It is unfortunate

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > It is unfortunate

It is unfortunate03-11-2019 00:52
bowlesj ☆☆☆☆☆ (9)	Hi, It is unfortunate that there is not a central website which is heavily advertised so almost no one does not know about it (well known like Google) where a search can be submitted to get answers in at least three categories for every possible situation. A website that is fed by the best if the best in the climate science industry so that average people like myself can do lookups to help teach others we come in contact with. These are the main categories I am thinking of. #1/ comparing the solutions. For example wind turbines in the ocean seem like the best since they turn constantly and there is enough space and resources to build enough to power 16 of our planets yet when you search google on wind turbines you do get some drawbacks. So one then needs to compare these to other solutions if one is discussing solutions and attempting to say this is the way to go. #2/ Almost related to the above but not quite. rebutting miss information. For example wind turbines may kill X number of birds per year or fish but emissions if left unchecked will kill X number per year. 3/ Basics of the science and how to teach it or explain it. Example: Air, CO2 and methane are green houses gasses. Air is trapped by blankets at night, it absorbs heat and radiates it out 50% toward you and 50% away from you. Gravity also traps oxygen and CO2 gas (if it didn't we would have died long ago). Gravity trapping these gases is a good thing just like blankets trapping air is a good thing but to many blankets is a bad thing (too much heat) and to much CO2 going up is a bad thing as well. Explaining exactly how and why CO2 absorbs more heat than Oxygen (I have not been able to find this one). Thanks, John
03-11-2019 05:15
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	The IPCC, and a tall glass of Kool-Aid is all you need. https://www.ipcc.ch/ This is THE official United Nations climate change website. If you want straight answers, go to the source.
03-11-2019 08:00
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: The IPCC, and a tall glass of Kool-Aid is all you need. https://www.ipcc.ch/ This is THE official United Nations climate change website. If you want straight answers, go to the source. I needed a good laugh. Most people don't understand English. Actually they don't understand science. The science is right. Science is not political. It is merely a set of observations. Politics allows for a wealthy individual to become famous because of multimedia like Jerry Springer. And then he can become president because his show is popular. An example is Ukraine electing a popular TV personality to be their president. Because he is liked on TV he knows how to run Ukraine. It's good for the media. It generates revenue for them.
03-11-2019 10:15
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	bowlesj wrote:...a central website...rebutting miss information. Glad to have you here John. This is a great site with pretty clear breakdowns on a lot of the BS you hear saying global warming is impossible and other exotic fringe ideas: https://skepticalscience.com/ You actually run into it if you google wacked out denier theories. Pretty well written too. As for: bowlesj wrote: 3/ Basics of the science and how to teach it or explain it. I actually hope we can make some progress here. I'm not a scientist but I'm a pretty good teacher. The deniers here are useful parts of developing clearer explanations and understanding. That said this isn't a simple issue at all (I would argue). A lot of damage is done by stupid people (like the governer of CA saying wild fires are due to global warming). "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
03-11-2019 13:44
bowlesj ☆☆☆☆☆ (9)	Thanks guys for your responses. I had heard of and visited the IPCC website as well as the https://skepticalscience.com/ website. I just discovered this page which also seems pretty good. https://grist.org/series/skeptics/ The "seems pretty good" part leads to the next paragraph. I may have come up with a pretty good solution myself (one that may need adjustments to shine). I will lead up to the solution with some background info. So I often go to google and submit a question and get an answer or a series of them or a series of questions with the drop downs. Many times the answers make sense. Normally there is a website the answer comes from and you can go to that website of course. So I am aware that google's method of finding stuff for you is based upon popularity (basically how often the website is visited and maybe even how long the people stay - not sure about the 2nd one). So one might think that his is good enough but the question arises "is it". That leads to the idea. It would make a lot of sense for the IPCC to have an app that one can download (one which has automatic updates or maybe manual updates would be better) that can be used to determine if the website is a good one or a fake news site. It could maybe even give more detailed ratings or comments possibly with explanations. The advantages of this of course is one can simply think of a question, ask google, get an answer and check to see if the source is recommended by the IPCC. Once set up it would be up to the IPCC to advertise this app so the majority of people know about it. Maybe this idea should be submitted to the IPCC. If implemented I am sure the app itself would improve over time as does most software. If the IPCC is not the best organization to create the app maybe they would be associated with the organization that created it and maintains the updates as well as advertise it. Edited on 03-11-2019 13:56

03-11-2019 14:13
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	bowlesj wrote:...It would make a lot of sense for the IPCC to have an app ...that can be used to determine if the website is a good one or a fake news site. ... My sense of the lay of the land. There are three groups of people talking with 3 types of material online. PRO: You have the status quo, government and public accepted, IPCC position that global warming is happening, as they described, with a high degree of confidence. Bill Nye, Al Gore, the UN, ect. CON: The position that global warming defies the laws of physics, that a grand conspiracy is falsifying data, and that there is absolutely nothing to the PRO side. Often called "deniers", like our own ITN/IBD, these are crackpots that do more for the PRO side looking right than anything they could do on their own. SKEPTICS: There are real scientists, PAT FRANKS is a great example, or Bjørn Lomborg who do credible work showing how the PRO side is getting it wrong. Sadly I've found that due to the clown act from the CON side the Skeptics don't get discussed at all. That's supposed to be what happens here. The problem I see with your proposal is I don't see the IPCC willing to acknowledge legitimate skeptical science. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them[/quote]
03-11-2019 14:37
bowlesj ☆☆☆☆☆ (9)	The problem I see with your proposal is I don't see the IPCC willing to acknowledge legitimate skeptical science. Yes, based upon a tiny bit I have read I understand this could be an issue. Maybe the two groups that are saying "For minimum costs reason we must bring CO2 emissions to zero (or maybe near zero) A.S.A.P and if we don't bring it down in any way shape or form it is just a matter of time before we have a very unhappy ending (emphasizing the human race will all die long before earth gets as hot as Venus which is off the chart in CO2 levels and resulting high temperature)." should have their own apps. Isn't that the bottom line statement with the primary variant being how fast we have to act. So since the statement in quotes is the key agreeable point at least both of the apps will be flagging the out and out deniers and the fake news sites with a vested financial interest in continuing to emit CO2. I am thinking that the statement in bold (possibly with improvements) should be the key advertising statement for both apps. It may need to be prepped with a tiny bit of education which I touched on in an earlier post (again easy to understand since we all benefit from a bit of green house gas when we sleep at night and we all know without exception that too much of that good thing is a bad thing). If this commonality is hammered home often enough people may think of the GW issue every time they reduce the number of blankets they are using to keep themselves warm. Edited on 03-11-2019 14:53
03-11-2019 20:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	bowlesj wrote: Hi, It is unfortunate that there is not a central website which is heavily advertised so almost no one does not know about it (well known like Google) where a search can be submitted to get answers in at least three categories for every possible situation. A website that is fed by the best if the best in the climate science industry so that average people like myself can do lookups to help teach others we come in contact with. These are the main categories I am thinking of. First, one must define 'climate change' or 'global warming'. There is no such thing as 'climate science'. Climate 'scientists' deny both science and mathematics. bowlesj wrote: #1/ comparing the solutions. For example wind turbines in the ocean seem like the best since they turn constantly and there is enough space and resources to build enough to power 16 of our planets yet when you search google on wind turbines you do get some drawbacks. So one then needs to compare these to other solutions if one is discussing solutions and attempting to say this is the way to go. This has been brought up before here as well. Ocean turbines do indeed produce power, but only if you can anchor them against the tremendous forces ocean currents produce. bowlesj wrote: #2/ Almost related to the above but not quite. rebutting miss information. For example wind turbines may kill X number of birds per year or fish but emissions if left unchecked will kill X number per year. It is not know how many birds are killed by wind turbines. I do know that some hawks and eagles here in the west have been killed by them. Of course they've been killed by getting run over by cars, zapping themselves on a power line, drowning while trying to catch a fish, hitting windows, hitting aircraft, or simply being killed by another bird or some other predator. The problem with wind turbines is not the birds. It's the piddle power they generate. A single natural gas plant can generate more power than a whole State full of wind turbines. Wind turbines are wasteful of resources and it's expensive power. bowlesj wrote: 3/ Basics of the science and how to teach it or explain it. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. This definition of science can apply to any theory of science. To get an idea of why this definition works, see the writings of Karl Popper, a modern philosopher. bowlesj wrote: Example: Air, CO2 and methane are green houses gasses. There is actually no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas, vapor, or liquid has the capability of warming by using infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. The basic problem is simply the 1st law of thermodynamics. If you consider only the Earth itself as the system, the presence of any one of these magick materials does nothing to warm the Earth. They are not a source of energy. It is not possible to create energy out of nothing. If you consider the Sun-Earth-space system, nothing changes about that. bowlesj wrote: Air is trapped by blankets at night, Most blankets work by trapping pockets of air, true. The purpose of a blanket is to reduce heat. bowlesj wrote: it absorbs heat and radiates it out 50% toward you and 50% away from you. Heat is not something you can absorb. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not absorbed by anything. Heat is not temperature. The problem you run into here is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot heat a warmer using a colder one. Entropy cannot be reduced in any system. This also means you cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. bowlesj wrote: Gravity also traps oxygen and CO2 gas (if it didn't we would have died long ago). Gravity trapping these gases is a good thing just like blankets trapping air is a good thing but to many blankets is a bad thing (too much heat) and to much CO2 going up is a bad thing as well. Blankets are not a source of energy. They do not add thermal energy. Putting a blanket on a rock does not warm the rock. bowlesj wrote: Explaining exactly how and why CO2 absorbs more heat than Oxygen (I have not been able to find this one). Because it's not possible to absorb heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy 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
03-11-2019 20:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: bowlesj wrote:...a central website...rebutting miss information. Glad to have you here John. This is a great site with pretty clear breakdowns on a lot of the BS you hear saying global warming is impossible and other exotic fringe ideas: https://skepticalscience.com/ You actually run into it if you google wacked out denier theories. Pretty well written too. As for: bowlesj wrote: 3/ Basics of the science and how to teach it or explain it. I actually hope we can make some progress here. I'm not a scientist but I'm a pretty good teacher. No, you are a lousy teacher. You just ask the same questions over and over even though they've already been answered (RQAA). You distort things people have said (RDCF). You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann laws. You even deny how these laws came to be. tmiddles wrote: The deniers here are useful parts of developing clearer explanations and understanding. That said this isn't a simple issue at all (I would argue). A lot of damage is done by stupid people (like the governer of CA saying wild fires are due to global warming). A lot of damage is done by wildfires in the SOTC. California used to not have such devastating fires. They went out to control the weeds and brush that spread them. Environmentalists stopped that practice, so the weeds and brush are just there to burn every year now. 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
03-11-2019 20:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: bowlesj wrote:...It would make a lot of sense for the IPCC to have an app ...that can be used to determine if the website is a good one or a fake news site. ... My sense of the lay of the land. There are three groups of people talking with 3 types of material online. PRO: You have the status quo, government and public accepted, IPCC position that global warming is happening, as they described, with a high degree of confidence. Bill Nye, Al Gore, the UN, ect. The public is not accepting it. Bigotry. You don't get to speak for the public. You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself. tmiddles wrote: CON: The position that global warming defies the laws of physics, that a grand conspiracy is falsifying data, and that there is absolutely nothing to the PRO side. Often called "deniers", like our own ITN/IBD, these are crackpots that do more for the PRO side looking right than anything they could do on their own. Nah. You just want to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and statistical mathematics. tmiddles wrote: SKEPTICS: There are real scientists, PAT FRANKS is a great example, or Bjørn Lomborg who do credible work showing how the PRO side is getting it wrong. True Scotsman fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Sadly I've found that due to the clown act from the CON side the Skeptics don't get discussed at all. That's supposed to be what happens here. They do get discussed. We are discussing them, in case you haven't noticed. tmiddles wrote: The problem I see with your proposal is I don't see the IPCC willing to acknowledge legitimate skeptical science. True Scotsman fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (religion<->science). 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
03-11-2019 20:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	bowlesj wrote: The problem I see with your proposal is I don't see the IPCC willing to acknowledge legitimate skeptical science. Yes, based upon a tiny bit I have read I understand this could be an issue. Maybe the two groups that are saying "For minimum costs reason we must bring CO2 emissions to zero (or maybe near zero) A.S.A.P You want to destroy plant life,eh? [b]bowlesj wrote: and if we don't bring it down in any way shape or form it is just a matter of time before we have a very unhappy ending Pascal's Wager fallacy. CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth using IR from Earth's surface. You can't create energy out of nothing. bowlesj wrote: (emphasizing the human race will all die long before earth gets as hot as Venus which is off the chart in CO2 levels and resulting high temperature).