Remember me
▼ Content

Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?



Page 6 of 7<<<4567>
17-08-2019 23:18
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
takeit wrote:
The sun warms the earth. The CO2 slows the release of thermal energy from the earth's surface. You can read about it in Wiki under global warming and stefan boltzman i think. You might have to peruse those subjects to get the idea.


Let me see if I have this right. You don't have ZERO understandi.......oh what the hell. I will just pull out my pocketbook. How much would you like to take so I can help fix your problem? What percent of my income shall I pay?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
17-08-2019 23:19
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1171)
keepit wrote:
There is the United Nations and there is Wikipedia.
And then an anonymous person on the internet, who won't explain their credentials, claims that neither the United Nations nor Wikipedia has any credibility.
Who do you choose to believe?


None of them, not even you? I need a minimal of two independent sources, before I believe much of anything. The credibility of the source, only sets the number of additional sources, and the urgency.

It's not really meant to be insulting to anyone. We all have our own level of trust and faith, in what we see and hear, as being factual, and accurate. Anyone can be mistaken or deceived. I'm not perfect, happens often enough to me. I generally include a link to my source, if I haven't verified the information, or try to make it clear, that I'm expressing personal thoughts and opinion.

The UN is a political body, never trust a politician, ever...

Wikipedia is open source, and community corrected, meaning anyone can contribute or correct anything, and it will stand, until someone else, adds to, or corrects the information. This also can involve politics, bias, stupidity. A lot of the articles are accurate, and factual, as was the intention and goal of the site. Things that involves politics, are going to be biased, probably not complete or accurate, sort of a compromise, if the content is challenged.

Anonymous people on the internet... Really? You can't hardly determine age or gender, geographic location, or anything else. You can pick up clues, over time, but it still dependent on the information, the individual gives, and how consistently. Eventually, you can weed out a few people, who slip out of their little role-playing game online. For those that screw up their online persona, they can just go with a different provider, new Email, and start over, maybe try something new this time. I'll give anyone the benefit of doubt, until I learn otherwise, then I tend to mostly doubt.
17-08-2019 23:46
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
Harvey,
You sound reasonable, it's just that i'm a little more trusting than you.
Wiki has been very reliable to me but i realize that that reliability and accuracy is somewhat circular.
18-08-2019 00:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote:
I've heard the discussion about what to call CO2. That gets us into a semantics argument which isn't productive in this case.

You don't get to say that. This is an anonymous forum of ideas, comprised of 100% semantics.

The only way you avoid semantics is to leave the forum.

As long as you are still here, how do you classify CO2?

Hint: the organic chemistry classification is a life-essential compound that is a natural constituent of the atmosphere.

If you're looking to classify CO2 as "pollution" or "poison" then I don't think science will be much help to you.

keepit wrote:You know what my point is - CO2 produces global warming and flooding is just a euphemism for rising sea level.

If you aim is to show that CO2 produces Global Warming, then I don't think science will be much help to you.


.


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
18-08-2019 00:52
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
I don't think i have to classify it. I'll just describe what it does. With the help of wiki.
Really, i read books and i listen to DVD's and when i want a good summary i go to wiki. Hundreds, maybe thousands of times, there has never been a significant discrepancy.
18-08-2019 01:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote:
I don't think i have to classify it. I'll just describe what it does. With the help of wiki.
Really, i read books and i listen to DVD's and when i want a good summary i go to wiki. Hundreds, maybe thousands of times, there has never been a significant discrepancy.

That tells me you limit your sources to those books and DVDs that are awash in the same errors, probably because they drew directly from Wikipedia as you do, which would explain the direct corroboration.

If you plan on describing what CO2 does, will you be adhering to chemistry or to Wikipedia errors?

.


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
18-08-2019 01:33
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
keepit wrote:
tmiddles,
I don't think all is well and i don't think it is a good idea to risk the consequences of global warming.
JMHO


Well I think there is a difference between "all IS well" and "all WILL BE well". I'm unaware of any claims related to athropogenic CO2 increases, it's effects, or the temperature that it is TODAY causing minor or major problems. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm in the US and this is the heat wave index from the EPA going back a ways:


EPA

Now I'm not saying I know "all WILL BE well" but I am saying it's a false statement to deny that "all IS well" from the standpoint of temperature at least.

