Article on Climate Change

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Article on Climate Change

Article on Climate Change28-10-2019 23:13
JamesMor ☆☆☆☆☆ (3)	Hi Folks, I wrote a new article on climate change with small things we all can do that are tangible, using photos from my recent trip to Alaska as a backdrop. I usually have a bit of a jaundiced eye towards people who post something with an outside link that are new - but please bear with me. I have the blessing of Jeppe Branner. http://www.nwpphotoforum.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=43614#Post43614
29-10-2019 04:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. Describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Pretty pictures, but using them to further a religious belief is another thing.
29-10-2019 17:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	JamesMor wrote: Hi Folks, I wrote a new article on climate change with small things we all can do that are tangible, using photos from my recent trip to Alaska as a backdrop. I usually have a bit of a jaundiced eye towards people who post something with an outside link that are new - but please bear with me. I have the blessing of Jeppe Branner. I got as far as the first two sentences ... I see Climate Change as THE existential threat for the human race. I base this on evidence that the rapidly changing climate is already seen as causing profound impacts on the other animals that share this planet with us - and that is very upsetting to me. ... and I remembered that I should give you the advanced notice I normally give Mormon missionaries or Jehova's Witnesses, i.e. I am not likely to join your church or convert to your faith, but I will listen to your spiel. You should know that this is not the first time I have heard this spiel and if you'd like I can just give you my final answer and reason thereof right up front and save both of us a lot of time. Good luck. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-11-2019 19:03
JamesMor ☆☆☆☆☆ (3)	Hi, Thank you very much. I am glad that you enjoyed the photos. It was a wonderful trip. As I mentioned in my 'pre-ramble,' I don't really look to debate what I see as incontrovertible. There is really not a value in that for anyone...it just enrages everyone. The intended recipient of the article is for those who do appreciate the broader scientific consensus that climate change is a real thing - and perhaps a result of human intervention. For folks who wish to deny, I am not the person to have that argument with. I realize that my mind is 'made up' but that is OK too. -James
04-11-2019 19:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	JamesMor wrote: Hi, Thank you very much. I am glad that you enjoyed the photos. It was a wonderful trip. As I mentioned in my 'pre-ramble,' I don't really look to debate what I see as incontrovertible. There is really not a value in that for anyone...it just enrages everyone. The intended recipient of the article is for those who do appreciate the broader scientific consensus that climate change is a real thing Science doesn't use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Define 'climate change'. JamesMor wrote: - and perhaps a result of human intervention. Define 'climate change'. JamesMor wrote: For folks who wish to deny, I am not the person to have that argument with. Yes you are. You are a devout believer in the Church of Global Warming. You want to force your socialism on the rest of us. JamesMor wrote: I realize that my mind is 'made up' but that is OK too. No, it isn't. State religions are illegal in every State of the Union. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 04-11-2019 19:26

04-11-2019 22:52
JamesMor ☆☆☆☆☆ (3)	Dear The Parrot Killer, I really don't want to get into a debate. As I mentioned, it is not the purpose of my article. (1) You have asked me to define climate change. I think the best thing to do is provide resources that can answer your questions in a readily consumable way. I am including a link to NASA's website, and they have a nice article on what is climate change and what is global warming - and hey, what's the difference anyway? Or something like that. https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change/ (2) You indicate that science does not use consensus. I am going to suggest that this is both true and false. Here are some articles: https://futurism.com/what-is-scientific-consensus https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ The NASA site provides a pretty impressive list of organizations that do believe that climate change is real - and human caused. Does that mean that scientific consensus equals "F" fact? No...but I suggest that this is a whole lot of organizations that know an awful lot on the subject, with lots of verifiable data..and that pulls a lot of weight with me. (3) As to your assertion that I am a "devout believer in the Church of Global Warming." and that I "want to force" my "socialism on the rest of us." This is patently false. Interestingly, the nature of the article was mostly about things that individuals can do on their own - not about what government should be doing for us...though I will fully acknowledge that I believe that our elected government officials must also act. (4) You keep referring to my views in the context of religion. I see no evidence that your assertions are true. Anyway - this will be my one reply on this. As I said earlier, I am not here to have a debate - ironically the name of the forum. I am here for folks who think as I do and are interested in small ways that they can make a difference. Nothing I wrote will in any way cause a religious transformation or cause Xi Jinping (or any other socialist) to appear if you read it three times. Cheers and good luck. Edited on 04-11-2019 22:57
04-11-2019 23:09
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	JamesMor wrote:...the article was mostly about things that individuals can do on their own - not about what government should be doing for us... Which is a perfectly legitimate and valuable contribution to make. Thank you! The pretense that disagreement about one thing somehow disqualifies all discussion (ie. your'e a communist, cult leader, or otherwise not entitled to speak, everything you're saying is disqualified because of X, or any of the other BS thrown at you you above) is simply done to try to stop the discussion. Keep up the good work and I'm glad to hear you're not discouraged by the nay sayers. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
04-11-2019 23:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	JamesMor wrote: Dear The Parrot Killer, I really don't want to get into a debate. I know. You are here to preach, just like the rest of the Church of Global Warming. JamesMor wrote: As I mentioned, it is not the purpose of my article. I know. JamesMor wrote: (1) You have asked me to define climate change. I think the best thing to do is provide resources that can answer your questions in a readily consumable way. I am including a link to NASA's website, and they have a nice article on what is climate change and what is global warming - and hey, what's the difference anyway? Or something like that. The do not define 'climate change'. Define 'climate change'. JamesMor wrote: (2) You indicate that science does not use consensus. I am going to suggest that this is both true and false. Paradox. Which is it, dude? (Hint: It does not use consensus at all.) JamesMor wrote: Here are some articles: ...deleted Holy Links... Articles written by NASA do not define 'science'. NASA is a government agency. Further, they do not define 'climate change'. Try again. JamesMor wrote: The NASA site provides a pretty impressive list of organizations that do believe that climate change is real - and human caused. Circular argument fallacy. Define 'climate change'. JamesMor wrote: Does that mean that scientific consensus equals "F" fact? There is no such thing as 'scientific' consensus. Consensus is only used in religion and politics. JamesMor wrote: No...but I suggest that this is a whole lot of organizations that know an awful lot on the subject, with lots of verifiable data..and that pulls a lot of weight with me. What data? Who collected it? When was it collected? What instrumentation was used? How was biased accounted for? Where is the raw data? JamesMor wrote: (3) As to your assertion that I am a "devout believer in the Church of Global Warming." and that I "want to force" my "socialism on the rest of us." This is patently false. Nope. Quite true. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx. JamesMor wrote: Interestingly, the nature of the article was mostly about things that individuals can do on their own - not about what government should be doing for us...though I will fully acknowledge that I believe that our elected government officials must also act. And what should government do? JamesMor wrote: (4) You keep referring to my views in the context of religion. I see no evidence that your assertions are true. All religions are based on one common characteristic: they are all based on some initial circular argument, and have arguments extending from that. In Christianity, for example, that initial circular argument is that Christ exists, and He is who He says He is (namely, the Son of God). ALL other arguments about Christianity stem from that initial circular argument. It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist. It is not possible to prove no god or gods exist. The other word for the circular argument (which is not a fallacy, BTW), is called 'faith'. The Church of Global Warming is no different than any other religion. It's initial circular argument is the the Earth is warming. ALL other arguments in that religion stem from that initial circular argument. Anyone that tries to prove a circular argument or use one in a proof has committed a Circular Argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does. Fundamentalists can occur in any religion. The Church of Global Warming is fundamentalist in style. JamesMor wrote: Anyway - this will be my one reply on this. As I said earlier, I am not here to have a debate - ironically the name of the forum. I am here for folks who think as I do and are interested in small ways that they can make a difference. Nothing I wrote will in any way cause a religious transformation or cause Xi Jinping (or any other socialist) to appear if you read it three times. You don't get to control energy markets. You don't get to dictate to anyone else what should be done to 'save the planet' or 'prevent global warming' (whatever that actually IS!). You worry needlessly that the Earth is going to hell in a handbasket. The Church of Global Warming is based on fear and the gullibility of its members. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-11-2019 23:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: JamesMor wrote:...the article was mostly about things that individuals can do on their own - not about what government should be doing for us... Which is a perfectly legitimate and valuable contribution to make. Thank you! Contextomy fallacy. Not what he said. tmiddles wrote: The pretense that disagreement about one thing somehow disqualifies all discussion (ie. your'e a communist, cult leader, or otherwise not entitled to speak, everything you're saying is disqualified because of X, or any of the other BS thrown at you you above) is simply done to try to stop the discussion. You are trying to stop discussion. tmiddles wrote: Keep up the good work and I'm glad to hear you're not discouraged by the nay sayers. YALIF. Thought terminating cliche fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Article on Climate Change:

Threads	Replies	Last post
If you delete then delete all article using nickname the savior	1	25-12-2021 16:38
interesting article in forbes	1	26-06-2019 13:28
The link is to an article in the Daily Mail about asteroids and the last ice age	45	16-03-2018 23:15