[/b]" should have their own apps. It doesn't warm the surface of Venus either. CO2 is not an energy source. bowlesj wrote: Isn't that the bottom line statement with the primary variant being how fast we have to act. So since the statement in quotes is the key agreeable point at least both of the apps will be flagging the out and out deniers and the fake news sites with a vested financial interest in continuing to emit CO2. I am not invested in energy. There is nothing wrong with emitting CO2. bowlesj wrote: I am thinking that the statement in bold (possibly with improvements) should be the key advertising statement for both apps. It may need to be prepped with a tiny bit of education which I touched on in an earlier post (again easy to understand since we all benefit from a bit of green house gas when we sleep at night and we all know without exception that too much of that good thing is a bad thing). If this commonality is hammered home often enough people may think of the GW issue every time they reduce the number of blankets they are using to keep themselves warm. Define 'global warming'. It's not an issue until you can define it. From when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time not significant? How are you measuring the temperature of the Earth? Please provide all sourced of unbiased raw data. Be prepared to show the data is unbiased. If presenting summaries, be prepared to show the source of variance and the margin of error calculations associated with it. Remember that time is significant. All data must be read by at the same time under the same authority. Remember that location grouping is significant. Instrumentation must be uniformly spaced. 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 03-11-2019 20:29
04-11-2019 03:20
bowlesj ☆☆☆☆☆ (9)	Not being an expert in physics I have to make my decisions somehow. I have chosen to trust this information. (the 23,000+ scientists who have signed the warning report to governments about CO2 emissions), (the two respected well know scientists who have mentioned this report), (the numerous chartered banks who with their big bucks have hired independent researchers to guide them and they have declared they are now deeply concerned about CO2 emissions), (many other personal observations over 20 years), Nothing has changed about how I see the global warming topic. This thread has served its purpose. Edited on 04-11-2019 03:21
04-11-2019 04:33
bowlesj ☆☆☆☆☆ (9)	Correction. Not being an expert in the technical details of global warming and climate change.
04-11-2019 04:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	bowlesj wrote: A website that is fed by the best if the best in the climate science industry There is no "Climate" science. That is just a term for Global Warming political activism, the dogma of the Climate Change religion. bowlesj wrote: 3/ Basics of the science and how to teach it or explain it. There is no science supporting Global Warming. Greenhouse Effect cannot be unambiguously expressed without violating physics. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-11-2019 04:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	bowlesj wrote: Not being an expert in physics I have to make my decisions somehow. I have chosen to trust this information. This doesn't make you smart. It makes you gullible. You're dealing with a fanatical religion. There is no science involved. Good luck. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

04-11-2019 06:43
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	bowlesj wrote:...[the theory including:]"...the human race will all die..."... is the key agreeable point... Well no I don't think it's fair to say that's a point of agreement at all for those in the PRO camp. I think the point of agreement would be that this is a brand new and uncharted territory. I think the commonly accepted theory is roughly summed up here: do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right What is theorized, and decidedly unproven, is a gradual increase in temperature of a few degrees over 100s of years. To put it in perspective the ice age was about 12F / 7C colder, and we think that the Jurrasic was about 9F / 5 C warmer. So a couple degrees, really quickly, is scary if it comes to pass. But it's not fatal. The irony is that there are dueling issues: Poverty caused by rising sea levels, food production disruption and other possible consequences of global warming vs. certain poverty caused by missing out on oils bounty. The real issue being potentially irreparable harm to our ecosystem. Into the Night wrote: bowlesj wrote: 3/ Basics of the science and how to teach it or explain it. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.... Note this is ITN's own private definition of science, not shared by anyone else. People just make stuff up sometimes. This is where an app would come in handy (oh wait, I've got that one, it'st he dictionary). bowlesj wrote: Not being an expert in physics I have to make my decisions somehow. I have chosen to trust this information. So have I but I want to ask more questions. I think it's reasonable that we understand what the science is. I don't think that's out of reach. This is a very important issue so clarification is certainly worth some effort. IBdaMann wrote:There is no "Climate" science. So ITN/IBD consider the temperature of planets to be "unknowable"! Like at all. Check this thread out, they basically both say we know NOTHING! about the ground temperature of Venus though 3 countries have been there multiple times. They are just here to try to end debate. So let's keep debating this and try to make some progress! "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
04-11-2019 10:35
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	I'm glad to that you agree that a couple of degrees difference isn't fatal. The ecosystems you are referring to, actually do recover naturally, they constantly adapt to change. If they get wiped out, they either return over time, if conditions are the same or similar, or something else takes it's place. Nature destroys ecosystems all the time, and there are plenty of examples all over the world. An ecosystem, is just a balance of life, it's not always stable, or unchanging.
04-11-2019 10:43
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote:If they get wiped out, they either return over time, if conditions are the same or similar, or something else takes it's place. What I find plausible as a major threat is that a small change, which would normally take 2000 years, like 2-3 degrees, will happen so fast, in 100 years, that organisms can't adapt in time. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
04-11-2019 13:00
bowlesj ☆☆☆☆☆ (9)	Hey guys, I have an unusually busy life. Have to sign off this thread. Thanks.
04-11-2019 17:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	bowlesj wrote: Not being an expert in physics I have to make my decisions somehow. It's not difficult to learn the related physics. Only three laws are necessary. They are simple math equations, all of them. bowlesj wrote: I have chosen to trust this information. (the 23,000+ scientists who have signed the warning report to governments about CO2 emissions), Science is not a vote. bowlesj wrote: (the two respected well know scientists who have mentioned this report), Science is not even a scientist or group of scientists. It is not credentials of any kind. bowlesj wrote: (the numerous chartered banks who with their big bucks have hired independent researchers to guide them and they have declared they are now deeply concerned about CO2 emissions), A bank is not science. bowlesj wrote: (many other personal observations over 20 years), Observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof. bowlesj wrote: Nothing has changed about how I see the global warming topic. This thread has served its purpose. In other words, once a believer in the Church of Global Warming, always eh? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-11-2019 18:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	bowlesj wrote: Correction. Not being an expert in the technical details of global warming and climate change. You must first define 'global warming' and 'climate change'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-11-2019 18:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: bowlesj wrote:...[the theory including:]"...the human race will all die..."... is the key agreeable point... Well no I don't think it's fair to say that's a point of agreement at all for those in the PRO camp. I think the point of agreement would be that this is a brand new and uncharted territory. I think the commonly accepted theory is roughly summed up here: do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right What is theorized, and decidedly unproven, is a gradual increase in temperature of a few degrees over 100s of years. To put it in perspective the ice age was about 12F / 7C colder, and we think that the Jurrasic was about 9F / 5 C warmer. So a couple degrees, really quickly, is scary if it comes to pass. But it's not fatal. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No one measured the temperature of the Earth during the Jurassic period either. tmiddles wrote: The irony is that there are dueling issues: Poverty caused by rising sea levels, It is not possible to measure the global sea level. What poverty has been caused by rising sea levels? tmiddles wrote: food production disruption What disruption? tmiddles wrote: and other possible consequences of global warming Define 'global warming'. tmiddles wrote: vs. certain poverty caused by missing out on oils bounty. No, poverty caused by oligarchies and dictators. You do not control the energy markets. tmiddles wrote: The real issue being potentially irreparable harm to our ecosystem. Pascal's Wager fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: bowlesj wrote: 3/ Basics of the science and how to teach it or explain it. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.... Note this is ITN's own private definition of science, not shared by anyone else. RDCF. tmiddles wrote: People just make stuff up sometimes. RDCF. tmiddles wrote: This is where an app would come in handy (oh wait, I've got that one, it'st he dictionary). Dictionaries don't define words. You can't use a dictionary as a science book. RDCF. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: bowlesj wrote: Not being an expert in physics I have to make my decisions somehow. I have chosen to trust this information. So have I Which makes you just as gullible. tmiddles wrote: but I want to ask more questions. No, you want to ask the SAME questions over and over and over and over and over, even though they've already been answered. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: I think it's reasonable that we understand what the science is. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: I don't think that's out of reach. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: This is a very important issue so clarification is certainly worth some effort. Lie. You are only here to deny science and preach your religion. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:There is no "Climate" science. So ITN/IBD consider the temperature of planets to be "unknowable"! Like at all. That is correct. tmiddles wrote: Check this thread out, they basically both say we know NOTHING! about the ground temperature of Venus though 3 countries have been there multiple times. They are just here to try to end debate. You can't measure the temperature of a planet with one thermometer. tmiddles wrote: So let's keep debating this and try to make some progress! You are not here to debate. You are here to deny science and mathematics and preach your religion. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-11-2019 18:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:If they get wiped out, they either return over time, if conditions are the same or similar, or something else takes it's place. What I find plausible as a major threat is that a small change, which would normally take 2000 years, like 2-3 degrees, will happen so fast, in 100 years, that organisms can't adapt in time. Organisms adapt to temperature changes as wide as 100 deg F or more in a single six month period. It's called 'seasons'. They also adapt to temperature changes as wide as 30 deg F or more every 24 hours. It's called 'day' and 'night'. They can't adapt in time??? You don't even know the temperature of the Earth. You certainly can't foretell it. Put away your Holy Entrails. 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
05-11-2019 00:29
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Organisms adapt to temperature changes as wide as 100 deg F or more in a single six month period. It's called 'seasons'. They can't adapt in time??? It's not about shedding some fur. It's about habitats changing and a few degrees will do that. The "ICE AGE" was only 7C colder. Number of mosquitos could increase dramatically, and who knows what! It's just a roll of the dice. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
05-11-2019 02:31
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:If they get wiped out, they either return over time, if conditions are the same or similar, or something else takes it's place. What I find plausible as a major threat is that a small change, which would normally take 2000 years, like 2-3 degrees, will happen so fast, in 100 years, that organisms can't adapt in time. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them We don't know temperature 2000 years ago, in the 2 or 3 degree range. You'll also find, that all the species that were around, 2000 years ago, have already adapted, they will all do just fine. Genetics doesn't forget, some traits are recessive for a reason, but not erased. It's a lot of guessing and speculation. We don't have that much past to draw on, our first major inter-glacial. That small change you are being told to focus on, is really small, tiny. You can't ignore there is a lot marketing hype, blowing this up quite a bit. Science is like it use to be, simple, objective. There is a lot of competition for research money, and facilities, jobs. And there is a lot of politics involve, since that is the main source of funding these day.
05-11-2019 02:45
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:If they get wiped out, they either return over time, if conditions are the same or similar, or something else takes it's place. What I find plausible as a major threat is that a small change, which would normally take 2000 years, like 2-3 degrees, will happen so fast, in 100 years, that organisms can't adapt in time. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them We don't know temperature 2000 years ago, in the 2 or 3 degree range. You'll also find, that all the species that were around, 2000 years ago, have already adapted, they will all do just fine. Genetics doesn't forget, some traits are recessive for a reason, but not erased. It's a lot of guessing and speculation. We don't have that much past to draw on, our first major inter-glacial. That small change you are being told to focus on, is really small, tiny. You can't ignore there is a lot marketing hype, blowing this up quite a bit. Science is like it use to be, simple, objective. There is a lot of competition for research money, and facilities, jobs. And there is a lot of politics involve, since that is the main source of funding these day. Did you have kids? Are they yours? Can you prove this? Please post your proof. Edited on 05-11-2019 02:47
05-11-2019 03:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Organisms adapt to temperature changes as wide as 100 deg F or more in a single six month period. It's called 'seasons'. They can't adapt in time??? It's not about shedding some fur. It's about habitats changing and a few degrees will do that. The "ICE AGE" was only 7C colder. Number of mosquitos could increase dramatically, and who knows what! Organisms adapt to temperature changes as wide as 100 deg F or more in a single six month period. It's called 'seasons'. They can't adapt in time??? 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 05-11-2019 03:10
05-11-2019 05:13
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: We don't know temperature 2000 years ago, in the 2 or 3 degree range. You'll also find, that all the species that were around, 2000 years ago, have already adapted, they will all do just fine. I think time is important in being able to adapt. 7C isn't 2-3. Into the Night wrote: Organisms adapt to temperature changes as wide as 100 deg F or more in a single six month period. It's called 'seasons'. They can't adapt in time??? I don't think an organism is going to fail to adapt to the temperature directly. It's the derivative consequences that could happen too suddenly. We couldn't even get biodome to work. Those were plants and animals failing to adapt. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
05-11-2019 10:19
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: We don't know temperature 2000 years ago, in the 2 or 3 degree range. You'll also find, that all the species that were around, 2000 years ago, have already adapted, they will all do just fine. I think time is important in being able to adapt. 7C isn't 2-3. Into the Night wrote: Organisms adapt to temperature changes as wide as 100 deg F or more in a single six month period. It's called 'seasons'. They can't adapt in time??? I don't think an organism is going to fail to adapt to the temperature directly. It's the derivative consequences that could happen too suddenly. We couldn't even get biodome to work. Those were plants and animals failing to adapt. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them Biogdome was very carefully designed by scientists, with all the same information you are using to justify another carefully design project, and you think they got it right this time? Why do you blame the plants and animals for failed science? Biodome failed, because it wasn't an actual ecosystem, they tried to take shortcuts, improve on nature, make it smaller and more efficient. Mammals take quite a bit of space out in the wild. Natural conditions and laboratory conditions are two different things. Climate change fails for exactly the same reasons. I don't no if you can see it, but they only focus on the things they believe they can control, actually, just one thing, fossil fuels, and that's a very tiny thing, compared to the entire world.
05-11-2019 12:25
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: Biodome was very carefully designed by scientists, with all the same information you are using to justify another carefully design project, and you think they got it right this time? Yeah that's a good point. We obviously don't understand and don't have enough capability to make a real working model of our own ecosystem. But I do think it's fair to say that plants and animals aren't so robust that they'll just adapt to anything fast a new without incident. It's even hard to move a plant to what seems to us to be a slightly different climate and have it not die. All the space and help we can give it and it just wont adapt and thrive in conditions that are slightly different. This comes up plenty when someone wants something in their garden from some other region. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

05-11-2019 18:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: We don't know temperature 2000 years ago, in the 2 or 3 degree range. You'll also find, that all the species that were around, 2000 years ago, have already adapted, they will all do just fine. I think time is important in being able to adapt. 7C isn't 2-3. Into the Night wrote: Organisms adapt to temperature changes as wide as 100 deg F or more in a single six month period. It's called 'seasons'. They can't adapt in time??? I don't think an organism is going to fail to adapt to the temperature directly. It's the derivative consequences that could happen too suddenly. We couldn't even get biodome to work. Those were plants and animals failing to adapt. Organisms adapt to temperature changes as wide as 100 deg F or more in a single six month period. It's called 'seasons'. They can't adapt in time??? 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
05-11-2019 18:10
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	They are talking 1-2 degrees Celsius per one hundred years, that' not a whole lot, and it spread over many generations, of plants and animals. They all survived that before, and those recessive genes will become dominant, as needed over those many generations. No need to wait for evolution, to reinvent the species. Plants have an ideal level of CO2, which is 700-1200 ppm, depending on type of plant. We currently only have a little over half that. The climate change goal is 280 ppm, little over one third. Is it any wonder why plants aren't that robust right now, or in our recent past? Plants do poorly, when you cut their sun exposure in half, water, nutrients. We've never seen what they can do in the wild, when they get ideal levels of everything they need. We come pretty close in greenhouses, and the results are without question.
05-11-2019 18:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Biodome was very carefully designed by scientists, with all the same information you are using to justify another carefully design project, and you think they got it right this time? Yeah that's a good point. We obviously don't understand and don't have enough capability to make a real working model of our own ecosystem. But I do think it's fair to say that plants and animals aren't so robust that they'll just adapt to anything fast a new without incident. They already do. Every day. Every year. tmiddles wrote: It's even hard to move a plant to what seems to us to be a slightly different climate and have it not die. Plants are not sensitive to temperature (other than freezing to death for some of them). They are only sensitive to light and soil conditions. tmiddles wrote: All the space and help we can give it and it just wont adapt and thrive in conditions that are slightly different. They already do. We grow tropical plants even in Alaska. tmiddles wrote: This comes up plenty when someone wants something in their garden from some other region. Can't speak for YOUR gardening abilities. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate It is unfortunate: