Commies

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Commies

Commies27-01-2019 14:32
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	The more I read here the more I think that the motivation for climate change denial is mostly political. Specifically many here detest leftist, communist, marxist ideas and attempts to use climate change as a tool to push this agenda. Now I don't understand where this is coming from. Free markets are already dealing with waste issues. Do deniers disagree with policies that make it illegal to dump waste in the forest? I assume only the most extreme of libertarians will disagree that such policy is a good idea, that it is sound to limit the individual freedom at the point where the individual freedom might harm the freedom and well-being of others. Now assuming climate change is real, is a threat to human beings and is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, then CO2 is just another one of those garbage materials that people cannot freely dump into nature but are required to dispose of in a way that doesn't cause harm to others. Free markets and politics already deal with this issue in the US without the US becoming a nightmare of Marxist doctrine. My question is: Why do you conflate a political left-shift with acknowledging and mitigating climate change? Edited on 27-01-2019 14:40
27-01-2019 14:40
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	What threat do you see from a slightly warmer world? I ask as I have never had a good answer. I would like you to cite a specfic location, a local council anywhere in the world, that has traffic lights, and show me why they would expect to have to spend more than the traffic lights budget to sort out any impact of this change. Good luck. Edited on 27-01-2019 14:40
27-01-2019 14:46
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Tim the plumber wrote: [color=navy]What threat do you see from a slightly warmer world? Countless studies predict more extreme weather patterns in a warmer world, increasing floods and droughts. Plus obviously land-loss to sea-level rise, which will cause mass migrations from the affected cities and reduce arable land. The last time we had 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans were 10 to 40 meters higher than today. We can now start bickering about whether people with PhDs doing studies regarding future climate are "scientists" or whether there is such a thing as "climate science". I don't care about these terms, I care about the truth and the most likely future. There is a world out there, and we have all kinds of tools to help us understand that world, and there are people studying this professionally, and they don't disagree that a warmer world is a threat. But let's assume for now that climate change is real and man-made. Why would open markets not be able to deal with this issue? Why do you fear a left-shift politically as a result? Edited on 27-01-2019 14:47
27-01-2019 16:37
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	littleendian wrote: The more I read here the more I think that the motivation for climate change denial is mostly political. Specifically many here detest leftist, communist, marxist ideas and attempts to use climate change as a tool to push this agenda. Now I don't understand where this is coming from. Free markets are already dealing with waste issues. Do deniers disagree with policies that make it illegal to dump waste in the forest? I assume only the most extreme of libertarians will disagree that such policy is a good idea, that it is sound to limit the individual freedom at the point where the individual freedom might harm the freedom and well-being of others. Now assuming climate change is real, is a threat to human beings and is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, then CO2 is just another one of those garbage materials that people cannot freely dump into nature but are required to dispose of in a way that doesn't cause harm to others. Free markets and politics already deal with this issue in the US without the US becoming a nightmare of Marxist doctrine. My question is: Why do you conflate a political left-shift with acknowledging and mitigating climate change? Name calling is a childish defense, 'deniers' isn't even an accurate one, guess it adds to the ridiculousness of the insult. I don't deny there is slight warming. I don't accept that it has anything to do with CO2, or that it's going to cause wide spread death and destruction. Predictions/prophesies aren't real, they are simply guessing/gambling. Only telling part of the truth/facts, is still a lie. CO2 is not garbage, it occurs naturally, every breath taken, every wildfire that burns thousands of acres, every volcano that erupts. It's also critical to life on this planet, since everything depends on vegetation for food, one way or another. Every living cell contains carbon, that carbon came from the atmosphere, CO2. Most people keep their homes and properties clean of trash. The planet is our home, and the only one we have. Dumping non-organic trash is just plain wrong, and lazy, wasteful. Single-use items, in the vast majority of cases, should be banned. Most of these items or simply for convenience, save time and effort, and provide little else. I don't really 'detest' other people's choice of government, just when it starts to infect/corrupt our own. I don't support our government forcing ours on other countries either. Specially, where we have to fight and kill to establish a democracy, spend a lot of money/lives, and at the end of it, we can never leave it alone, or it will quickly revert back to the previous form of government. I can see helping out a country being invaded by another, larger country, but not getting involved in internal conflicts (the election process for some types of government).
27-01-2019 19:29
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	HarveyH55 wrote: Predictions/prophesies aren't real, they are simply guessing/gambling. Only telling part of the truth/facts, is still a lie. There is a difference between blind guessing and listening to the probabilities people tell me who have studied the subject in depth, e.g. through models. I know that appeals to authority are something to be careful with, but you guys are particularly reluctant to accept any authority because -- unfortunatley for your denial of a climate change threat -- those authorities are pretty unanimously saying what you don't want to hear. People like Bill Gates are putting a lot of money whether their mouth is, too. HarveyH55 wrote: CO2 is not garbage, it occurs naturally, every breath taken, every wildfire that burns thousands of acres, every volcano that erupts. It's also critical to life on this planet, since everything depends on vegetation for food, one way or another. Every living cell contains carbon, that carbon came from the atmosphere, CO2. Red herring. Because something is supportive of life (or even necessary for it) in certain quantities doesn't mean that increasing it will not have harmful effects. Simple analogy: A certain temperature is pleasant, yet doubling it can lead to heat death. If we continue as is, we'll have doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere compared to pre-industrial somewhere between 2050 and 2100. Yes, I know, CO2 has a logarithmic rather than linear relationship with the global average temperature estimate, but you get my point. HarveyH55 wrote: Most people keep their homes and properties clean of trash. The planet is our home, and the only one we have. Dumping non-organic trash is just plain wrong, and lazy, wasteful. Single-use items, in the vast majority of cases, should be banned. Most of these items or simply for convenience, save time and effort, and provide little else. There are laws and fines against dumping trash where it doesn't belong, and I know that some people break them, I've seen piles of trash in the woods. If too much CO2 in the atmosphere creates problems for other people, we obviously also need to put a fine (or tax, call it what you will) on those activities releasing it to discourage this behaviour. No need to appeal to any Marxist doctrine or leftist ideals. Edited on 27-01-2019 19:34

27-01-2019 19:47
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	littleendian wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: [color=navy]What threat do you see from a slightly warmer world? Countless studies predict more extreme weather patterns in a warmer world, increasing floods and droughts. Plus obviously land-loss to sea-level rise, which will cause mass migrations from the affected cities and reduce arable land. The last time we had 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans were 10 to 40 meters higher than today. We can now start bickering about whether people with PhDs doing studies regarding future climate are "scientists" or whether there is such a thing as "climate science". I don't care about these terms, I care about the truth and the most likely future. There is a world out there, and we have all kinds of tools to help us understand that world, and there are people studying this professionally, and they don't disagree that a warmer world is a threat. But let's assume for now that climate change is real and man-made. Why would open markets not be able to deal with this issue? Why do you fear a left-shift politically as a result? "Countless studies"? Then give us some references. The fact of the matter is that weather patterns are driven by temperature differences between the tropics and arctic regions. In a warmer world these differences would be reduced and weather would be milder. What I see is you as the one being incredibly political. You really don't understand the subject - you even think that the IPCC is a scientific organization when it is almost entirely political and was funded almost entirely by Obama. This is a group whose PURPOSE is to tell other countries what they can and cannot do to produce power. The fact that this would mean the death of a billion people either doesn't cross your mind or you don't care because your belief is that you won't be one of them.
27-01-2019 19:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: The more I read here the more I think that the motivation for climate change denial is mostly political. No, it is because of existing theories of science, such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. littleendian wrote: Specifically many here detest leftist, communist, marxist ideas and attempts to use climate change as a tool to push this agenda. No, it is the left that is pushing the Church of Global Warming. littleendian wrote: Now I don't understand where this is coming from. Apparently you don't. littleendian wrote: Free markets are already dealing with waste issues. That they are. My company is one of them. littleendian wrote: Do deniers disagree with policies that make it illegal to dump waste in the forest? Irrelevant. Waste in forests have nothing to do with the Church of Global Warming. littleendian wrote: Now assuming climate change is real, It isn't. littleendian wrote: is a threat to human beings It isn't. littleendian wrote: and is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. littleendian wrote: then CO2 is just another one of those garbage materials that people cannot freely dump into nature CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. That's like saying water is a pollutant. I don't think you know what a pollutant IS. littleendian wrote: but are required to dispose of in a way that doesn't cause harm to others. There is no need to dispose a material that naturally occurs. CO2 is not harmful to the environment. littleendian wrote: Free markets and politics already deal with this issue No, they don't. There is no issue. CO2 is not harmful to the environment. It is not capable of warming the Earth. littleendian wrote: in the US without the US becoming a nightmare of Marxist doctrine. The purpose of the Church of Global Warming is to implement a Marxist doctrine by using a 'saving the planet' excuse. littleendian wrote: My question is: Why do you conflate a political left-shift with acknowledging and mitigating climate change? You can't even DEFINE 'climate change'. Try to do so. Remember, you cannot define a word with itself. 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
27-01-2019 20:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Countless studies predict Science is incapable of prediction. It can only explain. Science is an open functional system. A theory of science must be formalized into a closed functional system, such as mathematics, to gain the power of prediction. Studies are not an equation. They are not science either. littleendian wrote: more extreme weather patterns in a warmer world, The usual fortune telling. littleendian wrote: increasing floods and droughts. More gloom and doom. littleendian wrote: Plus obviously land-loss to sea-level rise, What sea level rise? It's not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no reference point. littleendian wrote: which will cause mass migrations from the affected cities More doom and gloom. littleendian wrote: and reduce arable land. Why would it? Did you know the sea also contains food? littleendian wrote: The last time we had 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans were 10 to 40 meters higher than today. Argument from randU fallacy. Since CO2 is above 400ppm right now, why aren't the sea levels 10 to 40 meters higher?? Where is all this water coming from?? littleendian wrote: We can now start bickering about whether people with PhDs doing studies regarding future climate are "scientists" or whether there is such a thing as "climate science". Science isn't a PhD or any other credential. It has no theories about climate. Science has no theories about something that is not quantifiable. littleendian wrote: I don't care about these terms, Paradox. Which is it, dude? littleendian wrote: I care about the truth and the most likely future. Science isn't a casino. Show me the probability math. littleendian wrote: There is a world out there, Clever. You're standing on it, dude. littleendian wrote: and we have all kinds of tools to help us understand that world, But you deny them. littleendian wrote: and there are people studying this professionally, Irrational. You are locked in paradox. Which is it, dude? Do you care about credentials or not? littleendian wrote: and they don't disagree that a warmer world is a threat. Making stuff up about who believes what is an argument from randU as well. littleendian wrote: But let's assume for now that climate change Define 'climate change'. This is a meaningless buzzword you keep using. [b]littleendian wrote: is real It isn't. You can't even DEFINE it! littleendian wrote: and man-made[/b]. A buzzword is always man made. littleendian wrote: Why would open markets not be able to deal with this issue? There is no issue. littleendian wrote: Why do you fear a left-shift politically as a result? Because that is who is behind the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, and the Church of Karl Marx. 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
27-01-2019 20:26
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Wake wrote: "Countless studies"? Then give us some references. Really that is what the IPCC does every new report they release, they find all those countless studies and extract the essence of what the consensus is. But here is one: https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/327/2016/esd-7-327-2016-discussion.html From the abstract: While some (in particular high-latitude) regions may benefit, tropical regions like West Africa, South-East Asia, as well as Central and northern South America are projected to face substantial local yield reductions, particularly for wheat and maize. Now I guess the difference between us is that you'll take the first part about benefits and ignore the latter, and I'll worry about the latter substantial local yield reductions. But the question really is: Considering the risks (large error bars) associated with those predictions, is your course of "business as usual" really such a wise choice? It just makes sense to me that the plants we have are adapted to Holocene or colder (ice age) temperatures, because that's the climate that those plants have seen and evolved in in the last hundrets of thousands of years. How can you be so sure that agriculture will be able to cope with changes in climate? That's right, you can't be sure, but you pretend you are because it's easier not to have to make any changes to your lifestyle. Tell me that is not it. What I see is you as the one being incredibly political. I came here asking questions about the science. I felt strong resistance against nearly anything related to climate change. So I start asking questions about motivation, which seem political to me, yes. You really don't understand the subject - you even think that the IPCC is a scientific organization when it is almost entirely political and was funded almost entirely by Obama. This is a group whose PURPOSE is to tell other countries what they can and cannot do to produce power. The IPCC was founded in 1988 when Obama wasn't in office, Obama didn't fund them, no matter how much that is your enemy image. The IPCC working groups are composed of scientists studying the literature produced by other IPCC-independent scientists. No, their purpose is not political, that is your burden of proof and I haven't seen any whatsover. Their purpose is to find out the truth about what's likely to happen in the future with the earth's climate, just as is stated on their mission description. Now you can be a paranoid old geezer and say all those scientists are really in a big conspiracy, but then the HUGE burden of proof is on you. The fact that this would mean the death of a billion people either doesn't cross your mind or you don't care because your belief is that you won't be one of them. That is exactly what I worry about. And it is what is possibly happening as a consequence of unmitigated climate change. Nobody says to turn off the hospitals in Rwanda because their coal plants pollute. The US and EU citizens have the biggest footprints, they need to start reducing those. We're talking about US and EU policies, where nobody will die if we switch them to renewables plus nuclear. Edited on 27-01-2019 20:27
27-01-2019 20:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Predictions/prophesies aren't real, they are simply guessing/gambling. Only telling part of the truth/facts, is still a lie. There is a difference between blind guessing You are blind guessing. littleendian wrote: and listening to the probabilities people tell me who have studied the subject in depth, Show me the probability math. Science isn't a casino. littleendian wrote: e.g. through models. Models aren't data. littleendian wrote: I know that appeals to authority are something to be careful with, Irrational. Which is it, dude? littleendian wrote: but you guys are particularly reluctant to accept any authority because -- unfortunatley for your denial of a climate change threat -- those authorities are pretty unanimously saying what you don't want to hear. Irrational. Which is it, dude? littleendian wrote: People like Bill Gates are putting a lot of money whether their mouth is, too. Bill Gates is not an authority. In my opinion he is a lousy programmer as well. He's a great plagiarist and marketer though. Everything that Microsoft sold during his reign there was stolen, even DOS and Windows. DOS came from the Intel ISIS project and CP/M. Windows came from the Plato project, Xerox PARC, and Apple corporation. There were no patent protections or copyright protections of software in those days, you see. littleendian wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: CO2 is not garbage, it occurs naturally, every breath taken, every wildfire that burns thousands of acres, every volcano that erupts. It's also critical to life on this planet, since everything depends on vegetation for food, one way or another. Every living cell contains carbon, that carbon came from the atmosphere, CO2. Red herring. WTF??? YOU brought it up! Now you call your OWN ARGUMENT A RED HERRING??? littleendian wrote: Because something is supportive of life (or even necessary for it) in certain quantities doesn't mean that increasing it will not have harmful effects. CO2 has no harmful effects. You are just assuming them. I suggest you study the properties of CO2. They are known, and have been known for quite some time. littleendian wrote: Simple analogy: A certain temperature is pleasant, yet doubling it can lead to heat death. Doubling CO2 to 800ppm has no ill effects at all. Indeed, it only has beneficial effects. littleendian wrote: If we continue as is, we'll have doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere compared to pre-industrial somewhere between 2050 and 2100. Fortune telling. Argument from randU fallacy. littleendian wrote: Yes, I know, CO2 has a logarithmic rather than linear relationship with the global average temperature estimate, but you get my point. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. It is not a logarithmic or linear relationship. There IS NO RELATIONSHIP. CO2's effect on Earth temperature is zero, zilch, nada. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. littleendian wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Most people keep their homes and properties clean of trash. The planet is our home, and the only one we have. Dumping non-organic trash is just plain wrong, and lazy, wasteful. Single-use items, in the vast majority of cases, should be banned. Most of these items or simply for convenience, save time and effort, and provide little else. There are laws and fines against dumping trash where it doesn't belong, Indeed there are. littleendian wrote: and I know that some people break them, Indeed they do. They sooner or later get caught at it too. It only takes once. littleendian wrote: I've seen piles of trash in the woods. So have I. littleendian wrote: If too much CO2 in the atmosphere creates problems for other people, CO2 is not trash. It is not waste. It is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere. You are making a false equivalence. You are saying the trees are waste in the forest and not the piles of trash. littleendian wrote: we obviously also need to put a fine (or tax, call it what you will) on those activities releasing it to discourage this behaviour. Who are YOU to decide what tax to impose on people? Who are YOU to decide 'correct behavior'? You are not a dictator. littleendian wrote: No need to appeal to any Marxist doctrine or leftist ideals. What you are proposing IS a Marxist doctrine and a leftist ideal. 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
27-01-2019 20:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Wake wrote: littleendian wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: [color=navy]What threat do you see from a slightly warmer world? Countless studies predict more extreme weather patterns in a warmer world, increasing floods and droughts. Plus obviously land-loss to sea-level rise, which will cause mass migrations from the affected cities and reduce arable land. The last time we had 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans were 10 to 40 meters higher than today. We can now start bickering about whether people with PhDs doing studies regarding future climate are "scientists" or whether there is such a thing as "climate science". I don't care about these terms, I care about the truth and the most likely future. There is a world out there, and we have all kinds of tools to help us understand that world, and there are people studying this professionally, and they don't disagree that a warmer world is a threat. But let's assume for now that climate change is real and man-made. Why would open markets not be able to deal with this issue? Why do you fear a left-shift politically as a result? "Countless studies"? Then give us some references. The fact of the matter is that weather patterns are driven by temperature differences between the tropics and arctic regions. In a warmer world these differences would be reduced and weather would be milder. What I see is you as the one being incredibly political. You really don't understand the subject - you even think that the IPCC is a scientific organization when it is almost entirely political and was funded almost entirely by Obama. This is a group whose PURPOSE is to tell other countries what they can and cannot do to produce power. The fact that this would mean the death of a billion people either doesn't cross your mind or you don't care because your belief is that you won't be one of them. Absolutely correct, Wake. 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
27-01-2019 20:33
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Night, I said "studies", not science. Also, yes, the ocean contains food, but increasing the sea level might not significantly increase its productivity, however it will take away arable land. Increasing the carbon stored in the oceans as a consequence of increased levels in the atmosphere can very possibly have an adverse effect on its food productivity. I'm not getting bogged in your game of defineroo. If I trusted that your goal was really to find out the truth, that'd be different, but I suspect your motivation is just to grind any discussion to a halt. You can doubt the existance of concepts like greenhouse gasses all you want, but you'll never convince anyone. There is no need to dispose a material that naturally occurs. CO2 is not harmful to the environment. Wrong. 280 ppm of CO2 create a climate to which most plants and species in the global biosphere are adapted. 500 ppm of CO2 just might create a climate to which they have severe trouble adapting at the relatively fast rate at which the climate is then changing. So you should've said "certain concentrations of CO2 are not harmful", that works. We're already seeing many more species get extinct than the "normal" background extinction rate in the past. Doubling CO2 to 800ppm has no ill effects at all. Indeed, it only has beneficial effects. What are you basing that on? Your gut feeling? Climate models? What? Edited on 27-01-2019 20:40
27-01-2019 20:48
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Who are YOU to decide what tax to impose on people? Who are YOU to decide 'correct behavior'? You are not a dictator. [...] What you are proposing IS a Marxist doctrine and a leftist ideal. No. Outside of anarchy (are you an anarchist?) government will always have some degree of control over the interactions of its citizens. Our goal is to maximize the freedom of the individual. However, at some points that freedom intersects with the freedom of other individuals. If you're an anarchist, you don't care and let them fight it out without appeal to a higher authority judging the dispute. However, if you're not an anarchist, you will probably say that when the freedom of one and the freedom of another are in conflict, a third more powerful party (the state) will decide. The interest of future generations, their freedom to have a healthy and prosperous life, their pursuit of happiness, is very likely in conflict with our freedom today to burn fossil fuels at will. That is the situation we're in, whether you like it or not, and no matter how much you play your define-game and deny the existance of obvious physical processes like CO2 capturing more of the suns energy at higher concentrations in the atmosphere, you're simply becoming more and more divorced from reality. Edited on 27-01-2019 20:48
27-01-2019 20:52
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Into the Night wrote: littleendian wrote: and listening to the probabilities people tell me who have studied the subject in depth, Show me the probability math. Science isn't a casino. You're purposefully creating an impossible standard for scientific predictions so that none of them can stand the test. Regardless, there are probabilistic statements that can be made about the past and about the future and also about the average global temperature estimate, and whether you call that science or not doesn't enter into it. Those all point in a very clear direction. Edited on 27-01-2019 20:53
27-01-2019 20:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: "Countless studies"? Then give us some references. Really that is what the IPCC does every new report they release, they find all those countless studies and extract the essence of what the consensus is. Science isn't a 'study' or a 'research'. It does not use consensus. IPCC reports are not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. Mugging up fake data and mugging up fake consequences of that data is not science. littleendian wrote: ...deleted Holy Quote... Now I guess the difference between us is that you'll take the first part about benefits and ignore the latter, and I'll worry about the latter substantial local yield reductions. But the question really is: Considering the risks (large error bars) associated with those predictions, is your course of "business as usual" really such a wise choice? It just makes sense to me that the plants we have are adapted to Holocene or colder (ice age) temperatures, because that's the climate that those plants have seen and evolved in in the last hundrets of thousands of years. You are just quoting the same report again. It's gunk. It's made up crap. littleendian wrote: How can you be so sure that agriculture will be able to cope with changes in climate? Define 'climate change'. littleendian wrote: That's right, you can't be sure, Agriculture is unaffected by meaningless buzzwords. littleendian wrote: but you pretend you are because it's easier not to have to make any changes to your lifestyle. Tell me that is not it. His lifestyle is not agriculture, believe me. littleendian wrote: What I see is you as the one being incredibly political. I came here asking questions about the science. No, you came here to spew propaganda. You have not asked me a single thing about the theories of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which do not allow for the 'greenhouse' effect. littleendian wrote: I felt strong resistance against nearly anything related to climate change. Define 'climate change'. littleendian wrote: So I start asking questions about motivation, which seem political to me, yes. The Church of Global Warming is based on the Church of Karl Marx. That is political. Your proposed tax on carbon dioxide is also political, in perfect alignment with the goals of the Church of Karl Marx. littleendian wrote: You really don't understand the subject - you even think that the IPCC is a scientific organization when it is almost entirely political and was funded almost entirely by Obama. This is a group whose PURPOSE is to tell other countries what they can and cannot do to produce power. The IPCC was founded in 1988 when Obama wasn't in office, True, but Obama does fund it. littleendian wrote: Obama didn't fund them, Yes he does. They are also funded from YOUR taxes. littleendian wrote: no matter how much that is your enemy image. People who want to overthrow the United States and implement socialism isn't an 'image'. They are real. littleendian wrote: The IPCC working groups are composed of scientists studying the literature produced by other IPCC-independent scientists. The IPCC employs no scientists. Climate 'scientists' aren't. They deny science and mathematics. Science isn't scientists. It is a set of falsifiable theories. littleendian wrote: No, their purpose is not political, Yes it is. littleendian wrote: that is your burden of proof I have already shown why they are political. I don't need to show it again. Pay attention. littleendian wrote: and I haven't seen any whatsover. Pay attention. I showed it to you specifically. littleendian wrote: Their purpose is to find out the truth about what's likely to happen in the future No, it isn't. Their purpose is to make money. littleendian wrote: with the earth's climate, There is no such thing as a global climate. Climate is usually defined similar to 'weather over a long time'. There is no such thing as a global weather. littleendian wrote: just as is stated on their mission description. This is known as a preconclusion. It is also called a circular argument. All religions are based on some initial circular argument and extend arguments from that. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. littleendian wrote: Now you can be a paranoid old geezer Okay. Now you are turning to insults. You even decided to insult Wake. You just cast aside any defense from Wake's insults. littleendian wrote: and say all those scientists are really in a big conspiracy, They are not scientists. littleendian wrote: but then the HUGE burden of proof is on you. I have already shown why they are not scientists. littleendian wrote: The fact that this would mean the death of a billion people either doesn't cross your mind or you don't care because your belief is that you won't be one of them. That is exactly what I worry about. Don't think so. You can't even describe who will die as a result or warming temperatures. littleendian wrote: And it is what is possibly happening as a consequence of unmitigated climate change. Fortune telling and gloom and doom predictions. Nothing is happening. littleendian wrote: Nobody says to turn off the hospitals in Rwanda because their coal plants pollute. YOU are. littleendian wrote: The US and EU citizens have the biggest footprints, they need to start reducing those. Oh...so Rwanda is ok to 'pollute', but you would rather turn off the hospitals in the U.S. and Europe and have people die there? Who are YOU to decide who lives and dies?? YOU are not a dictator. littleendian wrote: We're talking about US and EU policies, where nobody will die if we switch them to renewables plus nuclear. Oil, natural gas, and wood are all renewable fuels. Solar power and wind power both require too much real estate to produce any significant power. They are the most expensive power sources per watt, even more than nuclear. Oil is plentiful and cheap. So is coal. So is natural gas. There is no shortage of any of these fuels. Oil and natural gas are renewable fuels. Nuclear is not. Coal we don't know. Who are YOU to decide the energy markets? YOU are not a dictator. 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

27-01-2019 21:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Night, I said "studies", not science. No, you said 'scientific studies'. You also continue to refer to studies as 'science'. Science is not a study or a research program. It is a set of falsifiable theories. littleendian wrote: Also, yes, the ocean contains food, That it does. littleendian wrote: but increasing the sea level might not significantly increase its productivity, You keep talking of increasing sea level. Where is all this water coming from? littleendian wrote: however it will take away arable land. Most arable land is not near the sea. The air is too salty for most crops. littleendian wrote: Increasing the carbon stored in the oceans as a consequence of increased levels in the atmosphere can very possibly have an adverse effect on its food productivity. Carbon is a fuel. If carbon is stored in the oceans, we can burn seawater for fuel. littleendian wrote: I'm not getting bogged in your game of defineroo. Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR game. It is the same game played by any liberal. littleendian wrote: If I trusted that your goal was really to find out the truth, I already know the truth. You keep denying it. You keep denying science and mathematics. littleendian wrote: that'd be different, but I suspect your motivation is just to grind any discussion to a halt. If you want to have a discussion, you are going to have to actually have one, instead of just quoting scripture from the Church of Global Warming. That is not a discussion. littleendian wrote: You can doubt the existance of concepts like greenhouse gasses all you want, but you'll never convince anyone. Already have. Argument from ignorance fallacy. littleendian wrote: There is no need to dispose a material that naturally occurs. CO2 is not harmful to the environment. Wrong. No, right. There is no need to dispose of materials that naturally occur in the environment. littleendian wrote: 280 ppm of CO2 create a climate to which most plants and species in the global biosphere are adapted. Plants are not adapted to a specific concentration of CO2. They require CO2 and water to produce carbohydrates, their food (and ours!). littleendian wrote: 500 ppm of CO2 just might create a climate to which they have severe trouble adapting They don't need to adapt. They will simply have more CO2 available. If the water is also available, they will produce MORE carbohydrates. This is a good thing. littleendian wrote: at the relatively fast rate at which the climate is then changing. Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy. littleendian wrote: So you should've said "certain concentrations of CO2 are not harmful", that works. Plants aren't adapted to specific concentrations of CO2. littleendian wrote: We're already seeing many more species get extinct than the "normal" background extinction rate in the past. Making shit up again. What is the 'normal' extinction rate? What is the current extinction rate? Argument from randU fallacy. littleendian wrote: Doubling CO2 to 800ppm has no ill effects at all. Indeed, it only has beneficial effects. What are you basing that on? Your gut feeling? No, the known properties of CO2. littleendian wrote: Climate models? What? Models aren't data or any kind of proof. They are useless. 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
27-01-2019 21:13
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: "Countless studies"? Then give us some references. Really that is what the IPCC does every new report they release, they find all those countless studies and extract the essence of what the consensus is. Basically, they cherry-pick independent studies, for bits and pieces, they agree (consensus) support their position on climate change, while ignoring, discarding, or discrediting anything that doesn't. It's not science, it's subjective (decide what parts are relevant (essence)), it's biased, since the IPCC doesn't want to disprove themselves. It's hard to argue with a one-sided presentation of the facts and findings. Science is about the details, the good, and the bad, without the faith and emotion. A salesman will only point out the appealing details, and try to steer you away from the flaws. When you start digging past the IPCC reports, you'll start to notice that they leave a lot of important details out, or in some cases totally misuse the purpose of a study, they seldom use the conclusions drawn by the teams that actually did the research. It's possible to get hit by lightning, and some people actually do, almost every year in Florida, but it's not very likely. Global warming is mathematic, a computer simulation, doesn't make it real, nor is there much of a chance it actually being a problem. But here is one: https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/327/2016/esd-7-327-2016-discussion.html From the abstract: While some (in particular high-latitude) regions may benefit, tropical regions like West Africa, South-East Asia, as well as Central and northern South America are projected to face substantial local yield reductions, particularly for wheat and maize. Now I guess the difference between us is that you'll take the first part about benefits and ignore the latter, and I'll worry about the latter substantial local yield reductions. But the question really is: Considering the risks (large error bars) associated with those predictions, is your course of "business as usual" really such a wise choice? It just makes sense to me that the plants we have are adapted to Holocene or colder (ice age) temperatures, because that's the climate that those plants have seen and evolved in in the last hundrets of thousands of years. How can you be so sure that agriculture will be able to cope with changes in climate? That's right, you can't be sure, but you pretend you are because it's easier not to have to make any changes to your lifestyle. Tell me that is not it. What I see is you as the one being incredibly political. I came here asking questions about the science. I felt strong resistance against nearly anything related to climate change. So I start asking questions about motivation, which seem political to me, yes. You really don't understand the subject - you even think that the IPCC is a scientific organization when it is almost entirely political and was funded almost entirely by Obama. This is a group whose PURPOSE is to tell other countries what they can and cannot do to produce power. The IPCC was founded in 1988 when Obama wasn't in office, Obama didn't fund them, no matter how much that is your enemy image. The IPCC working groups are composed of scientists studying the literature produced by other IPCC-independent scientists. No, their purpose is not political, that is your burden of proof and I haven't seen any whatsover. Their purpose is to find out the truth about what's likely to happen in the future with the earth's climate, just as is stated on their mission description. Now you can be a paranoid old geezer and say all those scientists are really in a big conspiracy, but then the HUGE burden of proof is on you. The fact that this would mean the death of a billion people either doesn't cross your mind or you don't care because your belief is that you won't be one of them. That is exactly what I worry about. And it is what is possibly happening as a consequence of unmitigated climate change. Nobody says to turn off the hospitals in Rwanda because their coal plants pollute. The US and EU citizens have the biggest footprints, they need to start reducing those. We're talking about US and EU policies, where nobody will die if we switch them to renewables plus nuclear.
27-01-2019 21:19
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	I apologize for the "old geezer", Wake, that was far less than the level of politeness I would like to show. Okay, parrot killer, I'll bite, lets play your game a bit. You keep asking for a definition of "climate change", and even when I write "changes in the climate", the meaning of which should be obvious, you go on about this. One request: Lets ignore (for now) whether you can "measure" any of these things, lets just talk about the reality of certain things, independent of measurability. Do you agree that there is weather, i.e. that in any specific place on some days it rains at 20 degrees C and other days it's sunny at 30 degrees C? Do you agree that, if you add all those "places" and "days" up over e.g. a year, you'll get something that we could agree to call the "global climate" of that specific year X? Do you agree that we could define this "weather" as a function of the thermal energy available in the atmosphere? Do you agree that therefore what we have now temporarily defined as "climate or year X" is affected by the thermal energy available in the atmosphere? Now I guess is where we'll diverge. Do you agree that an atmosphere of different composition will have different properties regarding the absorption of energy emitted by the sun? Do you agree that there is physics that state and experiments that show that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will yield an atmosphere that has stronger capacity to absorb energy from the sun and reflect less of it? Edited on 27-01-2019 21:23
27-01-2019 21:26
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Harvey: When you start digging past the IPCC reports, you'll start to notice that they leave a lot of important details out, or in some cases totally misuse the purpose of a study, they seldom use the conclusions drawn by the teams that actually did the research Example. Night: Plants are not adapted to a specific concentration of CO2. They require CO2 and water to produce carbohydrates, their food (and ours!). Maybe, but they are adapted to the climate (temperature, weather patterns) related to these CO2 concentrations. Edited on 27-01-2019 21:28
27-01-2019 21:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Who are YOU to decide what tax to impose on people? Who are YOU to decide 'correct behavior'? You are not a dictator. [...] What you are proposing IS a Marxist doctrine and a leftist ideal. No. Yes. That is what you are proposing. littleendian wrote: Outside of anarchy (are you an anarchist?) government will always have some degree of control over the interactions of its citizens. In the United States, government does not control, it serves the people. littleendian wrote: Our goal is to maximize the freedom of the individual. Then why do you argue against that? You are locked in another paradox. littleendian wrote: However, at some points that freedom intersects with the freedom of other individuals. If you're an anarchist, you don't care and let them fight it out without appeal to a higher authority judging the dispute. The United States is not an anarchy. Neither do I support anarchists. littleendian wrote: However, if you're not an anarchist, you will probably say that when the freedom of one and the freedom of another are in conflict, a third more powerful party (the state) will decide. The United States is not an oligarchy or dictatorship. YOU don't get to use the government to compel people to pay for your religion. You are not a dictator. You are not 'elite'. The United States is organized as a federated republic. That is why I support. We have constitutions. Each layer in government has ONLY the power authorized by it's founding constitution. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States gives the federal government any authority over CO2. The 1st amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion by Congress or any officer of the federal government. littleendian wrote: The interest of future generations, their freedom to have a healthy and prosperous life, their pursuit of happiness, is very likely in conflict with our freedom today to burn fossil fuels at will. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. We use coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, or any other source of energy people want to pay for. YOU don't get to dictate the energy market. You are not a dictator. littleendian wrote: That is the situation we're in, whether you like it or not, and no matter how much you play your define-game and deny the existance of obvious physical processes like CO2 Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying the physical properties of CO2 (they are no processes). It is YOU that is using buzzwords. littleendian wrote: capturing more of the suns energy at higher concentrations in the atmosphere, It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to trap thermal energy either. There is always heat. You are again denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. littleendian wrote: you're simply becoming more and more divorced from reality. Define 'reality'. I know what it is. Do you? Buzzword 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
27-01-2019 21:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Into the Night wrote: littleendian wrote: and listening to the probabilities people tell me who have studied the subject in depth, Show me the probability math. Science isn't a casino. You're purposefully creating an impossible standard for scientific predictions Science in and of itself is incapable of prediction. It is an open functional system. Only a closed functional system has the power of prediction. A theory of science must be formalized into a closed functional system (such as mathematics) to gain the power of prediction. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. What is the equation for 'climate change'? littleendian wrote: so that none of them can stand the test. See the very simple laws F=ma (Newton's theory of motion formalized into an equation), e=(mc^2 (Einstein's theory of mass and energy for static mass, formalized into an equation), r=cet^4 (the Stefan-Boltzmann theory of radiance and temperature, formalized into an equation). These are existing theories of science that have been formalized into mathematics, and these laws have the power of prediction (unlike the theories themselves). The power of prediction comes with the power of the formal proof. Mathematics inherently has the power of prediction, except in cases where elements from foreign Domains are incorporated into a different Domain. littleendian wrote: Regardless, there are probabilistic statements Probabilty math uses random numbers (an element imported from a foreign Domain). It does not have the power of prediction. littleendian wrote: that can be made about the past and about the future Probability math cannot predict the future. Science is not a casino, either. littleendian wrote: and also about the average global temperature estimate, Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to declare source of variance. Failure to publish or use raw data. Failure to calculate margin of error. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers. I have already discussed this with you. littleendian wrote: and whether you call that science or not doesn't enter into it. It isn't. It's math. littleendian wrote: Those all point in a very clear direction. No, it doesn't. It all points to math errors. 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
27-01-2019 21:54
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Into the Night wrote: littleendian wrote: and also about the average global temperature estimate, Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to declare source of variance. Failure to publish or use raw data. Failure to calculate margin of error. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers. I have already discussed this with you. I wrote estimate. Having a number of measurements will allow to make an estimate, having a greater number of measurements will allow for better estimates, the more samples you have the better the estimate. You can look at this estimate and see how it is changing over time. It is increasing. No matter how inconvenient that is to you (and everyone else really). It is your burden of proof to show that all those people and institutions (like your own NASA) working on those estimates are all wrong or part of some conspiracy. Edited on 27-01-2019 21:57
27-01-2019 21:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: I apologize for the "old geezer", Wake, that was far less than the level of politeness I would like to show. You can try, but that ship has sailed. I don't think Wake will need to be polite anymore with you. littleendian wrote: Okay, parrot killer, I'll bite, lets play your game a bit. You keep asking for a definition of "climate change", and even when I write "changes in the climate", the meaning of which should be obvious, you go on about this. You can't define a word with itself. Try again. You can't define 'climate change' as 'climate change'. That's a circular definition...not allowed. littleendian wrote: One request: Lets ignore (for now) whether you can "measure" any of these things, Since much of your argument depends on it, I don't think you can. littleendian wrote: lets just talk about the reality of certain things, independent of measurability. Stop using 'reality' as a buzzword. It isn't even necessary in your request. If you want to talk about stuff independent of any measurements, then just say so without embellishing it with buzzwords. littleendian wrote: Do you agree that there is weather, i.e. that in any specific place on some days it rains at 20 degrees C and other days it's sunny at 30 degrees C? Sure. littleendian wrote: Do you agree that, if you add all those "places" and "days" up over e.g. a year, you'll get something that we could agree to call the "global climate" of that specific year X? No. Weather isn't additive. littleendian wrote: Do you agree that we could define this "weather" as a function of the thermal energy available in the atmosphere? No. Warm or cold, there is still weather. littleendian wrote: Do you agree that therefore what we have now temporarily defined as "climate or year X" is affected by the thermal energy available in the atmosphere? You just asked this question. My answer is still the same. No. Warm or cold, there is still weather. littleendian wrote: Now I guess is where we'll diverge. We already have diverged. littleendian wrote: Do you agree that an atmosphere of different composition will have different properties regarding the absorption of energy emitted by the sun? Leading question. I don't bother to answer leading questions. 'Greenhouse' gas arguments do not exist in any atmosphere, anywhere. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the planet using light emitted from the planet's surface. This is true on any planet, anywhere. The atmosphere has mass. It does absorb energy from the Sun directly because it is mass. It also directly emits energy into space because it is mass. It is just like the surface in this regard, except the atmosphere is much less dense. The amount it absorbs and emits is far less than the surface itself. littleendian wrote: Do you agree that there is physics that state and experiments that show that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will yield an atmosphere that has stronger capacity to absorb energy from the sun and reflect less of it? Again the same leading question. See the answer above. 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
27-01-2019 22:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Harvey: When you start digging past the IPCC reports, you'll start to notice that they leave a lot of important details out, or in some cases totally misuse the purpose of a study, they seldom use the conclusions drawn by the teams that actually did the research Example. Night: Plants are not adapted to a specific concentration of CO2. They require CO2 and water to produce carbohydrates, their food (and ours!). Maybe, but they are adapted to the climate (temperature, weather patterns) related to these CO2 concentrations. Plants are insensitive to temperature. You are again assuming 'climate change', when you can't even define it. 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
27-01-2019 22:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Into the Night wrote: littleendian wrote: and also about the average global temperature estimate, Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to declare source of variance. Failure to publish or use raw data. Failure to calculate margin of error. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers. I have already discussed this with you. I wrote estimate. Science isn't a casino. You are guessing. littleendian wrote: Having a number of measurements will allow to make an estimate, having a greater number of measurements will allow for better estimates, the more samples you have the better the estimate. Math error. Attempt to assume reduction of variance of randR via sampling. Attempt to apply statistical mathematics to probability mathematics. Failure to select by randN. Failure to publish raw data. Failure to declare source of variance. Failure to declare selection boundary. Failure to calculate margin of error. littleendian wrote: You can look at this estimate and see how it is changing over time. Math error. Failure to declare selection boundary. By extension of the use of 'estimates' in this context, same math errors as listed previously. littleendian wrote: It is increasing. You don't know that. Neither can you know that. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. littleendian wrote: No matter how inconvenient that is to you (and everyone else really). Thought terminating cliche fallacy. Argument by assertion fallacy. littleendian wrote: It is your burden of proof to show that all those people and institutions (like your own NASA) working on those estimates are all wrong or part of some conspiracy. False authority fallacy. False dichotomy fallacy. WRONG. The burden of proof is on YOU. YOU are the one trying to claim it is possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. 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
27-01-2019 22:13
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Into the Night wrote: littleendian wrote: Do you agree that we could define this "weather" as a function of the thermal energy available in the atmosphere? No. Warm or cold, there is still weather. Yes, there is weather, but the kind of weather will vary. For example, a warming planet is associated with a smaller temperature gradient between the arctic and the regions towards the equator, yielding a different kind of jet stream. Into the Night wrote: The atmosphere has mass. It does absorb energy from the Sun directly because it is mass. It also directly emits energy into space because it is mass. It is just like the surface in this regard, except the atmosphere is much less dense. The amount it absorbs and emits is far less than the surface itself. Yes, but it is possible (and indeed a fact) that depending on the kind of matter flying around in the atmosphere more or less of the sun's incoming energy gets reflected back into space or remains in the atmosphere.
27-01-2019 22:21
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Haha, alright, Night. Your style of discussion is like arguing with a compiler. I've done that enough in my life, there is little fun in that. So you win in the sense that I don't care enough about your opinion to convince you. However, I find your arguments completely unconvincing, and that is a tragedy: I don't think you will convince many people through the kinds of arguments you are presenting here. I assume you're living in a democracy so you will have to convince an increasing number of people concerned about climate change in the future if your goal is to prevent exactly the kind of political developments that you seem so afraid of. Repeatedly asking them to define "climate change", a concept to which everyone will have a very intuitive connection, might not win your cause too many voters.
27-01-2019 23:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Into the Night wrote: littleendian wrote: Do you agree that we could define this "weather" as a function of the thermal energy available in the atmosphere? No. Warm or cold, there is still weather. Yes, there is weather, but the kind of weather will vary. You mean snow vs rain, True. You mean precipitation vs non precipitation? No. It doesn't vary. littleendian wrote: For example, a warming planet is associated with a smaller temperature gradient between the arctic and the regions towards the equator, yielding a different kind of jet stream. Temperature gradient is not the temperature of the Earth, dude. The Arctic is not going to warm faster than anywhere else on Earth. It is ice and water and has a higher specific heat index, and receives much less sunlight. littleendian wrote: Into the Night wrote: The atmosphere has mass. It does absorb energy from the Sun directly because it is mass. It also directly emits energy into space because it is mass. It is just like the surface in this regard, except the atmosphere is much less dense. The amount it absorbs and emits is far less than the surface itself. Yes, but it is possible (and indeed a fact) that depending on the kind of matter flying around in the atmosphere more or less of the sun's incoming energy gets reflected back into space or remains in the atmosphere. Not a fact. Learn what a 'fact' is. A fact is not a Universal Truth. It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. It is not possible to reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. 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
27-01-2019 23:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Haha, alright, Night. Your style of discussion is like arguing with a compiler. I've done that enough in my life, there is little fun in that. You don't have to argue with compilers. Stop making errors. It is the same with me. If you stop making errors, I will stop calling you on them. littleendian wrote: So you win in the sense that I don't care enough about your opinion to convince you. No my opinion. These theories of science that you deny are no created by me. These branches of mathematics that you deny are not created by me. The language that your compiler is giving you errors for is not defined by that compiler. littleendian wrote: However, I find your arguments completely unconvincing, and that is a tragedy: Indeed it is. It shows that you are willing to continue to deny science and mathematics to follow your fundamentalist religion. You are truly moving into the night of illiteracy. My moniker stands as a warning to people like you. littleendian wrote: I don't think you will convince many people through the kinds of arguments you are presenting here. Already have. Argument from ignorance fallacy. littleendian wrote: I assume you're living in a democracy Nope. There are no democracies currently on the face of the Earth. I live in the United States of America, a federated republic. We have constitutions here. littleendian wrote: so you will have to convince an increasing number of people concerned about climate change in the future if your goal is to prevent exactly the kind of political developments that you seem so afraid of. Nope. I will simply sue and otherwise fight any government action that goes against their own constitution. I will continue to be the Great Satan of your religion. I abhor it. Fortunately, more and more people are beginning to realize the Church of Global warming is a false religion. That can't quite put their finger on why, but it is true. Many of them do understand it has something to do with the Church of Karl Marx though. littleendian wrote: Repeatedly asking them to define "climate change", a concept to which everyone will have a very intuitive connection, I'm not asking them. I'm asking YOU (and any other fundamentalist that uses this buzzword). Intuition is not a definition. littleendian wrote: might not win your cause too many voters. I already am. Argument from ignorance 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
28-01-2019 05:33
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	The problem with your arguments is that yes, you can always insist on definitions that will make it impossible to show the thing that you don't want to be shown. You canapparently have such a insanely mathematical definiton of science, for example, that you will (apparently) derive from that that science has no power of prediction. Save yourself your compiler messages, all you're showing by that is that you're unwilling to enter a discussion that is grounded in the planet on which we live. The problem is that definitions should be there for communication, so that people can have productive discussions. Your definitions are there so that no productive discussion will ever take place. So that your church will stand as the only correct one. The church of your own freedom, unlimited by government. The church of your ations not having effects on others. Edited on 28-01-2019 05:34

28-01-2019 05:40
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Into the Night wrote: Temperature gradient is not the temperature of the Earth, dude. The Arctic is not going to warm faster than anywhere else on Earth. It is ice and water and has a higher specific heat index, and receives much less sunlight. Yes, the arctic temperature estimate is rising faster than the temperature estimate for the rest of the planet. Into the Night wrote: Not a fact. Learn what a 'fact' is. A fact is not a Universal Truth. You live in a world where people use words that aren't strictly mathematically defined or rigorous. You'll have to learn to deal with that because it's still allowing a meaningful discussion. But of course your goal is to shoot down any meaningful discussion in the first place. It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. It is not possible to reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The radiance doesn't increase with the temperature. However how much of that radiance gets reflected "back" ("trapped") in the atmosphere is changing. Edited on 28-01-2019 05:40
28-01-2019 18:24
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	littleendian wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: What threat do you see from a slightly warmer world? Countless studies predict more extreme weather patterns in a warmer world, increasing floods and droughts. Plus obviously land-loss to sea-level rise, which will cause mass migrations from the affected cities and reduce arable land. The last time we had 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans were 10 to 40 meters higher than today. We can now start bickering about whether people with PhDs doing studies regarding future climate are "scientists" or whether there is such a thing as "climate science". I don't care about these terms, I care about the truth and the most likely future. There is a world out there, and we have all kinds of tools to help us understand that world, and there are people studying this professionally, and they don't disagree that a warmer world is a threat. But let's assume for now that climate change is real and man-made. Why would open markets not be able to deal with this issue? Why do you fear a left-shift politically as a result? [color=navy]I am assuming in my question that climate change is real and has at least some man made component. I am even assuming the most extreme case scenario as predicted by the IPCC. Now which local council would you like to look at?
28-01-2019 19:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: The problem with your arguments is that yes, you can always insist on definitions that will make it impossible to show the thing that you don't want to be shown. No, that doesn't work, as you so aptly demonstrate by changing words all the time. littleendian wrote: You can apparently have such a insanely mathematical definiton of science, for example, that you will (apparently) derive from that that science has no power of prediction. It doesn't. That's why it turns to mathematics and logic, both closed systems, that DO have the power of prediction. Since you deny science, you are also denying the laws of science as well. You deny the equations these theories turn into. You deny both science and mathematics. littleendian wrote: Save yourself your compiler messages, all you're showing by that is that you're unwilling to enter a discussion that is grounded in the planet on which we live. No, all YOU are showing is that you deny science and mathematics. littleendian wrote: The problem is that definitions should be there for communication, so that people can have productive discussions. Okay. Define 'climate change'. littleendian wrote: Your definitions are there so that no productive discussion will ever take place. No my definitions, dude. littleendian wrote: So that your church will stand as the only correct one. I am not making a religious argument, dude. YOU are. littleendian wrote: The church of your own freedom, unlimited by government. I am not an anarchist. 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
29-01-2019 00:58
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: What threat do you see from a slightly warmer world? I ask as I have never had a good answer. I would like you to cite a specfic location, a local council anywhere in the world, that has traffic lights, and show me why they would expect to have to spend more than the traffic lights budget to sort out any impact of this change. Good luck. When I grew up in the 40's and 50's the weather in the bay area was much warmer than today. Everyone planted orange and lemon and lime trees because you could retrieve these fruits from them in the winter when the crop ripens. Today these citrus fruits are still all over the place but oranges don't get sweet now because it isn't warm enough. The drought and heat we had several years ago gave everyone a good crop in their backyards. One good orange tree will give you far more than a family can use. But as I said, now that they've counterfeited the temperature records about the only objective way that a person can tell is that the citrus no longer get sweet. Also the area I live in was once called Cherry City because it was a large cherry orchard. Red cherries do no like cold and no longer grow around here. Even what is known as Rainier Cherries - a type that grow in Oregon and Washington, hardly ever give a sweet crop anymore.
29-01-2019 02:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: What threat do you see from a slightly warmer world? I ask as I have never had a good answer. I would like you to cite a specfic location, a local council anywhere in the world, that has traffic lights, and show me why they would expect to have to spend more than the traffic lights budget to sort out any impact of this change. Good luck. When I grew up in the 40's and 50's the weather in the bay area was much warmer than today. Temperatures in the Bay Area were pretty much the same as they are today, Wake. Go look up the historical record of your local weather stations. Wake wrote: Everyone planted orange and lemon and lime trees because you could retrieve these fruits from them in the winter when the crop ripens. They are still there. A lot of them aren't doing so well, though. These trees need water and lots of it. Wake wrote: Today these citrus fruits are still all over the place but oranges don't get sweet now because it isn't warm enough. No, because California has seen less water in the last few years. Wake wrote: The drought and heat we had several years ago gave everyone a good crop in their backyards. One good orange tree will give you far more than a family can use. No, Wake. That was an excess of water, caused by an El Nino pattern. Wake wrote: But as I said, now that they've counterfeited the temperature records There was no global temperature record to counterfeit. It never existed. Local station records are still useful historic data, Wake. Go look 'em up. NOAA can't erase everything. Wake wrote: about the only objective way that a person can tell is that the citrus no longer get sweet. That is a subjective test, not an objective test. Wake wrote: Also the area I live in was once called Cherry City because it was a large cherry orchard. No longer there! Houses and businesses destroyed those! Wake wrote: Red cherries do no like cold and no longer grow around here. The like it just fine. They can survive freezes too. Wake wrote: Even what is known as Rainier Cherries - a type that grow in Oregon and Washington, hardly ever give a sweet crop anymore. They are just fine. They too can tolerate freezes, just like the cherries you used to have. Perhaps you can't taste anything sweet as well as you used to anymore. 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
29-01-2019 03:23
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Cherries do fine in a colder climate. I grew up on the side of a snow capped mountain in Oregon, and we had three varieties around town, that were free to pick off (on undeveloped land), spent lot of time up in one or another, stuffing myself. The yellow ones were the best. We also had quite an assortment of other fruit and nut trees, free, if you knew where to find them, A lot of wooded, undeveloped land to wander as a child. We'd start getting frost in early September, no long after school started. Snow before Halloween, usually too cold for a white Christmas. Still got snow past April. Really spoiled myself on fresh fruits, store fruit is pitiful these days. Big difference in taste if it ripens on the tree, or ripens sitting in a box for a couple weeks, often still not ripe...
29-01-2019 04:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	HarveyH55 wrote: Cherries do fine in a colder climate. I grew up on the side of a snow capped mountain in Oregon, and we had three varieties around town, that were free to pick off (on undeveloped land), spent lot of time up in one or another, stuffing myself. The yellow ones were the best. We also had quite an assortment of other fruit and nut trees, free, if you knew where to find them, A lot of wooded, undeveloped land to wander as a child. We'd start getting frost in early September, no long after school started. Snow before Halloween, usually too cold for a white Christmas. Still got snow past April. Really spoiled myself on fresh fruits, store fruit is pitiful these days. Big difference in taste if it ripens on the tree, or ripens sitting in a box for a couple weeks, often still not ripe... That's the truth! I used to live in Hawaii. Coconuts and pineapples fresh from the field is amazing. Coconut tastes like cardboard here in the stores. The pineapple is quite tart by comparison. Neither of these ship very well at all. You can only imagine what a Mounds bar tastes like to me. They might as well put shredded paper in it. Fortunately, the cherries here are good and sweet. Used to have a house with a cherry tree here in Seattle. The birds loved it, and we had more cherries than we could ever eat. 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 29-01-2019 04:10
30-01-2019 23:33
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: What threat do you see from a slightly warmer world? I ask as I have never had a good answer. I would like you to cite a specfic location, a local council anywhere in the world, that has traffic lights, and show me why they would expect to have to spend more than the traffic lights budget to sort out any impact of this change. Good luck. When I grew up in the 40's and 50's the weather in the bay area was much warmer than today. Everyone planted orange and lemon and lime trees because you could retrieve these fruits from them in the winter when the crop ripens. Today these citrus fruits are still all over the place but oranges don't get sweet now because it isn't warm enough. The drought and heat we had several years ago gave everyone a good crop in their backyards. One good orange tree will give you far more than a family can use. But as I said, now that they've counterfeited the temperature records about the only objective way that a person can tell is that the citrus no longer get sweet. Also the area I live in was once called Cherry City because it was a large cherry orchard. Red cherries do no like cold and no longer grow around here. Even what is known as Rainier Cherries - a type that grow in Oregon and Washington, hardly ever give a sweet crop anymore. From what I can tell the South West of the USA and Northern Mexico are the bits of the world that buck the trend in the way the rest of the world works. When it is hot and wet in Europe and China and almost everywhere else leading to growing civilisations etc your bit dies off. When the little ice age happens the locals get all settled and stuff around you.

Join the debate Commies: