.

To state that scientists have been wrong all of the time is blatantly false. Newton was not ‘wrong’ just because Einstein came along with more accurate equations. — I like sushi

I mean the totality of the theses of every single scientist in every generation. Most of the theses can be said to have turned out to be wrong. I really think of all scientists up to the most unknown.

The best data we have (from numerous sources) does strongly point to human impact being highly influential in regards to climate change (a very, very basic understand of greenhouse gases shows this). — I like sushi

The greenhouse theory is a neat theory. But I think it simplifies. As I said before, there is a gigantic knowledge void about the processes that take place between and within each sphere in Earth vicinity (Ionosphere, stratosphere, ignorosphere and so on). On the other hand, it is said that these spheres are important to understand the weather and the climate. There arises a paradox from my point of view. e.g. Until the 1990s, weather phenomena such as sprites were not known, and reports of them by pilots were considered fantastical. Now we know that they exist and that they also have an influence on the weather.

That said, there is undoubtedly more to climate change than we know about given that such cycles cover vast periods of time — I like sushi

So I totally agree with that.

Either way the human race will not die out due to climate change anytime soon (as in for thousands and thousand of years), yet we could effectively end civilisation by the end of the century by various other means. — I like sushi

Even if the climate alarmists are right, I think it is highly speculative that we can do anything directly about climate change. We can only adapt. And then it also becomes dangerous when the panic is used for political purposes.

And...? — Xtrix

Certain predictions regarding water behavior would then simply be uncertain. An analogy to climate.

Yes, absolute knowledge and 100% certainty isn't possible. So what? — Xtrix

How often have scientists been wrong in history? Actually, all the time. There is no reason to believe them, especially when they become absolutist with their ideas.

Bjorn Lomborg is not a climatologist. His writings are often misleading and have been shown to be misleading multiple times — Xtrix

Yes, the author of the ridiculous "Unsettled" is now your second citation? Is this really what you've been filling your head with? — Xtrix

You seem a little unfair and stroppy in parts because you think you're absolutely sure of what you're saying. And yes, maybe you're right, and these two guys are completely wrong. But they seem to me to be more objective than the media coverage.

Btw. Even many pioneers in science were once considered misleading, and many scientists who were bogeymen in their time were sometimes later vindicated.

If you want to make a connection between the evidence from climate science and philosophy, be my guest. — Xtrix

It is not only about evidence, but also about lack of knowledge. As said, the knowledge of the operations between the sun and the earth spheres is absolutely deficient.

I could be. But it hasn't been demonstrated on this particular issue. — Xtrix

Relying on what the current state of science says is not a good thing. See history of science and philosophy of science (Have you read Paul Feyerabend?). Or are you a proponent of scientism? I don't believe you when you say you could be wrong. I think you are as sure of your cause as a traditional Catholic is sure of the existence of God.

debunked — Xtrix

debunked has become a vacuous, watered-down concept. Do you think astrology has been debunked yet?

Forgive me if I question your judgment. — Xtrix

That's the point I was trying to get across in my first post. And I'm not asking you to believe me. After all, it was asked for an opinion in this entry, but for you, one cannot cherish mere opinions in this regard. Would you take action against me as the head of state?

Now you have posted graphs to support your thesis. Let me tell you an anecdote. In Germany, where I come from, there is a popular scientist, Harald Lesch, who 20 years ago did not take the theses about man-made climate change seriously at all. In doing so, he also pulled up scientific graphs like you've done now. His thesis was more or less that of Koonin. (Check out the discussion between Koonin and Michael Shermer. He doesn't strike me as a charlatan.)

The last years, Harald Lesch has changed his opinion completely. He now thinks like you. Unfortunately, the suspicion cannot be suppressed that he talks like that because he is under social pressure.

What "opposition"? You mean the entire scientific community? They've abandoned "objectivity"? — Xtrix

At least outwardly. I'm sure if I talked privately with many climate scientists that what they would tell me would not necessarily mirror the public discourse which is pure panic mode.

There is evidence that they have been extremely reluctant to talk about how dire the situation is, out of a desire not to appear "alarmist" or un-objective. That has been the social pressure. — Xtrix

This is a mere assertion. I need evidence.

Also, I don't think the media is scaring us ENOUGH. We should be much, much more alarmed. — Xtrix

So you would prefer to silence someone like me? That is, ban me from all online discussions.

There is no agenda or activism behind my position. I just wanted to express my opinion because OP asked for opinions.

The following is also my position:

I know enough to know that prominent neuroscientists today have stated that in their youth they were told to steer clear of research into ‘consciousness’ because it was regarded as too ‘fringe’ and would possibly end their careers. I also know that many scientists ‘play the game’. Meaning they will contrive experiments around a popular demand/theme in order to get funding if they can shoehorn in a way of getting the data out for something they need - often happens for military research. — I like sushi

Today's science believes that the Earth's climate is an isolated thing: the climate changes largely because of greenhouse gases, and processes that come from outside the Earth are said to have only marginal influence.

I think it is the other way around.