This is important in discussing the issue. It's understandable that people may tune out the alarm bells when they don't actually see a problem today.

When asked:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Then please, by all means show us something not well that is

A) due to increased carbon fuel useage
B ) not a manufactured crisis
C) happening on a global scale

Anything?


And suddenly you're talking about 2050, it sounds like BS. I'm not saying it is mind you but don't claim it's today if it's not actually today. It just makes a case for it being a hoax.
Edited on 18-08-2019 01:37
18-08-2019 01:50
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1171)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
tmiddles,
I don't think all is well and i don't think it is a good idea to risk the consequences of global warming.
JMHO


Well I think there is a difference between "all IS well" and "all WILL BE well". I'm unaware of any claims related to athropogenic CO2 increases, it's effects, or the temperature that it is TODAY causing minor or major problems. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm in the US and this is the heat wave index from the EPA going back a ways:


EPA

Now I'm not saying I know "all WILL BE well" but I am saying it's a false statement to deny that "all IS well" from the standpoint of temperature at least.

This is important in discussing the issue. It's understandable that people may tune out the alarm bells when they don't actually see a problem today.

When asked:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Then please, by all means show us something not well that is

A) due to increased carbon fuel useage
B ) not a manufactured crisis
C) happening on a global scale

Anything?


And suddenly you're talking about 2050, it sounds like BS. I'm not saying it is mind you but don't claim it's today if it's not actually today. It just makes a case for it being a hoax.


Was there a massive release of CO2 a hundred years ago, that caused the huge spike in heat waves? Did they ever figure out why it got so hot in the 1930's, and just dropped back down to a more 'normal' pattern? Doubtful it was CO2 related, but nothing to stop us from going through a similar event. Only the next time, guess what, it's because of Global Warming! That graph clearly illustrates that we occasionally go through periods of extreme conditions, naturally. But most importantly, regardless of how much CO2 we produce, those conditions pass, and we return to are usual climate conditions, without reducing CO2.
18-08-2019 01:56
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
IBDM,
The books and DVDs were written by big time scientists, not wiki. Wiki gave the same info. It wasn't the other way around.
I guess wiki got its info indirectly from the people that wrote the books and dvds.
To think that thousands of scientists have conspired to make false scientific claims doesn't make sense to me.
It's like claiming that hundreds of NASA scientists conspired to make fake video productions of Neil and Buzz landing on the moon.
I realize some of the lighting is confusing but how do you fake the greatly decreased gravity evidenced by the way they skipped along on the surface of the moon.
Edited on 18-08-2019 02:04
18-08-2019 01:58
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
IBDM,
I use the books and DVDs and wiki to formulate my opinions. I don't agree that wiki is full of errors, not even close.
18-08-2019 01:59
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
The books and DVDs were written by big time scientists, not wiki. Wiki gave the same info. It wasn't the other way around


I certainly hope IBdaMann will be along shortly to describe his personal experiences of writing for Wiki.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 18-08-2019 02:00
18-08-2019 02:12
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
IBdaMann wrote:
Marxism involves a mindset that encourages the projection of one's desires/wishes onto others,


I know you're very pro individual freedom/power and minimized government authoritarianism/control and I respect that.

I think there needs to be a very high bar for government authoritarian force and management.

A high bar being measured as the importance/cost. When there is a minimal cost to the citizen the importance doesn't have to be extreme, like a littering law. When the cost is high the importance has to be very high, like the draft during war.

I think that a reasonable approach to something related to this topic would be leaded gasoline. We had it, used it for quite a while, and then phased it out, per government regulation, because it wasn't a good deal in the cost/benefit analysis.

To advocate that the government should never do anything is a very radical point of view unsupported by any examples in known human history I'm aware of.
18-08-2019 02:16
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
keepit wrote:
The melting is not "well".
We're ruining our planet with pollutants and CO2.
The river (ocean), she's a rising.
The flooding will cause extreme hardship.


The current climate model used by those concerned about CO2 shows that there was an ice age 12500 years ago and that we've been getting warmer, with ice melting, for that entire time. If you look at the temperature records used it shows that temperatures increased as much from 1880 to 1930 as they have in that past 50 years. So what caused the increase then? Was it a crisis then as well?
18-08-2019 02:21
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
tmid,
i don't know what caused specific increases in temp. I'm pretty sure that the anthropogenic CO2 is causing a short term increase in temp that is much faster than long term decreases in temp from earth's natural cycles.
It is the short term increase that will overcome any SLOW long term trends.
Edited on 18-08-2019 03:01
18-08-2019 02:35
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
keepit wrote:
The sun warms the earth. The CO2 slows the release of thermal energy from the earth's surface. You can read about it in Wiki under global warming and stefan boltzman i think. You might have to peruse those subjects to get the idea.


keepit wrote:
Harvey,
You sound reasonable, it's just that i'm a little more trusting than you.
Wiki has been very reliable to me but i realize that that reliability and accuracy is somewhat circular.


There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia or with Google but you cannot quote them as a source because they are collectors of source material. Wikipedia usually has footnotes but anything on there should be backed up by a true source elsewhere.

To do this for everything is a waste of time. I don't believe it's reasonable to doubt everything but refuse to back up those doubts with contrary evidence at least some of the time.

Just remember that what is called factual can have a very broad range of backup for the assertion.

There was the piltdown man found in England which was a hoax missing link many think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle perpetrated. It was accepted for 41 years before it was finally discredited. Now during that 41 years it would be prudent to note that it was the only one and far from definitive proof. But you could have made some pretty good looking claims based on it.

Now the flip side of that is if someone wants to accuse something of being a hoax. Take for example those who doubted that genetics determined traits when that was new. With a wealth of examples, which can be added to time and time again, the possibility it is all a massive conspiracy get's smaller and smaller.
18-08-2019 02:41
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
keepit wrote:
tmid,
i don't know what caused specific increases in temp. I'm pretty sure that the anthropogenic CO2 is causing a short term increase in temp that his much faster than long term decreases n temp from earth's natural cycles.
It is the short term increase that will overcome any SLOW long term trends.


But the graphs used show just as steep an increase in the first part of the 20th century without the increase in CO2.

If I had a weight problem and I ate a whole pizza for lunch every day but switched from diet coke to regular coke. I put on 40 lbs before the switch, and another 40 after. You have the theory that it's all about my not drinking diet cola. Someone else wants to talk about the pizza and you just want to stick to talking about how important it is to drink diet soda to manage one's weight.

What about the pizza? How much of the recent increase you're looking at do you think is due to CO2 and how much due to other stuff?

This is the perfect topic to post it in. If you'll review my first post here the Tangier island was sinking long before CO2 increased.
Edited on 18-08-2019 02:41
18-08-2019 02:45
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
I think the long term trend is to lower temps (as per claims in the 1970's) but the short term trend per year (much greater than the long term trend per year) is toward warmer temps. You can see it in the northern sea ice and in the shrinking glaciers.
The short term trend is due to anthropogencic CO2.
Edited on 18-08-2019 02:49
18-08-2019 02:51
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Was there a massive release of CO2 a hundred years ago, that caused the huge spike in heat waves?


I think there are two approaches here:

1- obsess on the accuracy of the data used

2- set that aside and look at the argument made first

I think we can and should do both.

So just accepting all of the data with no margin of error the argument for CO2 based anthropogenic warming as the problem that was the reason for this topic in the first place. Clearly there is warming that is NOT due to CO2 levels.

As the climate history also accepted within the argument shows that we have had rising temperatures for the past 12000 years since the last ice age, the question very naturally is what increase is being attributed to CO2 and what increase would be there otherwise. But I never see this parsed out.

I do think it's fair to say that in the graph below the correlation ends when CO2 spikes:
18-08-2019 02:55
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
keepit wrote:
I think the long term trend is to lower temps (as per claims in the 1970's) but the short term trend per year (much greater than the long term trend per year) is toward warmer temps. You can see it in the northern sea ice and in the shrinking glaciers.
The short term trend is due to anthropogencic CO2.


So you think that (and keep in mind it's been 12500 years) temperatures were increasing for 12000 year, were increasing for those reasons till the 1930s, then reversed course to begin the next ice age, but coincidentally that's when we spiked the amount of CO2 and so now temps are headed back up?

Wouldn't it be useful to have some idea where temps would be without the CO2? Don't you kind of need that information in either scenario?
18-08-2019 02:58
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
I use the books and DVDs and wiki to formulate my opinions. I don't agree that wiki is full of errors, not even close.


I agree with you completely. And we're here to explore the ideas.

Discrediting an accepted belief should be viewed as a worthwhile endeavor here.

If someone thinks what Wikipedia has to say is BS then they should prove it if they want to. I would assume they either lack the interest or the ability otherwise.

Not saying that would mean wiki is proven. Just saying the "I don't have to prove it" argument is fishy from any side.
Edited on 18-08-2019 02:59
18-08-2019 02:58
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
tmid,
Your sentence "so just accepting...." confused me.
Anyhow, there is warming that is due to CO2 (anthropogenic) and that is what is getting out of hand. By the way, as i understand it CO2 levels have gone over 400.
It's the short term CO2 levels and short term temp rise that is the problem in the near (hundreds of years) term.
18-08-2019 03:07
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
keepit wrote:
tmid,
Your sentence "so just accepting...." confused me.
Anyhow, there is warming that is due to CO2 (anthropogenic) and that is what is getting out of hand. By the way, as i understand it CO2 levels have gone over 400.
It's the short term CO2 levels and short term temp rise that is the problem in the near (hundreds of years) term.


What I mean is that there are two objections to the belief in human caused temperature increases due to CO2 production:
1-That the data used is not reliable or even fabricated
2-That even if the data is reliable the concept doesn't make sense or is unlikely to be true

I am saying that we can set aside questions about the reliability of the data to look at the second question: Does the concept make sense.

So the question is do you think all of the temperature increase is from CO2? What caused the increase before and what portion of the current increase would be attributable to that?


18-08-2019 03:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
GasGuzzler wrote:
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
The books and DVDs were written by big time scientists, not wiki. Wiki gave the same info. It wasn't the other way around


I certainly hope IBdaMann will be along shortly to describe his personal experiences of writing for Wiki.

The thing about citing "big time scientists" who aren't present to be cross-examined is that the physics violations they advocate are just as bogus as anyone else's.

The same gullibility that has people believing whatever they read on Wikipedia also causes people to become starstruck if they encounter someone claiming to have amazing credentials. Gullible people are easily browbeaten into accepting conclusions because the fear of being called "stupid" by some guy they don't know overrides their common sense.

Yes, I used to contribute to Wikipedia until I discovered that it is a completely dishonest Marxist political organization and the Wikipedia site is just a "front." They refused to allow me to make changes to simply bring their wikis into line with their stated Neutral Point of View Policy.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.


I noticed that all wikis contained egregious unsupported bias in favor of either Marxist party lines or DNC platform positions. If I ever made changes towards neutrality, Wikipedia snapped it right back to the way it was. I later learned that Wikipedia has people write in, and lock down, official verbiage they are to present so that no one can change even a single word and change the spin to something other than what is authorized.

Obviously I grew tired of wasting my time and I simply adopted a policy of summarily dismissing Wikipedia references. Others, like Into the Night, were much more cognizant than I and arrived at a summary dismissal policy just out of common sense. Wikipedia is horrendously bloated with heinous errors. I feel sorry for those who trust it for information. Happily, my children are not among 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
18-08-2019 03:21
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
I don't know if it is all caused by CO2 but i know, or think i know, that CO2 slows the movement of thermal energy back into outer space thus causing an increase in global temp. You don't have to measure the temp, you know it is a consequence of increased CO2 conc. and you know that we burning a lot of fossil fuels and that never took place in previous times.
18-08-2019 03:27
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
The innumerable scientists that have written books and DVD's that are very much in agreement with each other are hard to deny without adequate proof
The fact that wiki is indirectly mirroring their writings doesn't make wiki inaccurate.
When you have a bunch of scientists in agreement about something it doesn't seem valid to me to say they are full of it without proof and corrobaration.
Edited on 18-08-2019 03:28
18-08-2019 03:29
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
IBdaMann wrote:Wikipedia is horrendously bloated with heinous errors.


I see this as in of itself a valuable tool. Wikipedia didn't invent group think or all of the fallacies that logical thought can get derailed into.

If I want to asses the reliability of something I don't have to show that it is always in error, just find a few: Wikipedia-Can-Be-Unreliable-Known-Errors-Not-Corrected
18-08-2019 03:33
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
keepit wrote:
The innumerable scientists that have written books and DVD's that are very much in agreement


But pretend for a moment that you're a real expert, teaching at College X. You think they've got it all wrong. If you come out and say so what happens to you socially and professionally? Does the current culture accept scientists who are "Climate Deniers"?

Think back to McCarthyism. I'm sure that the many many people in positions of expertise who knew that the Red Scare was BS and a horribly mismanaged disaster where silent out of self interest.
18-08-2019 03:36
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
When wiki is in agreement with the professional books and dvd's so many times, i just trust it.
I don't think it should be dismissed summarily without a LOT of evidence.
18-08-2019 03:37
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
McCarthyism was politics. Science is much more credible. Scientists like to make corrections. In politics that is not so true.
Edited on 18-08-2019 03:39
18-08-2019 03:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote: The innumerable scientists that have written books and DVD's that are very much in agreement with each other are hard to deny without adequate proof

Watch me.

1) the fact that you refer to them as "scientists" assures me they are nothing but political activists.

2) true intelligence is rare. Stupid people are innumerable.

3) the fact that they all preach the same dogma tells me that they are of the same choir of the same congregation

4) there is no quantity of opinions that transforms physics violations into reality.

5) science is not subjective; religions, however, rely on pointing to the opinions of others that are considered authorities, as you are doing.

6) I know that you have zero confidence that any of your dogma has any merit because you will never bring any of those "scientists" here to this site for me to cross-examine and to pick apart. You will, at best, make lame excuses as to why they somehow cannot use the internet.

... so yeah, I will summarily dismiss every single physics violation preached by your "scientists" and I will not allow myself to be manipulated as you have by those you consider to be "authorities."

keepit wrote: The fact that wiki is indirectly mirroring their writings doesn't make wiki inaccurate.

The fact that you so quickly allow yourself to be manipulated by those who simply copy from Wikipedia should be your huge red flag ... but your gullibility has blinded you to the obvious and has attenuated your common sense.

keepit wrote: When you have a bunch of scientists in agreement about something it doesn't seem valid to me to say they are full of it without proof and corrobaration.

Translation: When you have a bunch of political activists paid to promulgate the Marxist Party line, it's time to get your soda and popcorn and to watch to see who falls for it.


.


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
18-08-2019 03:52
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
The professional scientific publications came before the wiki summaries, not after.
And i don't believe you believe some of the things you just said.
18-08-2019 03:58
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1171)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Was there a massive release of CO2 a hundred years ago, that caused the huge spike in heat waves?


I think there are two approaches here:

1- obsess on the accuracy of the data used

2- set that aside and look at the argument made first

I think we can and should do both.

So just accepting all of the data with no margin of error the argument for CO2 based anthropogenic warming as the problem that was the reason for this topic in the first place. Clearly there is warming that is NOT due to CO2 levels.

As the climate history also accepted within the argument shows that we have had rising temperatures for the past 12000 years since the last ice age, the question very naturally is what increase is being attributed to CO2 and what increase would be there otherwise. But I never see this parsed out.

I do think it's fair to say that in the graph below the correlation ends when CO2 spikes:


Well, you can certain believe and discuss anything, in the context of fantasy or fiction. You'd only be limited by your imagination, and the world you create. Those discussions don't shift over to the actual world we live in.

A hypothesis can be the creation of somebody's imagination, just like a work of fiction, only you don't get to redefine anything already known, or create the data used. You can make observations, measurements, search through records that exist. Unfortunately, climatologist can't actually go back very far, 1880 is where temperatures were being recorded regularly, 1958 for CO2. Creating data out of thin air (proxies/analogs) don't fit the need or use of them, they are just the closest thing to real data we could ever hope for, and it's highly subjective, works if you believe it.

Have you read an IPCC Assessment report? I'll admit, I've yet to read one, cover-to-cover, but read through enough to have notice how much of it's worded. Doesn't show any degree of confidence in their own research, or certainty in their conclusions. They believe the warming has been about 1 degree Celsius, per century, past 300 years, but they expect a 1-3 degree increase by 2100. If they are absolutely CO2 is the key, they should be able to give specific numbers. Where's the hockey-stick, that 1 degree mark shouldn't happen any more. Everything else is pretty much the same, kind of vague, nothing certain. The sea levels 'may' rise by... Weather extremes 'likely' to increase. Food production 'could' drop.... I'd expect the 'experts' to know exactly what is going to happen, when CO2 levels reach certain points, not what might possibly happen.

The work, is likely more or less legitimate, and they are working hard, because they truly believe the end of the world is near. We just don't have the tools to observe the hypothesis in progress, or even measure it. We've got a computer simulation, based on sketchy data. The output, can only be as accurate as the input.
18-08-2019 03:58
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
keepit wrote:
McCarthyism was politics. Science is much more credible. Scientists like to make corrections. In politics that is not so true.


McCarthyism was saying that something was factually happening AND that it was happening to a degree that it represented a serious threat AND that the response was appropriate given the threat. As it turned out there were communists, it wasn't a serious threat, and the response did 1000 times more damage than the communists could have.

So it parallels the government/climate subject well.

Now you could also find less disreputable examples. Vaccinations to prefect deisease for example (in other thread: vaccine comparison)
18-08-2019 04:10
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, you can certain believe and discuss anything, in the context of fantasy or fiction....They believe the warming has been about 1 degree Celsius, per century, past 300 years, but they expect a 1-3 degree increase by 2100


I'm curious if they actually say something like: This will be from CO2: 2 degrees and this will be from the Earths changing orbit: 1 degree.
I have yet to see it broken down.

And to your point about "discussing anything" it really depends on your objective.

If you don't care at all about improving understanding for others, don't see any value in making an effort to investigate a topic, and are supremely confident in the position you've taken, then kicking back and calling people stupid without really engaging the topic is probably the way to go.
That's where I'm at with white supremacists. Just not going to bother with their arguments at all. Bunch of morons. : ) and not really a very active threat today.

Now if they elected a couple congressmen and started getting laws passed I would jump out of my seat to engage the topic.

Now if the topic has earned some attention then taking a moment to look at an argument made, on the merits, based on the assumptions made by the presenter (temporarily setting aside your own) can be worthwhile.

Take McCarthyism. You could say: OK Mr. McCarthy, if your claim that "200 members of the Department of State that are known communists." what do you expect to happen? Would they engage in criminal activity? Are they working in concert with any organization?

And argument that doesn't hold water will leak. So shake it around some.
18-08-2019 04:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote: The professional scientific publications came before the wiki summaries, not after. And i don't believe you believe some of the things you just said.

1) they weren't scientific publications. They were just plain old ordinary publications. Any yahoo can publish something.

2) let's say I don't believe you have any way of ascertaining the first time information was entered into Wikipedia, when it was attempted to be corrected, when it was changed back, when someone else tried to correct it, when it was changed back again, etc...

Prove me wrong.

3) What things do you imagine I didn't mean but felt like wasting my time writing?

4) Let's say there were some writings that were so profoundly leftist and political in nature that the people who run Wikipedia absolutely needed to incorporate that material into Wikipedia. OK, so Wikipedia copied directly from some radical political activists. That's how they get a lot of their content.

What's your point?


.


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
18-08-2019 04:33
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
IBDM,
The part about the scientists being political activists was the one that got me the most.
The biggest scientific project, the Large Hadron Collider has something like 8000 scientists and engineers working on it. I don't think they are political activists, at least in their science
18-08-2019 07:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
The part about the scientists being political activists was the one that got me the most. The biggest scientific project, the Large Hadron Collider has something like 8000 scientists and engineers working on it. I don't think they are political activists, at least in their science

What are you claiming about those 8000 researchers?


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
18-08-2019 18:39
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
8000 researchers and engineers working on a project that has to go fairly well.
It wouldn't go fairly well if it was based on baloney the 8000 researchers had conjured up to fool people.
Edited on 18-08-2019 18:40
18-08-2019 20:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote:
8000 researchers and engineers working on a project that has to go fairly well.
It wouldn't go fairly well if it was based on baloney the 8000 researchers had conjured up to fool people.

You have officially strayed from your point.

You were claiming that no articles incorporated into Wikipedia were written by political activists, and you even pretended to be miffed that I would refer to political activists as "political activists" ... and then you pointed to some scientists and insisted they were scientists, as though that somehow transforms political activists into scientists.


The answer is "no."


.


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
18-08-2019 22:26
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
I don't buy into any of that last post.
Page 6 of 7<<<4567>





Join the debate Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How climate change is sinking an Indian island.317-03-2019 21:17
Stream of thought poem re: London snow storms/Garbage Island002-02-2019 13:41
COP21 - Political Fantasy Island206-12-2015 02:11
▲ 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