Remember me
▼ Content

If you believe in the AGW concept and want change but you



Page 1 of 3123>
If you believe in the AGW concept and want change but you06-01-2019 21:04
Zloppino
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously
06-01-2019 21:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Zloppino wrote:
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously


That pretty well sums it up. All the Church of Global Warming does is hypocrisy.
The same is true of the Church of Green.


The Parrot Killer
06-01-2019 23:10
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(966)
Zloppino wrote:
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously


How do all those scientist and government dignitaries get to their talks, sumits, and conferences? By private jets of course, and doubtful any are driving golf cart style green cars.
07-01-2019 13:39
Zloppino
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Zloppino wrote:
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously


How do all those scientist and government dignitaries get to their talks, sumits, and conferences? By private jets of course, and doubtful any are driving golf cart style green cars.

Their are no green cars, as electricity has to come from somewhere, and even if it does come from a windmill the factory that made the car wasn't run by windmell
08-01-2019 21:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Zloppino wrote:
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously


How do all those scientist and government dignitaries get to their talks, sumits, and conferences? By private jets of course, and doubtful any are driving golf cart style green cars.


Funny enough - in Sun City which is a part of Phoenix, AR a lot of people drive on the streets in Golf Carts.
08-01-2019 21:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Zloppino wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Zloppino wrote:
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously


How do all those scientist and government dignitaries get to their talks, sumits, and conferences? By private jets of course, and doubtful any are driving golf cart style green cars.

Their are no green cars, as electricity has to come from somewhere, and even if it does come from a windmill the factory that made the car wasn't run by windmell

Analysis that I question somewhat, says that the newest windmill make a little more power than they consume over the life of the device. Solar Farms lose money.
09-01-2019 04:14
Zloppino
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
Wake wrote:
Zloppino wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Zloppino wrote:
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously


How do all those scientist and government dignitaries get to their talks, sumits, and conferences? By private jets of course, and doubtful any are driving golf cart style green cars.

Their are no green cars, as electricity has to come from somewhere, and even if it does come from a windmill the factory that made the car wasn't run by windmell

Analysis that I question somewhat, says that the newest windmill make a little more power than they consume over the life of the device. Solar Farms lose money.


And how is the windmill transported without diesel
09-01-2019 19:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Zloppino wrote:
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously


How do all those scientist and government dignitaries get to their talks, sumits, and conferences? By private jets of course, and doubtful any are driving golf cart style green cars.


Funny enough - in Sun City which is a part of Phoenix, AR a lot of people drive on the streets in Golf Carts.


Irrelevant. They are not scientists and government dignitaries, Wake. Try to stay on topic.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2019 22:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Zloppino wrote:
Wake wrote:
Zloppino wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Zloppino wrote:
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously


Return on investments are calculated on all power sources. This all contained in operating expense reports.

How do all those scientist and government dignitaries get to their talks, sumits, and conferences? By private jets of course, and doubtful any are driving golf cart style green cars.

Their are no green cars, as electricity has to come from somewhere, and even if it does come from a windmill the factory that made the car wasn't run by windmell

Analysis that I question somewhat, says that the newest windmill make a little more power than they consume over the life of the device. Solar Farms lose money.


And how is the windmill transported without diesel
09-01-2019 22:30
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(966)
I don't think many of the people understand it's a scam, just work on the pieces they are assigned. It's sort of outside their individual field, and just believe the boss understands it. The people in marketing don't have to understand it, believe in it, or even like it, they just have to figure out ways to sell the product. Politicians just need to know how they can get votes, and campaign money out of it.

Wonder if Trump can deduct the border wall money, from our UN tribute payment, since we aren't interested in climate change research, why fund it...
12-05-2019 03:31
Ken Fabian
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Zloppino wrote:
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously


I'm new here and take a pretty straight line on global warming - that it is real and is very serious. I don't think it is any kind of extremist political position to take the mainstream science on this seriously. Conversely, I think it is dangerously irresponsible of people in positions of trust and responsibility to turn aside from the consistent expert advice on this. Given the preponderance here of opinion that rejects climate concerns I may regret posting here, but...

On the content of the opening post I would say that not caring about global warming - when decades of science based expert advice says it is imperative that we do - is a worse kind of moral failing than the necessary hypocrisy of using the products of fossil fuels as a functional member of the society we belong to, whilst advocating for the kinds of institutional change that an orderly, economy-wide shift to low to below zero emissions requires.

Zloppino, I can't see that emissions purity of those of us who are concerned about climate change is valid as a must-have requirement to be taken seriously. Seriously, would that kind of emissions purity really move you when you will not take (as a possible example) the US National Academy of Sciences and UK Royal Society seriously on global warming?


To support and promote the very activities that make such a serious problem worse - whilst opposing and obstructing the legitimate efforts of others to prevent it getting worse - is much worse in my opinion than working within the society we belong to and using the democratic processes available to us to call on our governments and other societal institutions to deal with a problem much bigger than what the consumer choices of those who care can deal with.
12-05-2019 04:08
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
when decades of science based expert advice says it is imperative that we do
Here is the problem. REAL science experts say it isn't man made. It mostly if not entirely natural. If you want to know what the real experts say, read science specific peer review journals, not the non specific journals that allow anyone to review any article no matter how little their expertise overlaps with the writer. For instance, in nature, you could have a physicist write an article on tree rings and have it reviewed by an oceanographer simply by both of them claiming to be climate scientist.

A well known example of this fakery is Michael Mann's claim that the MWP and LIA were both only seen in the north Atlantic area. His article was reviewed and supported by someone that expertise was in ice cores. No one said a thing about the fact that graph failed to follow the first procedure of the anti fraud standard scientific procedures laid down by centuries of scientist and their predecessors.

You never change what you are measuring or the method of measurement in the middle of a test or graph. In his graph he did both.

In the early part of his graph, he used proxies (tree rings) that can only tell you the climate of the times. Any expert will tell you that the rings will tell you the result of over a dozen different things that affect the trees. Michael Mann insist it can tell you the temperature accurately.

Then about 1950 he CHANGED to using instruments. These are very accurate and will give you ONLY the temperature. No one at the magazines complained about this. In fact they stated it was just fine. They argue that it is more than possible to do what he said it will. Not one of them is an expert in the field that reads tree rings.

The claims of consensus is just as bogus. If you read the actual report, they will tell you that it isn't really a consensus of ALL scientist, only a fraction of them. Even that is bogus if you read the report.
12-05-2019 04:09
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
Ken Fabian wrote:
Zloppino wrote:
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously


I'm new here and take a pretty straight line on global warming - that it is real and is very serious. I don't think it is any kind of extremist political position to take the mainstream science on this seriously. Conversely, I think it is dangerously irresponsible of people in positions of trust and responsibility to turn aside from the consistent expert advice on this. Given the preponderance here of opinion that rejects climate concerns I may regret posting here, but...

On the content of the opening post I would say that not caring about global warming - when decades of science based expert advice says it is imperative that we do - is a worse kind of moral failing than the necessary hypocrisy of using the products of fossil fuels as a functional member of the society we belong to, whilst advocating for the kinds of institutional change that an orderly, economy-wide shift to low to below zero emissions requires.

Zloppino, I can't see that emissions purity of those of us who are concerned about climate change is valid as a must-have requirement to be taken seriously. Seriously, would that kind of emissions purity really move you when you will not take (as a possible example) the US National Academy of Sciences and UK Royal Society seriously on global warming?


To support and promote the very activities that make such a serious problem worse - whilst opposing and obstructing the legitimate efforts of others to prevent it getting worse - is much worse in my opinion than working within the society we belong to and using the democratic processes available to us to call on our governments and other societal institutions to deal with a problem much bigger than what the consumer choices of those who care can deal with.



Ken,
Myself I think that Natural Climate Variation is playing a role in warming. Also that warming will be primarily a northern hemisphere event. Science supports this. It's warming twice as fast across the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere than it is in the southern hemisphere. And at the same time the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the middle northern hemisphere latitudes.
Warming around the plane t isn't consistent except that the further north one goes the more it is warming.
Warming in Africa was associated in real time with ozone depletion over Antarctica and yet those scientists had to say it was CO2 even though when the temperatures rose CO2 levels didn't.
There was the Medieval Warming period and then the Little Ice Age and now this current warming period. Some people in here, about all of them really do not accept that our climate changes.
And if Natural Climate Variation is responsible then in about 100 to 200 years it'll be cooling again. That's when real problems would probably happen because Canada and Russia would become much colder just as much of Europe and the US would cool as well.
What is interesting is that about 60% of greenhouse gases is water vapor. And that is what hydrogen fuel cells would be putting into the atmosphere. That would actually increase the warming of our atmosphere.
If you look at graphs like this one that shows temperature and CO2 levels, https://images.app.goo.gl/x6UN6hyimTR73P6d9 during World War II global temperatures spiked and then no warming for the next 30 years. Before World War II, 1910 - 1945 what caused the same rise in temperature which is the same as after 1978? It's the same temperature rise but not the same increase in CO2 levels.
What does parallel warming is ozone depletion. It's possible that the increased solar radiation admitted into our atmosphere has created a feedback mechanism in the form of melting glaciers and tectonic plate lift in the northern latitudes as a result. If so then the cause for the current warming is already being dealt with which gets into a discussion of the stratospheric ozone layer.
With CO2, I think it's actually a few scientists who have made the issue politically correct.

Since you live in Australia, you might consider this article;
Ozone loss warmed southern Africa
https://www.nature.com/news/ozone-loss-warmed-southern-africa-1.13938
Edited on 12-05-2019 04:17
12-05-2019 04:13
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I don't think it is any kind of extremist political position to take the mainstream science on this seriously.
The truth is every one that claims to be a scientist that supports it is a liberal that wants to get socialism to be the leaders of the world. They support a one world government with the UN as that government.
12-05-2019 05:40
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(966)
It's all purely political, should have been obvious when Al Gore stepped to help sell the hysteria. The IPCC does a shady job of objectively using the data, studies and projects the cite. It's blatantly one-side, even though they cite papers that barely mention 'Climate Change'. Mostly it looks like the search the internet for catchy titles, or anything that might further the cause. Even though the paper's author wasn't studying Climate Change, the project really had nothing to do with, or maybe they added a sentence or two in the conclusion, not so serious, but hey, maybe they could get a few more research bucks.

Over 80% of the planet surface is H2O, also a good portion of the atmosphere, and a good supply underground. H2O does all kinds important thing for the planet, and I seriously doubt that anything on Earth is going change any of it. H2O is the planet's thermostat, it make sure it never gets too hot, or too cold. Might get stuck briefly, when some catastrophic event happens, but it straightens out after a while.

A one or two degree of warming, over centuries is even noticeable? Most of those years, we didn't have the instruments (thermometer) or the interest in measuring or recording temperature. The temperature change they keep harping about, is tiny. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is tiny (0.04%). There is no reason anyone would have notice or even cared. Both readings change constantly, that tiny percentage, would usually get ignore, as margin of error, or insignificant. The conclusion that man-made CO2, was causing catastrophic global warming, was drawn, long before any tests or research. Not exactly science, since the outcome was already predetermined, nothing else would be accepted.

The planet has been doing just fine at supporting life, long before mankind started burning anything. We never had to do anything in the past, except adapt to the existing climates, or move toward places we liked better. Nothing has really change, the climate always has changed. If you don't want to move, figure out how to adapt, or dig a 6 foot deep hole, spare someone else the bother.
12-05-2019 07:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Ken Fabian wrote:I'm new here and take a pretty straight line on global warming - that it is real and is very serious.

... and you haven't the vaguest idea what it is ... because it's nothing more than a WACKY religion that has hornswoggled you into believing it is science.

You have been duped.

Ken Fabian wrote: I don't think it is any kind of extremist political position to take the mainstream science on this seriously.

... but it is an extremist political position to adopt a fanatical firebrand religious view and then to call it "science."

By the way, the word "mainstream" applies to religions and ideologies, not to science. There is only one science view, not a spectrum. The mainstream Global Warming dogma is a fanatical religion of hatred and intolerance.

Show me a Global Warming believer and I'll show you someone who is either scientifically illiterate or a flat out science denier. Shall we start with you?

Ken Fabian wrote: Conversely, I think it is dangerously irresponsible of people in positions of trust and responsibility to turn aside from the consistent expert advice on this.

No doubt you refer to the economy-crippling Marxist policies advocated by the hate-mongering worshippers of your fanatical scientifically-devoid Global Warming as "expert advice."

Dismissed.

Ken Fabian wrote: To support and promote the very activities that make such a serious problem worse - whilst opposing and obstructing the legitimate efforts of others to prevent it getting worse - is much worse in my opinion than working within the society we belong to and using the democratic processes available to us to call on our governments and other societal institutions to deal with a problem much bigger than what the consumer choices of those who care can deal with.

Gibberish. You are a waste of time. There is no problem that needs to be fixed, even less one that requires us to kill the economy by handing all our cash over to the government via fresh new rounds of taxation.

Yes, yes, you have been duped into believing that there is an imminent catastrophic threat to planet earth, and that you have been summoned personally to "save the planet" and to "save humanity" ... but that only shows that you are a scientifically-illiterate and gullible dupe.

Go learn some physics and insist of those people who indoctrinated you into Global Warming that they falsifiably define everything for you before you'll believe it ... THEN come here to this board and state your case, if there is still one to state.

Allow me to paraphrase your case as it stands right now:

"I believe in a serious undefined problem and everyone should be panicking. I am disgusted at all of you who are not thusly panicking over this undefined problem that threatens my undefined religious myth."

I really want to know who you believe is ever going to take you seriously. Please, do tell.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-05-2019 07:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
HarveyH55 wrote: It's all purely political, should have been obvious when Al Gore stepped to help sell the hysteria.

... from a particular point of view. It's all religion, an opiate of the masses, to fabricate the perfect "existential crisis" to motivate the congregation to willingly, any enthusiastically throw more tax dollars onto the government collection plate.

HarveyH55 wrote: A one or two degree of warming, over centuries is even noticeable?

There is no warming from anything other than the sun. Nothing in the atmosphere will alter the earth's average global temperature, not even one or two degrees. Science has already answered this question.

HarveyH55 wrote: ... the climate always has changed.

Really? Which one? There are millions of climates on the planet.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-05-2019 09:32
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: It's all purely political, should have been obvious when Al Gore stepped to help sell the hysteria.

... from a particular point of view. It's all religion, an opiate of the masses, to fabricate the perfect "existential crisis" to motivate the congregation to willingly, any enthusiastically throw more tax dollars onto the government collection plate.

HarveyH55 wrote: A one or two degree of warming, over centuries is even noticeable?

There is no warming from anything other than the sun. Nothing in the atmosphere will alter the earth's average global temperature, not even one or two degrees. Science has already answered this question.

HarveyH55 wrote: ... the climate always has changed.

Really? Which one? There are millions of climates on the planet.



Unless you and itn are counting coup, most of your statements are ignorant. Marx promoted communism. It's been said that 25% of health care costs in the US is for collecting and distributing the money. England which is not a socialist country pays 40% less per capita than the US. You and itn are basically anti everything. Probably too stoned to have a grasp on reality.

That is strange. Neither of you care about businesses that are just plain greedy. Just complain about government like, I dunno, what some unhappy Native Americans might do. You pretty much hate everyone and if CO2 isn't causing global warming then science is bad. I mean if anyone reads your guys' posts that you've made in this forum, you guys have OCD. It's like watching Monk with Tony Shalhoub, you simply have no control over your impulses. With me I think you guys are funny in a queer way.

Edited on 12-05-2019 09:40
12-05-2019 16:04
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(966)
I was wondering the other day, whether the IPCC propaganda machine is employing some of the same techniques the terrorist use to radicalize muslims. They both have seem to have a knack for pulling young people in. And those young people are willing to do anything to further their cause. Both groups, if they took a minute, to think about what they are asked to do, should think it's such a great idea. Both seem willing to kill off all non-believers, even if it means dying themselves. That 'Green New Deal' should never have made it to the House floor, any sane person wouldn't have taken such a proposal seriously. Surprisingly, a lot of the democrats seem to think it great idea. We aren't even the number one, planetary-poluter, so even if we spared no expense, it would accomplish nothing on a global scale, except disrupt global economy. I'm surprised we can float on a 20 trillion dollar debt, what would happen at over 100 trillion, if we could actually go that far? It should seem fairly obvious that to take the sort of action being push globally, in short time allowed, it's going to cost a considerable amount of money, and every industrial country must doing it at the same time. High demand for the materials and equipment, will drive prices higher as well. It's crazy to think so many people believe the global warming crowd know what the climate is doing, but have know clue what their plan will do to the people. The proposed cure, is a catastrophe, the crisis predicted might not happen for over a hundred years, and a couple of degrees warmer, isn't that bad.
12-05-2019 17:44
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was wondering the other day, whether the IPCC propaganda machine is employing some of the same techniques the terrorist use to radicalize muslims. They both have seem to have a knack for pulling young people in. And those young people are willing to do anything to further their cause. Both groups, if they took a minute, to think about what they are asked to do, should think it's such a great idea. Both seem willing to kill off all non-believers, even if it means dying themselves. That 'Green New Deal' should never have made it to the House floor, any sane person wouldn't have taken such a proposal seriously. Surprisingly, a lot of the democrats seem to think it great idea. We aren't even the number one, planetary-poluter, so even if we spared no expense, it would accomplish nothing on a global scale, except disrupt global economy. I'm surprised we can float on a 20 trillion dollar debt, what would happen at over 100 trillion, if we could actually go that far? It should seem fairly obvious that to take the sort of action being push globally, in short time allowed, it's going to cost a considerable amount of money, and every industrial country must doing it at the same time. High demand for the materials and equipment, will drive prices higher as well. It's crazy to think so many people believe the global warming crowd know what the climate is doing, but have know clue what their plan will do to the people. The proposed cure, is a catastrophe, the crisis predicted might not happen for over a hundred years, and a couple of degrees warmer, isn't that bad.



And now you're sounding like Isn't and Ibnotdamann. It's a religion.
It could easily be said that understanding the details doesn't matter. I find it funny that people like you have little more than an opinion.
A few questions for you to steer this discussion away from basing an opinion on climate change away from religion, okay?
How many scientists are there in the world?
How many accept what the IPCC says?
How many scientists disagree with the IPCC or will not comment on what the IPCC claims?
How many times has the media questioned the IPCC over it's manipulation of data?
Why do people ignore the IPCC discrediting it's own scientists after the 2013 IPCC report concluded that there was at the time a 15 year hiatus in global warming?
Yet for people to say that nothing is happening all they say is "I Believe".
This is sad because people have no interest in finding out what is actually going on. While it will have little impact on our lives, if you have kids or grandkids, what is it you want for them?
And Harvey, I think it's funny that people like you, Isn't and IBNotDaMann don't find it strange that the IPCC discredited it's own report and those scientists involved with it.
12-05-2019 17:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Ken Fabian wrote:
Zloppino wrote:
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously


I'm new here and take a pretty straight line on global warming - that it is real and is very serious. I don't think it is any kind of extremist political position to take the mainstream science on this seriously. Conversely, I think it is dangerously irresponsible of people in positions of trust and responsibility to turn aside from the consistent expert advice on this. Given the preponderance here of opinion that rejects climate concerns I may regret posting here, but...

On the content of the opening post I would say that not caring about global warming - when decades of science based expert advice says it is imperative that we do - is a worse kind of moral failing than the necessary hypocrisy of using the products of fossil fuels as a functional member of the society we belong to, whilst advocating for the kinds of institutional change that an orderly, economy-wide shift to low to below zero emissions requires.

Zloppino, I can't see that emissions purity of those of us who are concerned about climate change is valid as a must-have requirement to be taken seriously. Seriously, would that kind of emissions purity really move you when you will not take (as a possible example) the US National Academy of Sciences and UK Royal Society seriously on global warming?


To support and promote the very activities that make such a serious problem worse - whilst opposing and obstructing the legitimate efforts of others to prevent it getting worse - is much worse in my opinion than working within the society we belong to and using the democratic processes available to us to call on our governments and other societal institutions to deal with a problem much bigger than what the consumer choices of those who care can deal with.


The Nazi minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels said, "If you tell people lies often enough they will believe it."

Indeed, THIS is the basis of Global Warming.

Scientific Basis?

Let is assume that the models that they are using are correct and that we are due for a lot of heating. Then why have we not had it? You can go to Dr. Roy Spencer's site. He was originally the manager of the Satellite Weather Satellite Program and finally quit when he didn't want to remain silent about NASA releasing data that was not true. He has a site, http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ that presently shows no warming at all using the weather satellite data from 1978 to present. He is using a 13 month running average that shows the normal chaotic weather patterns. Climate, on the other hand, is much longer term. If we use a 15 year running average it shows a falling temperature.

Presently there is really strongly supported suspicion that NASA who has been lying about the ground based temperature records are now manipulating the satellite records as well.

As for NASA lying - you can watch Tony Heller videos on Bing. YouTube has been censoring him for no reason that I can detect. All he is doing is showing newspapers from the supposed areas we are told are record hot areas that show temperatures totally opposite from NASA's reports. NASA's manipulations of the temperature records have reached the stage at which a LOT of scientists are quitting NASA.

Let us say that you want to assume that there really is global warming because the models say so. Well, Lord Monckton, who is a mathematician has shown inarguably that the models being used are using models with almost 50 times the actual climate sensitivity - that is, even IF all of the other things in the models were true and using NASA's temperature records to start with, that the climate will hardly change at all.

I designed gas and liquid chromatographs so I know spectrometry. I can tell you without any question at all that CO2 has NO EFFECT on atmospheric temperatures. There is insufficient energy on the Earth's surface in the specific wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs and so that entire amount is absorbed at very small values. Adding more CO2 cannot absorb energy that does not exist.

You HAVE been lied to - Turn on the TV and they show a dead grey whale. Story? That because of global warming there is less food for whales to eat. So these whales are starving to death. Indeed they are but not for reasons of global warming - the numbers of whales now have multiplied out of sight. The whale watching tours used to cross their fingers that they would find whales for the tourists to see. Now there is absolutely no question that they will find whales. Grey whales, Humpbacks, even Blue whales - the largest mammals on the Earth. The huge number are sweeping these moderate temperature areas of the oceans free of Krill - the food of these types of whales. The whales normally mate and calve around the areas of Mexico and then migrate to the polar oceans where Krill is especially heavy in the colder waters to fatten and grow their calves to adulthood.

In between those areas the conditions are not very good for production of Krill and hence the numbers of whales are so large that the weak or old or young without their mothers, may not survive. And that is indeed what is happening. They are all somewhat weakened from insufficient food but about half of them, being tired on the migration, stop in San Francisco bay and about half of them that are discovered dead have been hit by ships.

There is absolutely nothing that the environmentalists will not turn to "proof" of climate change. And taken over extreme long terms there IS climate change. But Man has no effect on it or so little as to be almost comical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

The blue line is the important piece of data. It shows the cyclic climate. This data is from Ice Cores gotten by both Russian and American scientists in Antarctica, Siberia and Alaska.

The final section appears to be holding when that is not the case. These ice sheets are constructed of areas that are too cold for rain or snow and hence the majority of the ice is constructed of frost freezing out of the air. So it requires centuries for a large enough frost to build on the snowpack to crush down into actual ice. When this happens this final peak will appear slightly wider and lower than the previous one.

And the CO2 line is NOT reliable. CO2 moves freely in H2O and hence that is why the levels of CO2 more or less matches the CO2 that presently occurs.

So please do not use the Goebbels lie of "all of the scientific data" because there actually is none at all.
12-05-2019 18:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was wondering the other day, whether the IPCC propaganda machine is employing some of the same techniques the terrorist use to radicalize muslims. They both have seem to have a knack for pulling young people in. And those young people are willing to do anything to further their cause. Both groups, if they took a minute, to think about what they are asked to do, should think it's such a great idea. Both seem willing to kill off all non-believers, even if it means dying themselves. That 'Green New Deal' should never have made it to the House floor, any sane person wouldn't have taken such a proposal seriously. Surprisingly, a lot of the democrats seem to think it great idea. We aren't even the number one, planetary-poluter, so even if we spared no expense, it would accomplish nothing on a global scale, except disrupt global economy. I'm surprised we can float on a 20 trillion dollar debt, what would happen at over 100 trillion, if we could actually go that far? It should seem fairly obvious that to take the sort of action being push globally, in short time allowed, it's going to cost a considerable amount of money, and every industrial country must doing it at the same time. High demand for the materials and equipment, will drive prices higher as well. It's crazy to think so many people believe the global warming crowd know what the climate is doing, but have know clue what their plan will do to the people. The proposed cure, is a catastrophe, the crisis predicted might not happen for over a hundred years, and a couple of degrees warmer, isn't that bad.



And now you're sounding like Isn't and Ibnotdamann. It's a religion.
It could easily be said that understanding the details doesn't matter. I find it funny that people like you have little more than an opinion.
A few questions for you to steer this discussion away from basing an opinion on climate change away from religion, okay?
How many scientists are there in the world?
How many accept what the IPCC says?
How many scientists disagree with the IPCC or will not comment on what the IPCC claims?
How many times has the media questioned the IPCC over it's manipulation of data?
Why do people ignore the IPCC discrediting it's own scientists after the 2013 IPCC report concluded that there was at the time a 15 year hiatus in global warming?
Yet for people to say that nothing is happening all they say is "I Believe".
This is sad because people have no interest in finding out what is actually going on. While it will have little impact on our lives, if you have kids or grandkids, what is it you want for them?
And Harvey, I think it's funny that people like you, Isn't and IBNotDaMann don't find it strange that the IPCC discredited it's own report and those scientists involved with it.


James, you are 100% correct. At this point in time it would be very difficult for the US to lessen our production of CO2 or pollutants whereas the rest of the world can take advantage of the panic started by the environmentalists to try to catch up with our economy.

The founders of this country warned us that we could only be destroyed from within and we can see that attempt from extremist groups attacking Trump's successes at every front.

http://www.magapill.com/

Why do you suppose the majority of these things hasn't been in the lame stream media? And those that have are depicted in a negative manner?
12-05-2019 18:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
James___ wrote: Unless you and itn are counting coup, most of your statements are ignorant.

Not true. Your responses are all like your comment above, i.e. either false or devoid of any meaningful content.

James___ wrote: Marx promoted communism.

Marx promoted socialism in many forms. He dedicated an entire section of the Manifesto to it. At the time there were many examples of socialism that he both wanted to tout and needed to advertise to broaden his coalition. There were no examples of communism for Marx to promote because, as we know, it's an impossible pipe dream that factors out human nature for words that sound good.

Marx preached Marxism, which is the idea that capitalism, i.e. sound economic principles, are evil and that communism is the natural end result of the imaginary "class struggle" that occurs under sound economic principles.

Marx was an intolerant, irrational hate-mongering lunatic with self-worth issues. Hitler was a man of his own heart. Communism has never once "naturally resulted" to this day because, as we know, it's an impossible pipe dream that factors out human nature for words that sound good.

James___ wrote: It's been said that 25% of health care costs in the US is for collecting and distributing the money.

And we all recognize the passive voice as a reliable, informed source.

James___ wrote: England which is not a socialist country pays 40% less per capita than the US.

Engs pay licensing fees to watch television. Try another country.

James___ wrote: Neither of you care about businesses that are just plain greedy.

Show me a person who uses the word "greedy" to denigrate profit motive (as you just did) and I'll show you an economically-illiterate Marxist loser for whom politics is his only hope for amounting to anything, e.g. yourself, Bernie Sanders, et. al.

James___ wrote: I mean if anyone reads your guys' posts that you've made in this forum, you guys have OCD.

Says the scientifically illiterate Marxist loser who pretends to speak for countless, unnamed others. I know four-year-olds who whine less than you do.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-05-2019 18:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
James___ wrote:It could easily be said that understanding the details doesn't matter.

Aaaahh, here we have the most reliable of sources, i.e. the passive voice in the subjunctive, being used to misrepresent the positions of others.

Your argument is already based on a solid foundation.

James___ wrote: I find it funny that people like you have little more than an opinion.

... says the gullible, scientifically illiterate, economically illiterate Marxist religious fanatic who has only WACKY religious beliefs to parrot.

James___ wrote:How many scientists are there in the world?
How many accept what the IPCC says?
How many scientists disagree with the IPCC or will not comment on what the IPCC claims?

Show me a person who cares about a scientist's opinion without insisting on reviewing actual science first and I'll show you an intellectually lazy religious zealot who is looking to be told what to believe and who is desperate for someone else to do his thinking for him.

James___ wrote: This is sad because people have no interest in finding out what is actually going on.

Show me a person who continues to pursue "finding out what is actually going on" even after learning that science shows that nothing is "actually going on" and I'll show you an intellectually lazy religious zealot who is looking to be told what to believe and who is desperate for someone else to do his thinking for him.

James___ wrote: While it will have little impact on our lives, if you have kids or grandkids, what is it you want for them?

... to never be intellectually lazy religious zealots who need to be told what to believe and to never be desperate for others to do their thinking for them.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-05-2019 18:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Wake wrote: James, you are 100% correct. At this point in time it would be very difficult for the US to lessen our production of CO2 or pollutants whereas the rest of the world can take advantage of the panic started by the environmentalists to try to catch up with our economy.

The founders of this country warned us that we could only be destroyed from within and we can see that attempt from extremist groups attacking Trump's successes at every front.

http://www.magapill.com/

Why do you suppose the majority of these things hasn't been in the lame stream media? And those that have are depicted in a negative manner?


Well put.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-05-2019 18:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Unless you and itn are counting coup, most of your statements are ignorant.

Not true. Your responses are all like your comment above, i.e. either false or devoid of any meaningful content.

James___ wrote: Marx promoted communism.

Marx promoted socialism in many forms. He dedicated an entire section of the Manifesto to it. At the time there were many examples of socialism that he both wanted to tout and needed to advertise to broaden his coalition. There were no examples of communism for Marx to promote because, as we know, it's an impossible pipe dream that factors out human nature for words that sound good.

Marx preached Marxism, which is the idea that capitalism, i.e. sound economic principles, are evil and that communism is the natural end result of the imaginary "class struggle" that occurs under sound economic principles.

Marx was an intolerant, irrational hate-mongering lunatic with self-worth issues. Hitler was a man of his own heart. Communism has never once "naturally resulted" to this day because, as we know, it's an impossible pipe dream that factors out human nature for words that sound good.

James___ wrote: It's been said that 25% of health care costs in the US is for collecting and distributing the money.

And we all recognize the passive voice as a reliable, informed source.

James___ wrote: England which is not a socialist country pays 40% less per capita than the US.

Engs pay licensing fees to watch television. Try another country.

James___ wrote: Neither of you care about businesses that are just plain greedy.

Show me a person who uses the word "greedy" to denigrate profit motive (as you just did) and I'll show you an economically-illiterate Marxist loser for whom politics is his only hope for amounting to anything, e.g. yourself, Bernie Sanders, et. al.

James___ wrote: I mean if anyone reads your guys' posts that you've made in this forum, you guys have OCD.

Says the scientifically illiterate Marxist loser who pretends to speak for countless, unnamed others. I know four-year-olds who whine less than you do.


The very last example of a "healthy socialism with open borders, free health care and income equality for all, working or not" has just dissolved. Finland has gone bankrupt and their entire government has resigned. Socialism is not just an impossible dream, it could NEVER be used as anything but power for a dictator. Finland just showed that it IS possible for a socialism not to dissolve into a dictatorship or oligarchy and that will no doubt go into every single textbook trying to show that there IS a way to get a working socialism as proof that it was Stalin that caused the failure of Russia, Hitler who caused the failure of Germany and all of the other little petty dictators that have gone into these socialist governments with the ideas that they could succeed and have had to use absolute power to try to destroy the human heart.

None of this will halt the college professors that harp on the wonderful Marxist system of the re-distribution of wealth. It will forever be the fault of the person running the system and not the system.
12-05-2019 19:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Wake wrote:None of this will halt the college professors that harp on the wonderful Marxist system of the re-distribution of wealth. It will forever be the fault of the person running the system and not the system.

Universities are supposed to be cognitive proving grounds but unfortunately have become havens for intellectual cowards, the raw material for manufacturing Marxists.

I have long since advocated letting Europe experiment with Marxism while we observe. Today Finland provides yet another example of why we don't want Marxism here and why Trump has already effectively been reelected.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-05-2019 19:28
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(966)
People like to dream... But life is work, there are responsibilities, never enough time to do the things you want. If you don't work, you don't have the money to buy, or do what you want. Some people try to take the easy route, and take on debt, which they know they can never repay, likely don't care, who is going to make them, least they can have fun while it lasts. Socialism is a lot like that, it offers people free everything, little responsibility, and time to do whatever you want. But it fails, because somebody has to pay the bills, and people need to do some work. Ever get stuck with a freeloader for a while? It gets expensive quick, and you have less time to do anything you want to do, no money to do it anyway. Use to be that being in debt, or on public assistance, were bad things, and most folks avoided it like a disease, hoped to get out from under it as quick as they could. Now days, debt and welfare are a right, something to be proud of, something to take maximum advantage of, with out consideration of any consequences, as there are none. You can pretty much take a free ride through life, on someone else's dime, and it seems like no big deal, not hurting any one person, or really anybody they can see.
12-05-2019 19:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
HarveyH55 wrote:
People like to dream... But life is work, there are responsibilities, never enough time to do the things you want. If you don't work, you don't have the money to buy, or do what you want. Some people try to take the easy route, and take on debt, which they know they can never repay, likely don't care, who is going to make them, least they can have fun while it lasts. Socialism is a lot like that, it offers people free everything, little responsibility, and time to do whatever you want. But it fails, because somebody has to pay the bills, and people need to do some work. Ever get stuck with a freeloader for a while? It gets expensive quick, and you have less time to do anything you want to do, no money to do it anyway. Use to be that being in debt, or on public assistance, were bad things, and most folks avoided it like a disease, hoped to get out from under it as quick as they could. Now days, debt and welfare are a right, something to be proud of, something to take maximum advantage of, with out consideration of any consequences, as there are none. You can pretty much take a free ride through life, on someone else's dime, and it seems like no big deal, not hurting any one person, or really anybody they can see.

Great point. Well said.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-05-2019 19:55
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Too bad you cant do thumbs up on these.
12-05-2019 21:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
HarveyH55 wrote:
People like to dream... But life is work, there are responsibilities, never enough time to do the things you want. If you don't work, you don't have the money to buy, or do what you want. Some people try to take the easy route, and take on debt, which they know they can never repay, likely don't care, who is going to make them, least they can have fun while it lasts. Socialism is a lot like that, it offers people free everything, little responsibility, and time to do whatever you want. But it fails, because somebody has to pay the bills, and people need to do some work. Ever get stuck with a freeloader for a while? It gets expensive quick, and you have less time to do anything you want to do, no money to do it anyway. Use to be that being in debt, or on public assistance, were bad things, and most folks avoided it like a disease, hoped to get out from under it as quick as they could. Now days, debt and welfare are a right, something to be proud of, something to take maximum advantage of, with out consideration of any consequences, as there are none. You can pretty much take a free ride through life, on someone else's dime, and it seems like no big deal, not hurting any one person, or really anybody they can see.


dehammer wrote:
Too bad you cant do thumbs up on these.


I know, right?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-05-2019 22:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Ken Fabian wrote:
Zloppino wrote:
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously


I'm new here

Welcome to the forum!
Ken Fabian wrote:
and take a pretty straight line on global warming -

At least you declare your religion openly right up front.
Ken Fabian wrote:
that it is real and is very serious.

It is a very real religion, and it is not a serious threat to anything, other than capitalism. Fortunately, the federal government is prohibited from establishing a state religion.
Ken Fabian wrote:
I don't think it is any kind of extremist political position to take the mainstream science on this seriously.

There is no such thing as 'mainstream science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It has no 'mainstream' or 'sidestream' or any other 'stream'. It has no politics. It is not even people at all. It is just the theories themselves.

Among them, the 1st law of thermodynamics, which says the 'greenhouse gas' model can't work because it creates energy out of nothing; the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which says the 'greenhouse gas' model can't work because it attempts to reduce entropy in a system; and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which says the 'greenhouse model' can't work because it would necessitate reducing the radiance of Earth while increasing temperature. There are real theories of science that are ignored by the Church of Global Warming.

No amount of data you show, no amount of 'scientific consensus' you can show, no amount of quotes from NASA, NOAA, Wikipedia, or Google you can show will change these theories of science and the problems they present to the 'greenhouse gas' model.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Ken Fabian wrote:
Conversely, I think it is dangerously irresponsible of people in positions of trust and responsibility to turn aside from the consistent expert advice on this.

A void reference. Science is the theories, not any scientist, group of scientist, expert, or group of experts.
Ken Fabian wrote:
Given the preponderance here of opinion that rejects climate concerns I may regret posting here, but...

Climate simply is. What is there to be concerned about it?
Ken Fabian wrote:
On the content of the opening post I would say that not caring about global warming - when decades of science based expert advice says it is imperative that we do - is a worse kind of moral failing than the necessary hypocrisy of using the products of fossil fuels as a functional member of the society we belong to, whilst advocating for the kinds of institutional change that an orderly, economy-wide shift to low to below zero emissions requires.
Science is not 'experts'. Science does not use supporting evidence. Science is not a religion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less. What you are advocating is Marxism. No thanks. YOU don't get to dictate energy markets. You are not the king. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth using light emitted from the Earth's surface.
[quote]Ken Fabian wrote:
Zloppino, I can't see that emissions purity of those of us who are concerned about climate change is valid as a must-have requirement to be taken seriously. Seriously, would that kind of emissions purity really move you when you will not take (as a possible example) the US National Academy of Sciences and UK Royal Society seriously on global warming?

The NAS and the Royal Society is not science either. These are political organizations. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not people at all. There is no politics in science.
Ken Fabian wrote:
To support and promote the very activities that make such a serious problem worse - whilst opposing and obstructing the legitimate efforts of others to prevent it getting worse - is much worse in my opinion than working within the society we belong to and using the democratic processes available to us to call on our governments and other societal institutions to deal with a problem much bigger than what the consumer choices of those who care can deal with.

What problem? There is no problem. The United States is not a democracy. We have constitutions here. It is organized as a federated republic.

YOU don't get to dictate to the energy markets what form of energy shall be used. YOU don't get to dictate what the content and form of the atmosphere. No one can terraform a planet. You are not the king.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2019 22:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
dehammer wrote:
when decades of science based expert advice says it is imperative that we do
Here is the problem. REAL science experts say it isn't man made.

True Scotsman fallacy. There is no such thing as 'real science experts'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not 'real science experts'.
dehammer wrote:
It mostly if not entirely natural.

Irrelevant. CO2 has NO capability to warm the Earth using light emitted from Earth's surface. No gas or vapor has this capability.
dehammer wrote:
If you want to know what the real experts say,

True Scotsman fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
read science specific peer review journals,

Science does not require peer review. It does not use consensus. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Just the theories themselves. It is not people at all. Science uses no politics or consensus of any sort. Peer review is not part of science. There is not 'elite voting body' or 'gatekeeper' in science.
dehammer wrote:
not the non specific journals that allow anyone to review any article no matter how little their expertise overlaps with the writer.

Science does not require publication of any theory in any magazine or journal at all. No journal, magazine, newspaper, book, youtube video, Wikipedia page, Google result, or any other media is science.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories.
dehammer wrote:
For instance, in nature, you could have a physicist write an article on tree rings and have it reviewed by an oceanographer simply by both of them claiming to be climate scientist.

Proxy measurements are not used in science. Science isn't measurements or data at all. It is a set of theories, not any observation, measurement, or data.
dehammer wrote:
A well known example of this fakery is Michael Mann's claim that the MWP and LIA were both only seen in the north Atlantic area.

Irrelevant. Science is not data, measurement, or any observation at all. Observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Any such claim from Michael Mann is not science.
dehammer wrote:
His article was reviewed and supported by someone that expertise was in ice cores.

Proxies are not used in science. If you must measure something, it must be directly measured. Using proxies for data is like palm reading.
dehammer wrote:
No one said a thing about the fact that graph failed to follow the first procedure of the anti fraud standard scientific procedures

Buzzword fallacy. There are no such 'procedures' in science. Science is not 'procedures' or 'methods'. It is a set of falsifaible theories. Any method will do. Any procedure will do.
dehammer wrote:
laid down by centuries of scientist

Science isn't scientists, either present or past scientists. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Just the theories themselves.
dehammer wrote:
You never change what you are measuring or the method of measurement in the middle of a test or graph. In his graph he did both.

You don't use proxies at all in science.
dehammer wrote:
In the early part of his graph, he used proxies (tree rings) that can only tell you the climate of the times. Any expert will tell you that the rings will tell you the result of over a dozen different things that affect the trees. Michael Mann insist it can tell you the temperature accurately.

He's wrong. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers. You are showing your illiteracy in statistical mathematics again.
dehammer wrote:
Then about 1950 he CHANGED to using instruments. These are very accurate and will give you ONLY the temperature.

At least he started using direct measurement instead of useless proxies. There are not enough thermometers to measure the temperature of the Earth.
dehammer wrote:
No one at the magazines complained about this. In fact they stated it was just fine.

Magazines and journals are not science.
dehammer wrote:
They argue that it is more than possible to do what he said it will. Not one of them is an expert in the field that reads tree rings.

Proxies are not used in science. 'Experts' is a meaningless term here.
dehammer wrote:
The claims of consensus is just as bogus.

Correct. Consensus is not used in science at all.
dehammer wrote:
If you read the actual report, they will tell you that it isn't really a consensus of ALL scientist, only a fraction of them. Even that is bogus if you read the report.

Irrelevant. Consensus is not used in science at all.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2019 23:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James___ wrote:
Ken Fabian wrote:
Zloppino wrote:
Drive a car, any car including a Tesla that gets it's power from plants that burn coal oil or Uranium.

If you buy food from a market that gets it's food delivered by diesel trucks

If you use the internet that would not exist without fossil fuel generated electricity

You are a hypocrite, thus you do not even have the right to be taken seriously


I'm new here and take a pretty straight line on global warming - that it is real and is very serious. I don't think it is any kind of extremist political position to take the mainstream science on this seriously. Conversely, I think it is dangerously irresponsible of people in positions of trust and responsibility to turn aside from the consistent expert advice on this. Given the preponderance here of opinion that rejects climate concerns I may regret posting here, but...

On the content of the opening post I would say that not caring about global warming - when decades of science based expert advice says it is imperative that we do - is a worse kind of moral failing than the necessary hypocrisy of using the products of fossil fuels as a functional member of the society we belong to, whilst advocating for the kinds of institutional change that an orderly, economy-wide shift to low to below zero emissions requires.

Zloppino, I can't see that emissions purity of those of us who are concerned about climate change is valid as a must-have requirement to be taken seriously. Seriously, would that kind of emissions purity really move you when you will not take (as a possible example) the US National Academy of Sciences and UK Royal Society seriously on global warming?


To support and promote the very activities that make such a serious problem worse - whilst opposing and obstructing the legitimate efforts of others to prevent it getting worse - is much worse in my opinion than working within the society we belong to and using the democratic processes available to us to call on our governments and other societal institutions to deal with a problem much bigger than what the consumer choices of those who care can deal with.



Ken,
Myself I think that Natural Climate Variation is playing a role in warming.

The phrase 'climate change' is a meaningless buzzword. It can only be defined by itself.
James___ wrote:
Also that warming will be primarily a northern hemisphere event.

Do you have something against the northern hemisphere?
James___ wrote:
Science supports this.

WRONG. The 2nd law of thermodynamics clearly states that you cannot decrease entropy in any system. Science says warming just the northern hemisphere while the southern hemisphere remains untouched is impossible.
James___ wrote:
It's warming twice as fast across the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere than it is in the southern hemisphere.

Not possible. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
James___ wrote:
And at the same time the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the middle northern hemisphere latitudes.

Not possible. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
James___ wrote:
Warming around the plane t isn't consistent except that the further north one goes the more it is warming.

Not possible. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
James___ wrote:
Warming in Africa was associated in real time with ozone depletion over Antarctica

The ozone layer is not being depleted. See the Chapman cycle. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer, even if we wanted to.
James___ wrote:
and yet those scientists had to say it was CO2 even though when the temperatures rose CO2 levels didn't.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
There was the Medieval Warming period and then the Little Ice Age and now this current warming period.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
Some people in here, about all of them really do not accept that our climate changes.

I don't accept meaningless buzzwords.
James___ wrote:
And if Natural Climate Variation is responsible then in about 100 to 200 years it'll be cooling again.

'Climate change' is a meaningless buzzword.
James___ wrote:
That's when real problems would probably happen because Canada and Russia would become much colder just as much of Europe and the US would cool as well.
What is interesting is that about 60% of greenhouse gases is water vapor. And that is what hydrogen fuel cells would be putting into the atmosphere. That would actually increase the warming of our atmosphere.

Water vapor is incapable of warming the Earth. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. See the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
James___ wrote:
If you look at graphs like this one that shows temperature and CO2 levels, ...deleted Holy Chart... during World War II global temperatures spiked and then no warming for the next 30 years.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
Before World War II, 1910 - 1945 what caused the same rise in temperature which is the same as after 1978?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
It's the same temperature rise but not the same increase in CO2 levels.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
What does parallel warming is ozone depletion.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The ozone layer is not being depleted. See the Chapman cycle.
James___ wrote:
It's possible that the increased solar radiation admitted into our atmosphere

UV light does not warm the Earth. It causes chemical reactions instead.
James___ wrote:
has created a feedback mechanism in the form of melting glaciers

There is no sequence.
James___ wrote:
and tectonic plate lift in the northern latitudes as a result.

Liquid water is denser than ice. The same amount of water in ice is still there when it melts.
James___ wrote:
If so then the cause for the current warming is already being dealt with which gets into a discussion of the stratospheric ozone layer.

Ozone has no capability to warm the Earth.
James___ wrote:
With CO2, I think it's actually a few scientists who have made the issue politically correct.

Science isn't scientists. It is a set of falsifiable theories. No theory may conflict with any other in science. One or both such theories must be falsified.
James___ wrote:
Since you live in Australia, you might consider this article;
Ozone loss warmed southern Africa
...deleted Holy Link...

Ozone or the lack of it is incapable of warming the Earth. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Material make up is found nowhere in this law.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2019 23:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
dehammer wrote:
I don't think it is any kind of extremist political position to take the mainstream science on this seriously.
The truth is every one that claims to be a scientist that supports it is a liberal that wants to get socialism to be the leaders of the world. They support a one world government with the UN as that government.


Quite right. There are many Marxists that claim to be scientists. They don't understand, just as you, and just as James, that science isn't scientists. It is not any political body, scientist, expert, or group of scientists or experts.

Science is simple just a set of falsifiable theories.

Many Marxists don't want the UN either. They want to simply use the UN as a tool to further their ends, then discard as yet another Useful Idiot.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2019 23:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: It's all purely political, should have been obvious when Al Gore stepped to help sell the hysteria.

... from a particular point of view. It's all religion, an opiate of the masses, to fabricate the perfect "existential crisis" to motivate the congregation to willingly, any enthusiastically throw more tax dollars onto the government collection plate.

HarveyH55 wrote: A one or two degree of warming, over centuries is even noticeable?

There is no warming from anything other than the sun. Nothing in the atmosphere will alter the earth's average global temperature, not even one or two degrees. Science has already answered this question.

HarveyH55 wrote: ... the climate always has changed.

Really? Which one? There are millions of climates on the planet.



Unless you and itn are counting coup, most of your statements are ignorant. Marx promoted communism. It's been said that 25% of health care costs in the US is for collecting and distributing the money. England which is not a socialist country pays 40% less per capita than the US. You and itn are basically anti everything. Probably too stoned to have a grasp on reality.

That is strange. Neither of you care about businesses that are just plain greedy. Just complain about government like, I dunno, what some unhappy Native Americans might do. You pretty much hate everyone and if CO2 isn't causing global warming then science is bad. I mean if anyone reads your guys' posts that you've made in this forum, you guys have OCD. It's like watching Monk with Tony Shalhoub, you simply have no control over your impulses. With me I think you guys are funny in a queer way.


You really like to make things up that people have supposedly said, don't you?

Businesses that are greedy will soon be out of business. No government needed. Someone will begin competing with that business and bring about it's eventual end.

Microsoft and Apple damn near destroyed IBM.

Linux is in the process of destroying much of Microsoft's market share.

Dow produced cheaper bromine than companies in Europe, and reduced the price of bromine everywhere (including Europe, despite greedy business practices in Europe producing the stuff.

U.S. Steel made steel fabrication far more efficient, reducing the price of steel for everyone. Businesses that were too greedy went out of business.

The assembly line developed here allowed America to make guns far cheaper and more reliable than any craftsman could make in Europe.

Cheaper and more reliable display screens have replaced practically every CRT used today.

No, greedy companies destroy themselves.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2019 23:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was wondering the other day, whether the IPCC propaganda machine is employing some of the same techniques the terrorist use to radicalize muslims. They both have seem to have a knack for pulling young people in. And those young people are willing to do anything to further their cause. Both groups, if they took a minute, to think about what they are asked to do, should think it's such a great idea. Both seem willing to kill off all non-believers, even if it means dying themselves. That 'Green New Deal' should never have made it to the House floor, any sane person wouldn't have taken such a proposal seriously. Surprisingly, a lot of the democrats seem to think it great idea. We aren't even the number one, planetary-poluter, so even if we spared no expense, it would accomplish nothing on a global scale, except disrupt global economy. I'm surprised we can float on a 20 trillion dollar debt, what would happen at over 100 trillion, if we could actually go that far? It should seem fairly obvious that to take the sort of action being push globally, in short time allowed, it's going to cost a considerable amount of money, and every industrial country must doing it at the same time. High demand for the materials and equipment, will drive prices higher as well. It's crazy to think so many people believe the global warming crowd know what the climate is doing, but have know clue what their plan will do to the people. The proposed cure, is a catastrophe, the crisis predicted might not happen for over a hundred years, and a couple of degrees warmer, isn't that bad.


An interesting point. There do seem to be a lot of similarities between the two religions, both in the way they formed, and in the way radicalization occurs.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2019 23:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was wondering the other day, whether the IPCC propaganda machine is employing some of the same techniques the terrorist use to radicalize muslims. They both have seem to have a knack for pulling young people in. And those young people are willing to do anything to further their cause. Both groups, if they took a minute, to think about what they are asked to do, should think it's such a great idea. Both seem willing to kill off all non-believers, even if it means dying themselves. That 'Green New Deal' should never have made it to the House floor, any sane person wouldn't have taken such a proposal seriously. Surprisingly, a lot of the democrats seem to think it great idea. We aren't even the number one, planetary-poluter, so even if we spared no expense, it would accomplish nothing on a global scale, except disrupt global economy. I'm surprised we can float on a 20 trillion dollar debt, what would happen at over 100 trillion, if we could actually go that far? It should seem fairly obvious that to take the sort of action being push globally, in short time allowed, it's going to cost a considerable amount of money, and every industrial country must doing it at the same time. High demand for the materials and equipment, will drive prices higher as well. It's crazy to think so many people believe the global warming crowd know what the climate is doing, but have know clue what their plan will do to the people. The proposed cure, is a catastrophe, the crisis predicted might not happen for over a hundred years, and a couple of degrees warmer, isn't that bad.



And now you're sounding like Isn't and Ibnotdamann. It's a religion.
It could easily be said that understanding the details doesn't matter. I find it funny that people like you have little more than an opinion.

Which you promptly discard. Argument of the stone fallacy. It is a religion. It is a fundamentalist style religion.
James___ wrote:
A few questions for you to steer this discussion away from basing an opinion on climate change away from religion, okay?

Good luck with that!
James___ wrote:
How many scientists are there in the world?

Irrelevant. Science isn't scientists.
James___ wrote:
How many accept what the IPCC says?

Irrelevant. Consensus is not used in science.
James___ wrote:
How many scientists disagree with the IPCC or will not comment on what the IPCC claims?

Irrelevent. Consensus is not used in science.
James___ wrote:
How many times has the media questioned the IPCC over it's manipulation of data?

Irrelevant. The media is not a gatekeeper of science or data.
James___ wrote:
Why do people ignore the IPCC discrediting it's own scientists after the 2013 IPCC report concluded that there was at the time a 15 year hiatus in global warming?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
Yet for people to say that nothing is happening all they say is "I Believe".

Lie. We have shown you the theories involved. IBdaMann has been kind enough to produce the actual equations here. Mathematics is not a belief. Theories of science is not a belief or a religion.
James___ wrote:
This is sad because people have no interest in finding out what is actually going on.

Nothing is going on, other than the attempt to implement Marxism.
James___ wrote:
While it will have little impact on our lives, if you have kids or grandkids, what is it you want for them?

Capitalism. They are already enjoying the fruits of that economic system.
James___ wrote:
And Harvey, I think it's funny that people like you, Isn't and IBNotDaMann don't find it strange that the IPCC discredited it's own report and those scientists involved with it.

Irrelevant. The IPCC isn't science.


The Parrot Killer
13-05-2019 00:59
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(966)
James___ wrote:
And Harvey, I think it's funny that people like you, Isn't and IBNotDaMann don't find it strange that the IPCC discredited it's own report and those scientists involved with it.


James___ wrote:
Why do people ignore the IPCC discrediting it's own scientists after the 2013 IPCC report concluded that there was at the time a 15 year hiatus in global warming?


Answered your own question, in the same thread...
IPCC has an agenda, and no place for employees that don't follow the game plan. Global Warming has to follow the hockey-stick graphic, rule #1. The longer the sheep wait, before taking action, it's much worse. If warming takes a break, people are going to wonder why, maybe expect the warming to stop all by itself. There is no man-made warming, so can't have people looking for answers.
13-05-2019 03:12
Ken Fabian
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Ah, the pseudonymous experts who know better than the people who study climate! What a load of confused rubbish about what "real science" is.

Looking to experts and appealing to authority is exactly the correct thing for those who are not experts themselves. Presuming the experts are wrong until you yourself are entirely convinced is entirely incorrect; it becomes a means to presume anything you don't understand, can't understand and don't want to understand is wrong - which just makes you wrong. It is basic common sense that people who make a career out of studying something will know more about it than you do.

Taking the conclusions of decades of top level science based expert reports and studies seriously is not a religious act - just a normal, reasonable trust in the methods and institutions of science.

Taking it seriously is not a politically extremist act either - this issue is not innately about capitalism or communism or globalism or nanny-statism.

No world governments is required to accept it and nations entering into agreements with other nations, knowingly, for mutual benefit doesn't require giving up sovereignty - I know a lot of people concerned about global warming and none are proposing global government.

No Marxism is required to act effectively to reduce GHG driven climate change - I believe the principle solutions will come (are coming) from innovative entrepreneurs who will be selling their technology free market style around the world. But I can see why opponents of climate responsibility being a real thing want people who lean right to think otherwise; wouldn't want people who lean right to know that there is no requirement to turn socialist to face up to the climate problem, no world government agenda needed, no end to responsible free enterprise. Or for those leaning right to understand that appropriate and effective policy is entirely compatible with free markets, democracy and the rule of law.

The emissions and climate change problem is foremost about responsibility and accountability for the externalised consequences and costs of dumping CO2 in the atmosphere - and we now make more CO2 than any other substance, way more than any other kind of waste, more than concrete or steel, more than concrete and steel. The only commodity I know of that we make more of is rock aggregate, ie crushed and graded rock - and that doesn't leave us with more rock than we began with. Knowing the consequences of that CO2 dumping and other human activities on our climate system has been a long running (and previously non-partisan objective) within science agencies like the US National Science Council - because basic understandings of the absorption, emission and transmission of IR through atmospheric gases has long known of the significance of CO2 to global temperature. Such efforts coalesced in the 1980's and showed us clearly why we don't need to worry about imminent ice ages - but exactly knowing why global cooling from aerosol pollution is not a serious issue turned out not nearly so reassuring as people hoped!

Ignoring the consistent science based expert advice is dangerously irresponsible. But, hey, keep the conspiracy and incompetence rhetoric coming - people are better informed than ever, trust our long running science institutions more than you realise; your preferred misunderstandings and their apathy are no longer enough to convince them mainstream science is wrong. Views like I see here just let people see who the ignorant and irresponsible extremists really are.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate If you believe in the AGW concept and want change but you:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or1014-04-2019 13:33
Serious question, is there any data on how many people that believe in AGW106-01-2019 21:35
2nd perpetual Motion Concept309-09-2018 19:16
The Argument for AGW6415-01-2018 23:52
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact