2aHawaii
General Topics => Off Topic => Topic started by: Inspector on December 08, 2018, 03:45:40 PM
-
My wife recorded a 2 hour Discovery Channel show called Into the Blue Hole. She knows I am fascinated with the ocean and aquatic life. They are in a in a deep sea submarine that is going to explore the bottom of the blue hole in Belize. While descending down around 170 and then 300 feet the submarine pilot made a statement I found interesting. They discovered terracing at the depths I mentioned. She stated that these terraces are proof the ocean used to be at much lower levels like 10K years ago. Which means the ocean has been rising over the last 10K years. Which she actually stated.
My question is why is it that the climate change asshats honestly think the ocean levels have been rising only over the last 50 years because of man made climate change when there is proof that the oceans have been rising over the last 10K years without influence from man? BUTT BUTT BUTT HEADS!
Climate change is the biggest scam to be foisted upon naive IDIOTS in my lifetime.
-
My wife recorded a 2 hour Discovery Channel show called Into the Blue Hole. She knows I am fascinated with the ocean and aquatic life. They are in a in a deep sea submarine that is going to explore the bottom of the blue hole in Belize. While descending down around 170 and then 300 feet the submarine pilot made a statement I found interesting. They discovered terracing at the depths I mentioned. She stated that these terraces are proof the ocean used to be at much lower levels like 10K years ago. Which means the ocean has been rising over the last 10K years. Which she actually stated.
My question is why is it that the climate change asshats honestly think the ocean levels have been rising only over the last 50 years because of man made climate change when there is proof that the oceans have been rising over the last 10K years without influence from man? BUTT BUTT BUTT HEADS!
Climate change is the biggest scam to be foisted upon naive IDIOTS in my lifetime.
Because it isnt just whether the sea levels rise but also the rate of rising and how extreme a difference we may see.
On a side note I grew up believing all the climate change stuff they were saying maybe 15-20 years ago. Then I got more into politics and started paying more attention to thre skeptics/deniers/ whatever you want to call them and I started to believe what they were saying. However as I paid attention to their arguments I increasingly saw how often they were flawed and unscientific they were. I have now come full circle back to believing that we are significantly affecting the temperature of our environment. I think sometimes the alarmists might overstate the danger so I do retain a bit of skepticism as to how much we are affecting the climate however I still believe the GOP and those who deny influence from man are on the wrong side of the science here.
I think that the climate change deniers are the ones who have been tricked.
-
Climate Change "solutions" are nothing but wealth redistribution schemes created by people who can benefit from them financially. They negatively impact economies, and enrich the wealthy.
You can "believe" what you want, but science is not a religion. It's a process, and so far, every single prediction the Climate Change Alarmists have stated failed to ever come true.
It's a fear mongering tactic to enact Socialist agendas ... period.
Does "climate change" exist? Sure. Is it something we mere mortals can stop? Nope.
The UN Admits That The Paris Climate Deal Was A Fraud
Here's a United Nations climate report that environmentalists probably don't want anybody to read.
It says that even if every country abides by the grand promises they made last year in Paris to reduce
greenhouse gases, the planet would still be "doomed."
When President Obama hitched America to the Paris accords in 2016, he declared that it was "the
moment that we finally decided to save our planet." And when Trump pulled out of the deal this year,
he was berated by legions of environmentalists for killing it.
But it turns out that the Paris accord was little more than a sham that will do nothing to "save the planet."
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-un-admits-that-the-paris-climate-deal-was-a-fraud/
Al Gore: Paris Climate Accord Won’t Solve the Problem of Climate Change
https://youtu.be/Eni4JLoN7cw
https://ntknetwork.com/al-gore-paris-climate-accord-wont-solve-the-problem-of-climate-change/
-
Because it isnt just whether the sea levels rise but also the rate of rising and how extreme a difference we may see.
On a side note I grew up believing all the climate change stuff they were saying maybe 15-20 years ago. Then I got more into politics and started paying more attention to thre skeptics/deniers/ whatever you want to call them and I started to believe what they were saying. However as I paid attention to their arguments I increasingly saw how often they were flawed and unscientific they were. I have now come full circle back to believing that we are significantly affecting the temperature of our environment. I think sometimes the alarmists might overstate the danger so I do retain a bit of skepticism as to how much we are affecting the climate however I still believe the GOP and those who deny influence from man are on the wrong side of the science here.
I think that the climate change deniers are the ones who have been tricked.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
-
Another thing this show brought up is over the last 10K years ocean levels have risen as much as 1M-3M in approximate 100 year periods. This is before man had any influence on the climate. So the fact that the so called “Climate Proponents” are predicting man is causing the oceans to rise about 0.10” in the next 10 years is just ridiculous. Another so called “expert” group is making the claim that the oceans are going to rise 0.30M to 1M by the year 2100. Hell, based solely on the statements from this show I can be a climate expert and say if man never evolved on the earth and has no influence whatsoever on the climate that the oceans are going to rise that much also. All without influence from man. These people really think we are so stupid that we can’t see beyond the climate change lies. Climate changes with or without man’s influence. It is changing right now as I write this. Considering one of the major concerns that climate proponents constantly bring up as proof of man made climate change is rising oceans then I would say they are all full of shit. Since they are full if shit about the ocean levels rising and the fact that the climate changes with or without man’s influence then the rest of their arguments fall apart as well.
The fallacy to these so called “Climate Proponents” argument is that not one scientist is willing to step up to the plate and make a fool of himself/herself and try to predict what percentage of the climate changing is caused by man. The reason they won’t is because no one really knows. It can be 0.0000000000000000000001% or 100%. This one lack of any facts blows away all climate change arguments. The “settled science” argument cannot be settled if no one can agree on this one important fact.
I agree that man can have a small amount of influence on our climate. To think we can’t is unrealistic. Until science can determine how much we actually influence the climate we are doing nothing but guessing. And I refuse to guess while there appears to be no evidence of our effect on the climate more than a superficial amount.
Overall the show was quite boring as they really didn’t discover much that we didn’t already know nor have seen before. The one strong point of this show is that a lot of ocean and climate history is preserved in this blue hole and it deserves to be completely surveyed and documented so we can try and predict future conditions based on the past. That is what science should be doing rather than trying to make a case for manmade climate change so our government can impose carbon footprint taxes on us to fight climate change. They want to take more of our money to fight something we cannot control. No wonder some European countries are rioting.
-
Yabbut watching those kinds of programs on a new UHD TV is AWESOME! ;D
-
Because it isnt just whether the sea levels rise but also the rate of rising and how extreme a difference we may see.
On a side note I grew up believing all the climate change stuff they were saying maybe 15-20 years ago. Then I got more into politics and started paying more attention to thre skeptics/deniers/ whatever you want to call them and I started to believe what they were saying. However as I paid attention to their arguments I increasingly saw how often they were flawed and unscientific they were. I have now come full circle back to believing that we are significantly affecting the temperature of our environment. I think sometimes the alarmists might overstate the danger so I do retain a bit of skepticism as to how much we are affecting the climate however I still believe the GOP and those who deny influence from man are on the wrong side of the science here.
I think that the climate change deniers are the ones who have been tricked.
Everyone is free to believe what they believe. However, here's where I see the real issue. You believe that humans are ruining the Earth, causing temperature rise, climate change, etc. Are you willing to pay a significant amount of your income because someone else said you are responsible and therefore must pay to fix the planet? All while the folks saying that you must pay aren't changing the way they live or paying a cent.
-
Everyone is free to believe what they believe. However, here's where I see the real issue. You believe that humans are ruining the Earth, causing temperature rise, climate change, etc. Are you willing to pay a significant amount of your income because someone else said you are responsible and therefore must pay to fix the planet? All while the folks saying that you must pay aren't changing the way they live or paying a cent.
Exactly the opposite. They are making huge BANK off this artificial crisis.
Queue EEF's tangent "but pollution is a bad thing" ....
-
Ran across this article on FB.
It’s from the Daily Caller so you should be able to read it.
https://bit.ly/2UwKRYG
-
Everyone is free to believe what they believe. However, here's where I see the real issue. You believe that humans are ruining the Earth, causing temperature rise, climate change, etc. Are you willing to pay a significant amount of your income because someone else said you are responsible and therefore must pay to fix the planet? All while the folks saying that you must pay aren't changing the way they live or paying a cent.
You bring up a couple of issues.
#1 There are hypocrites on the issue that say do as I say, not as I do. Al Gore has a huge house and a private jet (for example). Now it is perfectly fair to criticize them for their hypocrisy however that is entirely separate from whether climate change is being influenced by humans. If a fat doctor told you that you should eat less sugar then they are a hypocrite but that doesn't mean the information about sugar causing obesity is wrong.
#2. Ruining Earth... this exists on many more levels than just climate change. Pollutants in our water/land, overfishing/hunting, etc.
#3 Not sure what you mean by a significant amount of income but if we are significantly increasing the warming of the planet and "ruining the Earth" then something has do be done. Wouldn't it be a case of pay now or pay more later?
-
Exactly the opposite. They are making huge BANK off this artificial crisis.
Queue EEF's tangent "but pollution is a bad thing" ....
Its funny how quick the climate change skeptics are quick to point out profitable ventures in green technology as a reason not to trust them all the while ignoring that the financial interests of companies and economies that stand to lose from green technology.
So I am to believe a few solar companies and windmill producers cooked up some elaborate trick that the Earth is warming and got the whole world to believe in it just so they could create a market and exploit it, yet I am to believe that economies like coal and oil are just angels who would never lie to us? :crazy:
-
Another thing this show brought up is over the last 10K years ocean levels have risen as much as 1M-3M in approximate 100 year periods. This is before man had any influence on the climate. So the fact that the so called “Climate Proponents” are predicting man is causing the oceans to rise about 0.10” in the next 10 years is just ridiculous. Another so called “expert” group is making the claim that the oceans are going to rise 0.30M to 1M by the year 2100. Hell, based solely on the statements from this show I can be a climate expert and say if man never evolved on the earth and has no influence whatsoever on the climate that the oceans are going to rise that much also. All without influence from man. These people really think we are so stupid that we can’t see beyond the climate change lies. Climate changes with or without man’s influence. It is changing right now as I write this. Considering one of the major concerns that climate proponents constantly bring up as proof of man made climate change is rising oceans then I would say they are all full of shit. Since they are full if shit about the ocean levels rising and the fact that the climate changes with or without man’s influence then the rest of their arguments fall apart as well.
The fallacy to these so called “Climate Proponents” argument is that not one scientist is willing to step up to the plate and make a fool of himself/herself and try to predict what percentage of the climate changing is caused by man. The reason they won’t is because no one really knows. It can be 0.0000000000000000000001% or 100%. This one lack of any facts blows away all climate change arguments. The “settled science” argument cannot be settled if no one can agree on this one important fact.
I agree that man can have a small amount of influence on our climate. To think we can’t is unrealistic. Until science can determine how much we actually influence the climate we are doing nothing but guessing. And I refuse to guess while there appears to be no evidence of our effect on the climate more than a superficial amount.
Overall the show was quite boring as they really didn’t discover much that we didn’t already know nor have seen before. The one strong point of this show is that a lot of ocean and climate history is preserved in this blue hole and it deserves to be completely surveyed and documented so we can try and predict future conditions based on the past. That is what science should be doing rather than trying to make a case for manmade climate change so our government can impose carbon footprint taxes on us to fight climate change. They want to take more of our money to fight something we cannot control. No wonder some European countries are rioting.
You bring a smattering of questions/issues. Problem is that there are so many in short order with little detail or context and no sources leaving me in a difficult position to address which criticism are right, which are wrong, and which are somewhere in-between.
I will try to cover a few of the issues/fallacies I have noticed among the climate change skeptics/deniers that really pushed me away. There are probably more and these are generalities with some anecdotes for illustration but these ones are certainly some of the major ones for me in forming my stance on the issue.
#1. Over the years I noticed continuous backpedaling among the skeptics' arguments. It went from "global warming isn't real" to "ok it is real but not caused by man" to "ok, man is influencing it but not that much" to "Man is affecting it some but it is too expensive or nothing can be done".
#2. The arguments of the skeptics were really never very scientific, never sought to develop a theory and test it out through the scientific method. They always seemed to have the objective of disproving global warming/climate change, not seeking the truth in the data. It is like having a trial where the jury wants to find the defendant guilty or innocent.
I began to notice that there wasn't an objective look at what the climate scientists got wrong and why. The arguments became more of propaganda than re-evaluation. For example some extreme prediction would be put forth and end up not coming true. Now the objective thing to do would be to look at the data and evaluate whether the data was accurate and the method accurate but instead these failed predictions were held up as a "see global warming is fake!" They use climate change models to predict some of these things and on a number of occasions they models gave predictions that were wrong but that doesn't mean the science is all BS, it might just mean the model wasn't quite accurate. That happens a lot in science, you find out your prediction didn't pan out and try again, you don't just stop and declare it all false. With something as complicated and as many variables as there are in climate prediction there is understandably going to be a bit of inaccurate predictions even with good solid scientific process. Along those lines predicting the future and observing the past are two different animals and just because it is hard to predict the future doesn't mean we can't trust the past.
#3 I noticed that climate change denier arguments were very often intuitively based. They sounded good so they were convincing but looking more deeply they weren't sound arguments. I recall one argument made that reasoned because a certain greenhouse gas was only 1% of the air in our planet therefore how could a fractional increase of that chemical cause such a significant climate change. If no further thought was given it made sense, but when you think deeper and realize chemicals aren't all going to have proportionate levels of effect. It was like arguing that you could eat 1% your body weight in cyanide because 1% is just so small.
#4 I noticed data was often cherry picked. Case in point I saw an argument that global warming wasn't real because these two glaciers had actually been increasing in size over the past few decades. I thought this disproved global warming until I saw more comprehensive data that showed the vast majority of the glaciers in the area had been shrinking dramatically. The two or so that had increased only represented something like 10% of the glaciers in the area. The skeptics/deniers misrepresented what was actually occurring and this type of misrepresentation I saw over and over again really brought into doubt the credibility of their stance. A also noticed that they seemed to take the most extreme predictions and hold them up as if they were the universal belief among scientists. The news likes the big scary stories, the celebrities and activists like the big scary predictions and so they get the airtime instead of the more reasonable predictions that are accurate much more often. Don't look to Al Gore as the representative of climate science, he isn't a scientist. Unfortunately often scientists are boring and don't make catchy speeches and instead we get Al Gore or someone pushing wind farms who aren't representing the more mundane stuff.
I remember a webpage where one could put their name on a list of scientists who didn't agree with global warming/climate change but it was so obviously worthless. No verification of credentials, no standards of what type of science degree one had to have. I could;d have put my name on the list because I have a science degree. Sociology is a science, just one with nothing to do with climate.
I hope you don't take this as insulting to demeaning. I understand it is a complicated subject and it isn't something easy to discern. As I said I too became a skeptic/denier for a few years, I bought into the same stuff.. Now I am not totally convinced, I maintain a skeptical eye towards what is said. In fact one of the skeptics arguments that I do think might have some credibility is the question as to what amount of effect solar activity has on our climate. It seems certainly a possible explanation but I haven't looked deeper into that issue yet.
-
You bring up a couple of issues.
#1 There are hypocrites on the issue that say do as I say, not as I do. Al Gore has a huge house and a private jet (for example). Now it is perfectly fair to criticize them for their hypocrisy however that is entirely separate from whether climate change is being influenced by humans. If a fat doctor told you that you should eat less sugar then they are a hypocrite but that doesn't mean the information about sugar causing obesity is wrong.
#2. Ruining Earth... this exists on many more levels than just climate change. Pollutants in our water/land, overfishing/hunting, etc.
#3 Not sure what you mean by a significant amount of income but if we are significantly increasing the warming of the planet and "ruining the Earth" then something has do be done. Wouldn't it be a case of pay now or pay more later?
You never answered what was a simple question. I think you’re completely missing the point here and just wanting to argue.
-
You never answered what was a simple question. I think you’re completely missing the point here and just wanting to argue.
Well you asked it in a sort of slanted non specific way so I didn't want to give a simplistic answer.
You didn't find my answer sufficient so I will try to sum it up this way, I am willing to pay more to "save the environment". Obviously the devil is in the details so in what way I would be willing to pay more depends on the specifics.
-
Exactly the opposite. They are making huge BANK off this artificial crisis...
The crisis is not artificial, as into the blue (butt) hole documents.
(Based on Inspector Dave's recap)
It's for real and coming. Has been for a long time.
The question is can it be stopped or should resources just be spent planning for it instead of trying to prevent it?
My opinion, to quote Bob Marley, "ain't no use, nobody can stop it now."
Man is a locust upon the Earth and the Earth will equalize.
-
Well you asked it in a sort of slanted non specific way so I didn't want to give a simplistic answer.
You didn't find my answer sufficient so I will try to sum it up this way, I am willing to pay more to "save the environment". Obviously the devil is in the details so in what way I would be willing to pay more depends on the specifics.
Still completely missing the point.
Imagine this scenario. You live in a community with a homeowner’s association. Over time, it is noted that the water usage is consistently going up and up and up. So a group that “studies” this says it’s because there’s obviously an underground leak somewhere. HAS to be. The ONLY way can be explained they say. So they require everyone to pay to address and fix it. Ok, seems rational on the surface. Then the “fixes” don’t seem to be working. Well, HAVE to do something, but of course that requires more funding. Community leadership says everyone has to pay more, because we must fix. We FEEL bad about wasting water. Then some folks want more info on reasoning why the group that says need to pay more bases that on. Well, the usage is still going up, so MUST be a leak, right? Then some owners say they can’t pay because that aren’t as wealthy as other owners. Then those to pay see other owners (that opted out) wasting water that they are paying more for. Washing cars and letting the hose run. Watering their yard in the middle of the day. Not even trying to hide it. Well, they don’t care. The wealthy are paying to fix the issue, so all good.
(Maybe not the fully correct analogy, but best way I can explain what I see happening in relatively simple terms and not diving too deep. JMO)
Think it’s right for only some to carry the burden? In fact being forced to carry the burden. The part about folks getting rich as a result not withstanding. Not that I’m saying that is not happening, just another factor that I’m not considering in this example.
——————————
Then a study shows that the water usage increase was just a short term bump due to a very hot summer. That the community has seen that in the past, but the previous study was either too shortsighted to see or biased to manipulate. What then?
——————————
Then another study yet shows that those saying they couldn’t afford to pay to fix things were actually the ones responsible for the sharp increase in water usage. What then?
Starting to see my point? Personally, I’m not a climate change denier. It’s happening. I’m just not ok with being forced to pay what those who are forcing that on me don’t seem to fully understand themselves. Yet, because something MUST be done...
-
You bring a smattering of questions/issues. Problem is that there are so many in short order with little detail or context and no sources leaving me in a difficult position to address which criticism are right, which are wrong, and which are somewhere in-between.
I will try to cover a few of the issues/fallacies I have noticed among the climate change skeptics/deniers that really pushed me away. There are probably more and these are generalities with some anecdotes for illustration but these ones are certainly some of the major ones for me in forming my stance on the issue.
#1. Over the years I noticed continuous backpedaling among the skeptics' arguments. It went from "global warming isn't real" to "ok it is real but not caused by man" to "ok, man is influencing it but not that much" to "Man is affecting it some but it is too expensive or nothing can be done".
#2. The arguments of the skeptics were really never very scientific, never sought to develop a theory and test it out through the scientific method. They always seemed to have the objective of disproving global warming/climate change, not seeking the truth in the data. It is like having a trial where the jury wants to find the defendant guilty or innocent.
I began to notice that there wasn't an objective look at what the climate scientists got wrong and why. The arguments became more of propaganda than re-evaluation. For example some extreme prediction would be put forth and end up not coming true. Now the objective thing to do would be to look at the data and evaluate whether the data was accurate and the method accurate but instead these failed predictions were held up as a "see global warming is fake!" They use climate change models to predict some of these things and on a number of occasions they models gave predictions that were wrong but that doesn't mean the science is all BS, it might just mean the model wasn't quite accurate. That happens a lot in science, you find out your prediction didn't pan out and try again, you don't just stop and declare it all false. With something as complicated and as many variables as there are in climate prediction there is understandably going to be a bit of inaccurate predictions even with good solid scientific process. Along those lines predicting the future and observing the past are two different animals and just because it is hard to predict the future doesn't mean we can't trust the past.
#3 I noticed that climate change denier arguments were very often intuitively based. They sounded good so they were convincing but looking more deeply they weren't sound arguments. I recall one argument made that reasoned because a certain greenhouse gas was only 1% of the air in our planet therefore how could a fractional increase of that chemical cause such a significant climate change. If no further thought was given it made sense, but when you think deeper and realize chemicals aren't all going to have proportionate levels of effect. It was like arguing that you could eat 1% your body weight in cyanide because 1% is just so small.
#4 I noticed data was often cherry picked. Case in point I saw an argument that global warming wasn't real because these two glaciers had actually been increasing in size over the past few decades. I thought this disproved global warming until I saw more comprehensive data that showed the vast majority of the glaciers in the area had been shrinking dramatically. The two or so that had increased only represented something like 10% of the glaciers in the area. The skeptics/deniers misrepresented what was actually occurring and this type of misrepresentation I saw over and over again really brought into doubt the credibility of their stance. A also noticed that they seemed to take the most extreme predictions and hold them up as if they were the universal belief among scientists. The news likes the big scary stories, the celebrities and activists like the big scary predictions and so they get the airtime instead of the more reasonable predictions that are accurate much more often. Don't look to Al Gore as the representative of climate science, he isn't a scientist. Unfortunately often scientists are boring and don't make catchy speeches and instead we get Al Gore or someone pushing wind farms who aren't representing the more mundane stuff.
I remember a webpage where one could put their name on a list of scientists who didn't agree with global warming/climate change but it was so obviously worthless. No verification of credentials, no standards of what type of science degree one had to have. I could;d have put my name on the list because I have a science degree. Sociology is a science, just one with nothing to do with climate.
I hope you don't take this as insulting to demeaning. I understand it is a complicated subject and it isn't something easy to discern. As I said I too became a skeptic/denier for a few years, I bought into the same stuff.. Now I am not totally convinced, I maintain a skeptical eye towards what is said. In fact one of the skeptics arguments that I do think might have some credibility is the question as to what amount of effect solar activity has on our climate. It seems certainly a possible explanation but I haven't looked deeper into that issue yet.
Everything you mentioned as your logic and deduction as to proof of manmade climate change has occurred over the last 10’s of thousands of years naturally without any influence of man. This is not in dispute. You cannot in any way honestly think that just because the climate changes without the influence of man for 10’s of thousands of years prior to man existing that man is now all of the sudden causing it. It is a pretty narcissistic attitude if you ask me.
So all of your logic is completely thrown out the window for two reasons. One is no one can say with all certainty that the climate is changing because of man. The truth is that if man had never evolved into what we are now, the climate will still be changing. So the climate is changing because it does naturally. So saying that man is causing it is a lie. Man may be adding to the natural climate change in a minute amount but the climate has swung from too hot to ice ages and back again before man existed. The oceans have been rising from before man existed. The polar caps have been melting and coming back over and over again naturally without mans influence. Which brings me to the second reason you have no argument whatsoever is that you have no idea how much man actually affects the climate. And I noticed that you failed to provide that important piece of data from my previous post which if doesn’t exist then blows everyone of your arguments to bits. You have fallen for the lie and that is your perogative, but you cannot deny that without knowing this most important piece of scientific data, all of the data is nothing but speculation.
If you want to speculate, then say so. Your opinions are fine. Don’t provide opinions as to why something exists as a scientific fact when science cannot even prove what you are saying. Since the climate is changing just as mildly and/or radically as it always has, and it is not outside of any norms, there is no way to tell how much man may be adding to it. And since science cannot determine how much man is contributing to the current natural climate change, how can you say that anything we do is going to have any significant effect. The fact is you cannot. So speculate all you want, and admit it is only your opinion. You have strong arguments if you have science on your side. Sorry, as much as you may believe it, science isn’t on your side. But as the lie goes, without knowing the whole truth you are believing only a half truth and trying to pass it off as a complete truth.
So provide the following scientific data and let’s discuss this further:
1. Scientific data that shows that man made climate change exists based on any data that is showing that man is actually changing the climate outside the limits of the natural norms already provided by science.
2. Provide scientific data that shows what percentage of the climate that man is affecting.
Please provide the links to your data sources so I can read them as well.
Without these two little tidbits of data, all other data is nothing but speculation and opinions. Because if you cannot prove that the climate is changing outside the established norms then how can you measure how much man is actually contributing to the climate change? BTW, there are established scientific methods for determining this information. But as the scientific community has already admitted, in order to accurately determine if man is causing climate change, or even affecting the climate substantially takes over 100 years. And to be accurate with the findings can take as long as 500 years. The climate changes too slowly for us to come to any conclusions any quicker than this. This is per the scientific community themselves. BTW, we have only been measuring and monitoring these climate affecting items like greenhouse gas for around 50 years. Do you see the lie? In order to measure change, you have to either be outside some norm that has already been established or we need to have a baseline established. And if it takes at least 100 years to establish the beginnings of a baseline and we have only started 50 years ago, then everything is only guessing/speculation. As an example, we were heading towards global warming. Then Global cooling. Now just climate change because they cannot conclude yet if we are warming or cooling. There is a reason for these diffent talking points. It is a lie that you have bought into. But again, that is your perogative to believe it.
I will address your points here:
1. I have not noticed any of those different positions. I have always thought that there may be some truth to the data. But until we know how much man actually affects the climate, any argument for or against is really nothing more than a guess. That is on both sides of the argument. Not just the skeptics.
2. This is really just an attempt to shut down a conversation. You cannot prove a negative. The scientific data for how the climate was prior to man has existed for over 100 years now. We have data for thousands of years. And so far our climate has not changed any differently than prior to when man existed. The scientific data provided by the proponents attempts to show that man is causing this change. But notice they never compare what is happening now against the norms. Because we are not outside the norms. They attempt to say we are warming or cooling faster than ever before over a very short period like 10 years or 20 or 1. But to accurately measure takes hundreds of years. See my comment above.
3. I’ve never heard this. But I agree it is a weak argument. Still, if you remove that 1% greenhouse gas then we can measure how much change and what sort of change the climate will go through. Since we cannot all of the sudden stop producing this gas, we cannot measure the affect of it no longer being added to the climate. And since we have no data to show what was occurring in the climate prior to the addition of that 1% greenhouse gas we cannot determine if that gas is actually affecting the climate and how it is. So while the skeptic argument is weak, the proponent argument is even weaker as there is no way to determine how that 1% is affecting the climate. Without prior data, or without a way to stop all production of this gas, you cannot measure results. All you can do is speculate.
4. Since the growing or melting of glaciers and polar ice is a naturally occurring event, and they are not increasing nor melting any faster or slower, more or less than what we have already established as normal for the earth over the last 10’s of thousands of years, then all we can do is guess/speculate that man is actually causing this. Could it be that man may be adding to this effect? I believe so, but again, without being able to measure before and after man, or without being able to determine how much man is contributing to this effect outside the norms, then again, speculation only. Talk about cherry picking...
This climate change argument has validity but without knowing how much we are really contributing to climate change, we can only speculate how much of it is true and what part of it is true. I believe that all of the hysteria around it is just that. The data is being used to try and convince everyone that what is happening is going to affect us in 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years. And if we don’t do anything now, we are all going to die!!!! :o Let’s face it, the experts that said our cities will be under water already, and that people are going to start dying due to climate change have egg on their faces now. If the data ever becomes available that shows it is going to be 10k years before what we are doing now will affect the earth then how do you think people will react? Since no one really knows, believe what you want. But I would bet my feelings are more realistic than the hysteria. So far, my feelings and thoughts have been correct.
BTW, I would look into solar activity. I believe that the greatest effects on our climate has more to do with solar activity which includes the effects on our gravity that the sun has. JMHO
-
Hypocrites they are:
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/we-asked-paris-climate-accord-backers-if-theyd-support-banning-private-jets-most-didnt-respond/
-
Still completely missing the point.
Imagine this scenario. You live in a community with a homeowner’s association. Over time, it is noted that the water usage is consistently going up and up and up. So a group that “studies” this says it’s because there’s obviously an underground leak somewhere. HAS to be. The ONLY way can be explained they say. So they require everyone to pay to address and fix it. Ok, seems rational on the surface. Then the “fixes” don’t seem to be working. Well, HAVE to do something, but of course that requires more funding. Community leadership says everyone has to pay more, because we must fix. We FEEL bad about wasting water. Then some folks want more info on reasoning why the group that says need to pay more bases that on. Well, the usage is still going up, so MUST be a leak, right? Then some owners say they can’t pay because that aren’t as wealthy as other owners. Then those to pay see other owners (that opted out) wasting water that they are paying more for. Washing cars and letting the hose run. Watering their yard in the middle of the day. Not even trying to hide it. Well, they don’t care. The wealthy are paying to fix the issue, so all good.
(Maybe not the fully correct analogy, but best way I can explain what I see happening in relatively simple terms and not diving too deep. JMO)
Think it’s right for only some to carry the burden? In fact being forced to carry the burden. The part about folks getting rich as a result not withstanding. Not that I’m saying that is not happening, just another factor that I’m not considering in this example.
——————————
Then a study shows that the water usage increase was just a short term bump due to a very hot summer. That the community has seen that in the past, but the previous study was either too shortsighted to see or biased to manipulate. What then?
——————————
Then another study yet shows that those saying they couldn’t afford to pay to fix things were actually the ones responsible for the sharp increase in water usage. What then?
Starting to see my point? Personally, I’m not a climate change denier. It’s happening. I’m just not ok with being forced to pay what those who are forcing that on me don’t seem to fully understand themselves. Yet, because something MUST be done...
You said I didn't answer the question so I went back and tried to clearly answer it.
As for your scenario, I have lived in condos with homeowner associations and I have been on the board of one of them and I am familiar with exactly this issue. In the building where I currently own a condo the plumbing is getting old and the horizontal drain lines are starting to fail. Either it has to be paid for now, either through increased fees or through an assessment, or the leaks keep causing increasing amounts of damages which ends up raising out insurance rates/cost to the association to repair people's units. No owner gets to escape that everyone carries the burden. For some that assessment or fee increase is easier to swallow than others but everyone has to pay, even the guy on the top floor who has no one above him to leak on him.
I do understand where you are coming from and your logic makes sense from where you currently stand. If I thought the science was really iffy I would be very hesitant at any extreme solutions. However I am of the stance that our current scientific understanding is fairly accurate. I would never say the science is settled because real science is never settled, there is always room for something new to be found out that chances understanding. I think, appropriate to my current belief in what the science says, I support moderate steps, not drastic ones.
-
You cannot in any way honestly think that just because the climate changes without the influence of man for 10’s of thousands of years prior to man existing that man is now all of the sudden causing it. It is a pretty narcissistic attitude if you ask me.
I never took the position that the climate is only changing because of our influence.
So all of your logic is completely thrown out the window for two reasons. One is no one can say with all certainty that the climate is changing because of man.
I think that the science can say for certain that man is influencing climate change. Again, not the sole cause but one of a number of causes. Moreover I have yet to see any scientists put forth the idea that all climate change in the past 100 years has only mankind to blame. So while your argument is correct, you are arguing against a point that I don't think anyone was every making.
Which brings me to the second reason you have no argument whatsoever is that you have no idea how much man actually affects the climate.
I was explaining the basis for my current position which is why I stated that my statements were generalities. But since you bring up this specific one I will point out that there is evidence that man has significantly affected the climate, not just a percent or two. I will throw this link out as an example though I am sure there are probably other studies with varying estimates. Overall, most I have seen are in agreement that mankind is responsible for a significant amount.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/three-quarters-of-climate/
If you want to speculate, then say so. Your opinions are fine. Don’t provide opinions as to why something exists as a scientific fact when science cannot even prove what you are saying.
I wasn't speculating. I was listing the reasons I came to doubt the arguments of the climate change skeptics. Now by saying that the climate change deniers/skeptics are making faulty arguments and therefore not trustworthy/reliable I am not automatically saying that the opposite is true. So for example if you and I debated an issue and I was found to be lying/ignorant/misleading, that doesn't mean you are right by default, it would only mean that my arguments were not accurate/trustworthy.
So provide the following scientific data and let’s discuss this further:
1. Scientific data that shows that man made climate change exists based on any data that is showing that man is actually changing the climate outside the limits of the natural norms already provided by science.
2. Provide scientific data that shows what percentage of the climate that man is affecting.
I am not against getting into an actual detailed debate but I am a little hesitant for a number of reasons.
-It is very time consuming to really get into the weeds of climate science. By that I mean unless you or I are truly scientists of fields related to climate we are at a certain point relying on summaries and paraphrasing of what results mean.
-I am not sure what weight reports will carry here in this political hotbed. I worry the discussion would devolve over claims that all these various sources we might cite are "biased" and therefore not trustworthy. I am not trying to say you would be guilty of this but I have noticed that where it comes along political lines, the climate change deniers often seem to find a way of justifying ignoring data that goes against their positions.
1. I have not noticed any of those different positions. I have always thought that there may be some truth to the data. But until we know how much man actually affects the climate, any argument for or against is really nothing more than a guess. That is on both sides of the argument. Not just the skeptics.
Not all skeptics are the most extreme skeptics so of course my #1 comment would not necessarily apply. What I stated were real observations I made of arguments from the side of skeptics. I understand that these might not have been your specific positions.
2. This is really just an attempt to shut down a conversation. You cannot prove a negative. The scientific data for how the climate was prior to man has existed for over 100 years now. We have data for thousands of years. And so far our climate has not changed any differently than prior to when man existed. The scientific data provided by the proponents attempts to show that man is causing this change. But notice they never compare what is happening now against the norms. Because we are not outside the norms. They attempt to say we are warming or cooling faster than ever before over a very short period like 10 years or 20 or 1. But to accurately measure takes hundreds of years. See my comment above.
My point was that the arguments did not seem to have a fact finding aim and instead an agenda. Science with an agenda has a lot of issues.
3. I’ve never heard this. But I agree it is a weak argument. Still, if you remove that 1% greenhouse gas then we can measure how much change and what sort of change the climate will go through. Since we cannot all of the sudden stop producing this gas, we cannot measure the affect of it no longer being added to the climate. And since we have no data to show what was occurring in the climate prior to the addition of that 1% greenhouse gas we cannot determine if that gas is actually affecting the climate and how it is. So while the skeptic argument is weak, the proponent argument is even weaker as there is no way to determine how that 1% is affecting the climate. Without prior data, or without a way to stop all production of this gas, you cannot measure results. All you can do is speculate.
I think this would be a point we can be closer on. Yes the question becomes a difficult one to study because we are no in an enclosed environment where we can simply add or decrease a greenhouse gas by a specific amount and watch for a reaction without any other influences. However just because it becomes more difficult doesn't mean it is impossible either. We are able to look at the increase in greenhouse gasses from humans over the last 150 years and compare that to temperatures over that time period to see how they compare though. They can then look at records for other things like natural earth based influences as well as solar influences and look for patterns to see if they also could explain the climate changes. Obviously there is a certain amount of estimation that goes so of course there is going to be some margin of error in the estimates. I wouldn't trust anyone who would say "science proves 51% of warming is anthropogenic, not 50 or 52, just 51. " So where I would disagree is that I don't think it is merely speculating, I think they can give a fairly educated answer even though they could be off by a fair amount.
4. Since the growing or melting of glaciers and polar ice is a naturally occurring event, and they are not increasing nor melting any faster or slower, more or less than what we have already established as normal for the earth over the last 10’s of thousands of years, then all we can do is guess/speculate that man is actually causing this. Could it be that man may be adding to this effect? I believe so, but again, without being able to measure before and after man, or without being able to determine how much man is contributing to this effect outside the norms, then again, speculation only. Talk about cherry picking...
Unless my understanding of the information about glacier size changes is incorrect I think the rate of change since the last 150 years or so has been different than the time period before humans really started churning out CO2 and other chemicals. It isn't a smoking gun per se but it appears to be a fairly strong correlation to man. Possible coincidence? Sure, but combined with a lot of other correlations pointing to the same factor it becomes less chance that it is a coincidence in my opinion.
[/quote]This climate change argument has validity but without knowing how much we are really contributing to climate change, we can only speculate how much of it is true and what part of it is true. I believe that all of the hysteria around it is just that. The data is being used to try and convince everyone that what is happening is going to affect us in 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years. And if we don’t do anything now, we are all going to die!!!! :o Let’s face it, the experts that said our cities will be under water already, and that people are going to start dying due to climate change have egg on their faces now. If the data ever becomes available that shows it is going to be 10k years before what we are doing now will affect the earth then how do you think people will react? Since no one really knows, believe what you want. But I would bet my feelings are more realistic than the hysteria. So far, my feelings and thoughts have been correct.
BTW, I would look into solar activity. I believe that the greatest effects on our climate has more to do with solar activity which includes the effects on our gravity that the sun has. JMHO
[/quote]
I did find one article today that said solar activity was studied however the influence over the past century or so (can't remember specific time period mentioned) was not a significant factor in climate change.
What you point out is the problem when people make extreme examples. Some guy says out cities will be underwater but maybe most the others say we will have a 6 inch rise in sea levels. We all see that the big dramatic prediction didn't happen and therefore think the scientists are all wrong even though the other quite guys making smaller, less dramatic predictions might have had their predictions come true. This is a problem with the way the human brain works though. This is where it is hard for the average non-science person to sift through everything. A lot of what we get from the media gives us those big dramatic predictions and most people don't have time to really dive into the weeds so we get swept up into alarmists or deniers positions.
-
So, here's the Liberal Climate Change logic: Climate Change will kill the planet. It's the biggest concern of our lives right now.
BUT, instead of Bernie halting his private jet excursions and using, say, technology to do whatever he does in lieu of traveling, he buys carbon credits to "offset" his flights.
If Bernie were to change his lifestyle to match the one he wants the rest of us to live, the offsets would not be needed. We would have HIS carbon emission reduction as well as the reduction created by whomever that exchange purchases the credits from.
We could have DOUBLE the emissions reduction, but instead we get HALF that amount, because Climate Change taxes, exchanges and any other "solution" that involves paying into the globalist kitty are SCAMs.
When the people who keep telling us Climate Change is a crisis start living their own lives as if it's a crisis, maybe then I'll believe it's a crisis.
BERNIE SANDERS SPENDS THOUSANDS MORE ON PRIVATE JET TRAVEL
The reelection campaign for Bernie Sanders spent more than $400,000 to travel on private jets during the
midterm elections, Federal Election Commission filings show.
The Washington Free Beacon first reportedon Sanders’s use of private jets in 2017 after he disclosed a
payment of just under $40,000 to Apollo Jets, a New York-based company “dedicated to providing a luxury
flight experience.” The campaign stepped up its use of private planes in the campaign’s final weeks, spending
$297,685 with Apollo Jets for a nine-state tour at the beginning of October.
The campaign’s latest filing, submitted to the FEC late last week, shows an additional $6,772.50 payment to
Apollo Jets on October 30, bringing Sanders’s total spending on private air travel to $403,024 for the midterm cycle.
Sanders’s extensive use of private jets on the campaign flies in the face of his rhetoric on climate change, which
he views as the “single greatest threat facing our planet.” The transportation industry is viewed by many, including
Sanders, as a major environmental culprit, given the volume of emissions produced by aviation.
The Sanders campaign has acknowledged the negative impact his use of private planes has on the climate, but
defended it by pointing to its purchase of carbon credits to “balance out the emissions produced on this trip.”
“The campaign purchased carbon offsets from Native Energy to support renewable energy projects and invest in
carbon reduction projects to balance out the emissions produced on this trip,” said spokeswoman Arianna Jones
in an email on the $297,685 in private plane spending.
The campaign’s latest filing indeed shows that it gave $4,980 on November 2 to Native Energy, a company that sells
carbon offsets to corporations and campaigns.
It is unclear, however, whether the $4,980 purchase from Native Energy is intended to counter all the emissions
produced throughout the course of the campaign.
Native Energy did not respond to an inquiry on whether it worked with the Sanders campaign to determine the amount
of carbon offsets it believes the campaign would need to purchase to be carbon-neutral. A calculator on the company’s
website does not allow for users to specify that their travel was carried out on a private jet, which is significantly worse
for the environment given the limited capacity of those flights.
The Sanders campaign spent at least an additional $143,492.81 to travel using commercial airlines, according to FEC
filings.
The Free Beacon was unable to determine whether the $4,980 payment to Native Energy was intended to offset this
travel as well.
The Sanders campaign did not respond to follow-up inquiries on the campaign’s carbon footprint.
-
So, here's the Liberal Climate Change logic: Climate Change will kill the planet. It's the biggest concern of our lives right now.
BUT, instead of Bernie halting his private jet excursions and using, say, technology to do whatever he does in lieu of traveling, he buys carbon credits to "offset" his flights.
If Bernie were to change his lifestyle to match the one he wants the rest of us to live, the offsets would not be needed. We would have HIS carbon emission reduction as well as the reduction created by whomever that exchange purchases the credits from.
We could have DOUBLE the emissions reduction, but instead we get HALF that amount, because Climate Change taxes, exchanges and any other "solution" that involves paying into the globalist kitty are SCAMs.
When the people who keep telling us Climate Change is a crisis start living their own lives as if it's a crisis, maybe then I'll believe it's a crisis.
BERNIE SANDERS SPENDS THOUSANDS MORE ON PRIVATE JET TRAVEL
Did you read the article I posted a few posts back? All of these proponents are some of the biggest polluters and they don’t want to get rid of their lifestyle. But they want to take your money from you and force you to cut back. Looks like France’s Socialism is taking hold here.
-
I never took the position that the climate is only changing because of our influence.
I think that the science can say for certain that man is influencing climate change. Again, not the sole cause but one of a number of causes. Moreover I have yet to see any scientists put forth the idea that all climate change in the past 100 years has only mankind to blame. So while your argument is correct, you are arguing against a point that I don't think anyone was every making.
I was explaining the basis for my current position which is why I stated that my statements were generalities. But since you bring up this specific one I will point out that there is evidence that man has significantly affected the climate, not just a percent or two. I will throw this link out as an example though I am sure there are probably other studies with varying estimates. Overall, most I have seen are in agreement that mankind is responsible for a significant amount.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/three-quarters-of-climate/
I wasn't speculating. I was listing the reasons I came to doubt the arguments of the climate change skeptics. Now by saying that the climate change deniers/skeptics are making faulty arguments and therefore not trustworthy/reliable I am not automatically saying that the opposite is true. So for example if you and I debated an issue and I was found to be lying/ignorant/misleading, that doesn't mean you are right by default, it would only mean that my arguments were not accurate/trustworthy.
I am not against getting into an actual detailed debate but I am a little hesitant for a number of reasons.
-It is very time consuming to really get into the weeds of climate science. By that I mean unless you or I are truly scientists of fields related to climate we are at a certain point relying on summaries and paraphrasing of what results mean.
-I am not sure what weight reports will carry here in this political hotbed. I worry the discussion would devolve over claims that all these various sources we might cite are "biased" and therefore not trustworthy. I am not trying to say you would be guilty of this but I have noticed that where it comes along political lines, the climate change deniers often seem to find a way of justifying ignoring data that goes against their positions.
Not all skeptics are the most extreme skeptics so of course my #1 comment would not necessarily apply. What I stated were real observations I made of arguments from the side of skeptics. I understand that these might not have been your specific positions.
My point was that the arguments did not seem to have a fact finding aim and instead an agenda. Science with an agenda has a lot of issues.
I think this would be a point we can be closer on. Yes the question becomes a difficult one to study because we are no in an enclosed environment where we can simply add or decrease a greenhouse gas by a specific amount and watch for a reaction without any other influences. However just because it becomes more difficult doesn't mean it is impossible either. We are able to look at the increase in greenhouse gasses from humans over the last 150 years and compare that to temperatures over that time period to see how they compare though. They can then look at records for other things like natural earth based influences as well as solar influences and look for patterns to see if they also could explain the climate changes. Obviously there is a certain amount of estimation that goes so of course there is going to be some margin of error in the estimates. I wouldn't trust anyone who would say "science proves 51% of warming is anthropogenic, not 50 or 52, just 51. " So where I would disagree is that I don't think it is merely speculating, I think they can give a fairly educated answer even though they could be off by a fair amount.
Unless my understanding of the information about glacier size changes is incorrect I think the rate of change since the last 150 years or so has been different than the time period before humans really started churning out CO2 and other chemicals. It isn't a smoking gun per se but it appears to be a fairly strong correlation to man. Possible coincidence? Sure, but combined with a lot of other correlations pointing to the same factor it becomes less chance that it is a coincidence in my opinion.
This climate change argument has validity but without knowing how much we are really contributing to climate change, we can only speculate how much of it is true and what part of it is true. I believe that all of the hysteria around it is just that. The data is being used to try and convince everyone that what is happening is going to affect us in 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years. And if we don’t do anything now, we are all going to die!!!! :o Let’s face it, the experts that said our cities will be under water already, and that people are going to start dying due to climate change have egg on their faces now. If the data ever becomes available that shows it is going to be 10k years before what we are doing now will affect the earth then how do you think people will react? Since no one really knows, believe what you want. But I would bet my feelings are more realistic than the hysteria. So far, my feelings and thoughts have been correct.
BTW, I would look into solar activity. I believe that the greatest effects on our climate has more to do with solar activity which includes the effects on our gravity that the sun has. JMHO
I did find one article today that said solar activity was studied however the influence over the past century or so (can't remember specific time period mentioned) was not a significant factor in climate change.
What you point out is the problem when people make extreme examples. Some guy says out cities will be underwater but maybe most the others say we will have a 6 inch rise in sea levels. We all see that the big dramatic prediction didn't happen and therefore think the scientists are all wrong even though the other quite guys making smaller, less dramatic predictions might have had their predictions come true. This is a problem with the way the human brain works though. This is where it is hard for the average non-science person to sift through everything. A lot of what we get from the media gives us those big dramatic predictions and most people don't have time to really dive into the weeds so we get swept up into alarmists or deniers positions.
A lot of the things you stated here are very inaccurate. And if you want to deny the facts and ignore the truth that I stated that is your perogative. The link you provided makes my case even stronger. It relies on computer models. Not using comparative data which is the true scientific measure for the environment. Computer models are programmed by humans which program them to interpret the data they input in a very specific way and are suspect and extremely biased. And once again the computer models are nothing more than speculation. Speculation = Guessing. The reason they use computer models in the first place is because they don’t have enough data to do a comparative analysis.
If you want to continue to believe the speculation with no scientific data to back it up then go ahead. This whole subject is a lie. I presented you with facts and you come back with you don’t want to believe them. It might be in 50 years or so we might finally find out the truth. Until then I am going to stay on the side of science and will believe the findings when we finally have enough real data (Not make believe computer models). Good luck with your beliefs.
-
Did you read the article I posted a few posts back? All of these proponents are some of the biggest polluters and they don’t want to get rid of their lifestyle. But they want to take your money from you and force you to cut back. Looks like France’s Socialism is taking hold here.
I read it -- after I saw the same info on Tucker Carlson's show on YT. :thumbsup:
The article I posted was more specific to Bernie, who has used his soapbox to be one of the most outspoken climate change alarmists in government. The article was also more specific about how much he uses private jets.
-
A lot of the things you stated here are very inaccurate. And if you want to deny the facts and ignore the truth that I stated that is your perogative. The link you provided makes my case even stronger. It relies on computer models. Not using comparative data which is the true scientific measure for the environment. Computer models are programmed by humans which program them to interpret the data they input in a very specific way and are suspect and extremely biased. And once again the computer models are nothing more than speculation. Speculation = Guessing. The reason they use computer models in the first place is because they don’t have enough data to do a comparative analysis.
If you want to continue to believe the speculation with no scientific data to back it up then go ahead. This whole subject is a lie. I presented you with facts and you come back with you don’t want to believe them. It might be in 50 years or so we might finally find out the truth. Until then I am going to stay on the side of science and will believe the findings when we finally have enough real data (Not make believe computer models). Good luck with your beliefs.
Here is where we either have to agree to disagree or get into detailed debate. You say the things I stated are very inaccurate and I say the things you stated are very inaccurate.
I don't believe computer models are just speculation. They have some limitations to them of course, for example they can't predict solar activity) but they represent a different method to run simulated tests on certain variables. It allows them to run tests on predictions on the future and simulate things they would never be able to (physically and/or ethically) to the actual climate. Yes, if the program is not written well then the data will obviously not be reliable but I think with time they have improved the reliability of the computer models. It certainly isn't someone just speculating. I think you have been misled about the reliability of computer models in testing.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought
https://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.XBNebS2ZOr8
You didn't present me with facts any more than I presented facts to you. You presented me a number of claims which as I said may indeed be true to varying degrees but you haven't really established any facts. It isn't about what I want to believe, desire is irrelevant. I would desire that we not be able to affect the climate but that doesn't mean it is true or not.
Good luck with your beliefs.
-
Here is where we either have to agree to disagree or get into detailed debate. You say the things I stated are very inaccurate and I say the things you stated are very inaccurate.
I don't believe computer models are just speculation. They have some limitations to them of course, for example they can't predict solar activity) but they represent a different method to run simulated tests on certain variables. It allows them to run tests on predictions on the future and simulate things they would never be able to (physically and/or ethically) to the actual climate. Yes, if the program is not written well then the data will obviously not be reliable but I think with time they have improved the reliability of the computer models. It certainly isn't someone just speculating. I think you have been misled about the reliability of computer models in testing.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought
https://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.XBNebS2ZOr8
You didn't present me with facts any more than I presented facts to you. You presented me a number of claims which as I said may indeed be true to varying degrees but you haven't really established any facts. It isn't about what I want to believe, desire is irrelevant. I would desire that we not be able to affect the climate but that doesn't mean it is true or not.
Good luck with your beliefs.
Awwwww did my comment wishing you good luck with your beliefs get you butt hurt?
So you truly think that predicting the future with a computer makes it more valid than if someone says it? Do you believe crystal balls, magic 8 balls, palm readers? :rofl: You truly are naive. You obviously don’t understand how computer programming works. The computer programmer writes the code to produce the results they want. They cannot program something random. And you believe that all these people who are being paid by those with an agenda who want certain results for the programmer to write code that gives opposite results? You truly don’t understand programming nor human nature. And you truly trust that the people who are paiid by those with an agenda and want these exact results to enter truthful information to begin with? And you believe in order for the computer to predict the future they had to hire a Swami wearing a turban who can see into the future to program the computers? Don’t answer any of these questions. They were asked to make you think.
If you truly wanted to know the truth you would research this beyond the first 40-50 pages of Google. Unfortunately, Google is also pushing the agenda by mostly putting forth this agenda in the first large amount of pages so people who really want to research both sides need to really dig deep. BTW, most of the results given by Google in the first whatever number of pages are all in on the agenda as well. Especially the MSM and the scientific community that has been bought and paid for. Considering you admit to not wanting to really do your due diligence on this or any subject I expect nothing less from you. Obviously you don’t want to believe the truth. That is your perogative. Just realize this is not your opinion and mine. There is the truth and then there is your truth. I have said nothing here that isn’t factual.
I’m not going to do your research for you. I have told you this in the past. I think it is time that you stop trying to have conversations with me. Please stop quoting me for everything I have posted here and everywhere. And I will stop doing the same with you. I believe you have this agreement with others so let’s do the same.
-
Awwwww did my comment wishing you good luck with your beliefs get you butt hurt?
If you truly wanted to know the truth you would research this beyond the first 40-50 pages of Google.
His cognitive dissonance won't allow him to accept or even entertain opposing viewpoints, no matter how many times he professes to be "objective."
His mind is made up, and arguing is his only means of rebuttal. He has no knowledge -- only Google.
No other area of "science" has the dismal record of contemporary climate science. Not a single one of their computer models (or voiced predictions) has come true. When something happens decades after they said it would occur, they scream, "I told you this would happen."
Then when something bad happens that's weather-related, they immediately blame it on climate change without a single piece of evidence and zero scientists predicting it.
It's interesting to study the weather, but that doesn't equal "climate science." When meteorologists start predicting what the weather in a region is going to do more than 1-2 days out, maybe then I'll trust they can predict what the entire Earth's climate will be like in 10-100 years.
Poor Richard's Almanac has a better success record at predicting longterm weather conditions than these "scientists." But, in their defense, they make a helluva lot more money in gov't grants for studying this "crisis" than Ben Franklin ever made.
-
The earth was hotter during the roman periods than it was today, and was even hotter in multiple eras in The past. The earth simply goes through various temperature phases, heating up and cooling down, due to numerous factors like solar activity, core activity, etc. The only exception to this is cataclysmic events like asteroidal strikes significant enough to influence temperature.
The real issue is that they are destroying flora that covert CO2 into oxygen. I have shown NASA thermal analysis in my presentations demonstrating What happens to atmospheric carbon conditions during farming seasons, and it reveals that by simply planting more plants and trees and not cutting them down, the earth can naturally regulate the excess co2 levels and even fix the world "greenhouse gas" problem within 10-20 years.
If there is a human problem, its simply that there are too many people on the planet, thanks to modern technology, specifically petroleum based technology. Technology allows for people to live longer, which is why the world is over populated and its resources, habitats and ecosystems are consumed and destroyed.
-
The earth was hotter during the roman periods than it was today, and was even hotter in multiple eras in The past. The earth simply goes through various temperature phases, heating up and cooling down, due to numerous factors like solar activity, core activity, etc. The only exception to this is cataclysmic events like asteroidal strikes significant enough to influence temperature.
The real issue is that they are destroying flora that covert CO2 into oxygen. I have shown NASA thermal analysis in my presentations demonstrating What happens to atmospheric carbon conditions during farming seasons, and it reveals that by simply planting more plants and trees and not cutting them down, the earth can naturally regulate the excess co2 levels and even fix the world "greenhouse gas" problem within 10-20 years.
If there is a human problem, its simply that there are too many people on the planet, thanks to modern technology, specifically petroleum based technology. Technology allows for people to live longer, which is why the world is over populated and its resources, habitats and ecosystems are consumed and destroyed.
time for "the snap"
-
https://youtu.be/mtHreJbr2WM
-
time for "the snap"
I hope they remember you
-
The earth was hotter during the roman periods than it was today, and was even hotter in multiple eras in The past. The earth simply goes through various temperature phases, heating up and cooling down, due to numerous factors like solar activity, core activity, etc. The only exception to this is cataclysmic events like asteroidal strikes significant enough to influence temperature.
The real issue is that they are destroying flora that covert CO2 into oxygen. I have shown NASA thermal analysis in my presentations demonstrating What happens to atmospheric carbon conditions during farming seasons, and it reveals that by simply planting more plants and trees and not cutting them down, the earth can naturally regulate the excess co2 levels and even fix the world "greenhouse gas" problem within 10-20 years.
If there is a human problem, its simply that there are too many people on the planet, thanks to modern technology, specifically petroleum based technology. Technology allows for people to live longer, which is why the world is over populated and its resources, habitats and ecosystems are consumed and destroyed.
Hey Q, do you have something like a PowerPoint presentation I can look at? Or some other sort of thing you wouldn’t mind sharing? I would be interested in seeing your data. Thanks!
-
https://youtu.be/mtHreJbr2WM
I hate videos longer than about 5-10 mins. I sometimes don’t have the patience for anything longer. But I started watching this and I watched it to the end. It is too bad those like EEF will not watch the whole thing and even if they did they wouldn’t believe a word this guy says.
I have spent well over 100 hours and well past the first 200 pages of Google in order to research this climate change lie. It takes getting that far past the BS in Google to find the truth and the real answers. There are so many websites with an agenda that it literally takes that much effort to find the websites that have done the research from the data that is provided by the proper sources. On top of that they show you the data and let you interpret it so you can see for yourself what the truth really is. The biggest thing is they also let you know their opinions and interpretations and state them as such and not as facts like all the lying BS pro climate change websites do.
Thank you for posting this. It is current and it is powerful. He uses the proper sources for the data he uses.
-
Trump is right about this. And he is doing what is best for the country. Love him or hate he is doing doing what is right for our country and the world.
https://youtu.be/_qE8a1peSHo
-
There was an axiom put forth on Tucker Carlson's show this week by a guest:
"When Climate Change zealots and people who have to pay for gasoline clash over energy policies, those who pay for gasoline will always win."
-
There was an axiom put forth on Tucker Carlson's show this week by a guest:
"When Climate Change zealots and people who have to pay for gasoline clash over energy policies, those who pay for gasoline will always win."
I certainly hope we always win. The yellow vest riots started due to an added 25 cent gasoline tax. With over $7 of taxes on gasoline now, that 25 cents doesn’t seem like much of a raise in taxes. I’m sure there are more underlying anger issues there. Like unlimited immigration and high cost of living.
Let’s face it, Trump was elected for the same reasons the yellow vests are rioting. People are just fed up with lying corrupt politicians. Let’s hope we don’t see those same type of riots in the US.
-
Dnc controlled media trying to discredit trump about climate change because the deep state controls it and gets a lot of the money spent in it.
Trump is not part of the deep state club and is messing with their income. Hence why the fake news blast him all the time about it. Remember when he pulled the usa out of the paris accord..well trump was right, but the news blasted him b4 the UN admitted it was a fraud.
Why did they change the name from global warming to climate change? Because shit aint getting warmer.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Hey Q, do you have something like a PowerPoint presentation I can look at? Or some other sort of thing you wouldn’t mind sharing? I would be interested in seeing your data. Thanks!
The Roman warm period is pretty well documented, and you should be able to find tons of information online.
I pulled the NASA data from a presentation done by Ray Archuleta for Living Web Farms on YouTube, with a presentation focus on soil diversity. Its a 6 part series, so you'll have to sift through the content.
-
Roman Warm Period
The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400.[1]
Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if they were planted, but that they could not set fruit there. That is the case today, which suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the 4th and 5th centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate then was basically the same as it was around AD 2000. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the 5th century BC that resembles the modern pattern of variation.[2]
Tree rings from Italy in the late 3rd century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants.[3]
Cooling at the end of the period in southwestern Florida may have been due to a reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth, which may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns.[4]
The phrase "Roman Warm Period" appears in a 1995 doctoral thesis.[5] It was popularized by an article published in Nature in 1999.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
-
New findings from NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
A new NASA study says that Antarctica is overall accumulating ice. Still, areas of the continent, like the Antarctic Peninsula photographed above, have increased their mass loss in the last decades.
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.“
-
New findings from NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
A new NASA study says that Antarctica is overall accumulating ice. Still, areas of the continent, like the Antarctic Peninsula photographed above, have increased their mass loss in the last decades.
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.“
Of course, the new argument is, that "new" ice isn't as "good" as the "old" ice that melted.
Somehow, ice that's over 1,000 years old is preferable to ice that's newly formed -- even if the overall amount of ice is larger.
:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
-
New findings from NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
A new NASA study says that Antarctica is overall accumulating ice. Still, areas of the continent, like the Antarctic Peninsula photographed above, have increased their mass loss in the last decades.
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.“
If you were around in the 70s, wasnt there a panic being generated about global cooling and the unending winter approaching? I've watched documentaries and discussions on it, but wasnt around to personally experience the panic.
While climate change is a real thing, it also works both ways, and for numerous reasons listed previously. For instance, a mini-ice age occurred during the dark ages that contributed to the norse abandoning their colonies in Greenland because it became too cold to live there, along with constant alterations with the native peoples similar to the inuits. If you visit Greenland, the remains of those norse settlements still remains. I believe this occurred to a lesser extent in the 70s, and scientists also predicted cooler earth temperatures in coming years, due to a reduction in solar energy, which occurs naturally.
It is true that humans are contributing to global warming via greenhouse excesd gas production, but again, it is due to the destruction of flora that can convert CO2 into oxygen, and reducing/destroying the carbon sinks that restrict CO2 from escaping into the atmosphere, and the reason for that is the destruction of ecosystems to support population growth. Furthermore, it is gases like methane that are significantly more dangerous than CO2, and methane is generated when carbon is allowed to decompose without sequestering or utilizing the methane gas generated from the process
So the Answer is simple: plant more forests, don't cut them down and reduce the human population to balance out the demand for resources and shelter.
-
If you were around in the 70s, wasnt there a panic being generated about global cooling and the unending winter approaching? I've watched documentaries and discussions on it, but wasnt around to personally experience the panic.
I was around -- born in 1961. In elementary school, we got those little classroom Scholastic Magazine issues. They had lots of topics nationally and globally intended to "round out" local news.
There wasn't an issue I don't think that didn't have some dire prediction if "we" didn't stop some behavior that was causing the problem. First one I remember was how aerosol deodorant was responsible for depleted ozone, which was going to completely fry the surface of the Earth. Then there was overpopulation exceeding resources (mainly food), which was going to cause massive societal upheaval and a return to the dark ages.
Of course there were also predictions of the coming ice age that our factories, cars, trucks, railroads, etc. were ushering in.
I also remember one magazine said eggs were evil, and the cholesterol they contained were going to cause heart attacks in every single person who eats more than 3 per week. A year later, eggs were being called "the perfect food" based on new studies. Other protein sources compared to eggs were too high in saturated and poly-unsaturated fats.
Hurricanes, tornadoes, famine, gas shortages, pollution, holes in the ozone, cholesterol, saccharine, killer bees, species extinctions, .... there's no end to the number of apocalyptic predictions I've managed to survive! :shake:
I learned at a young age not to believe everything I read. First step to determine credibility: find out who paid for the study, and whether they benefit/profit from the findings presented.
"The Science Is Settled!!"
(https://i.imgur.com/lVzTezj.jpg?1)
-
I dont trust NASA. "New ice" means artic shelf. #flatearthsociety
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
If you were around in the 70s, wasnt there a panic being generated about global cooling and the unending winter approaching? I've watched documentaries and discussions on it, but wasnt around to personally experience the panic.
While climate change is a real thing, it also works both ways, and for numerous reasons listed previously. For instance, a mini-ice age occurred during the dark ages that contributed to the norse abandoning their colonies in Greenland because it became too cold to live there, along with constant alterations with the native peoples similar to the inuits. If you visit Greenland, the remains of those norse settlements still remains. I believe this occurred to a lesser extent in the 70s, and scientists also predicted cooler earth temperatures in coming years, due to a reduction in solar energy, which occurs naturally.
It is true that humans are contributing to global warming via greenhouse excesd gas production, but again, it is due to the destruction of flora that can convert CO2 into oxygen, and reducing/destroying the carbon sinks that restrict CO2 from escaping into the atmosphere, and the reason for that is the destruction of ecosystems to support population growth. Furthermore, it is gases like methane that are significantly more dangerous than CO2, and methane is generated when carbon is allowed to decompose without sequestering or utilizing the methane gas generated from the process
So the Answer is simple: plant more forests, don't cut them down and reduce the human population to balance out the demand for resources and shelter.
Yes I was around in the 70’s. I will say that Flapp said pretty much everything I wanted to say. But I have one thing to add to his post so I will quote him and add my 2 cents to his post.
My thoughts are similar to yours. Though not exactly the same. Back in the 70’s when the idea that we were heading for an ice age was brought up, the hysteria was huge until it was revealed that it was going to be thousands of years before it was going to really effect the earth. But I think it was this hysteria that the idea of climate change, global cooling, global warming et al in order to suck money from unsuspecting people and countries was born. Which is why the deception seems so real to people. When the computer models and the so called experts started making predictions, and the predictions never occurred they kept changing the definition and increasing the time periods for the catastrophe to occur. As new generations are indoctrinated they believe the lies and as such feel the need to do something to save the earth. We used to plant trees and protested the cutting down of rainforests. To me, that was the right thing to do. Now, we are told, and our younger generations are taught that we need to spend money hand over fist to control the climate.
Was it a coincidence that oral birth control became widely available in the US by the mid to late 60’s? In the 70’s and 80’s it became fashionable to have 2 or less children. It was found that the US needed the average family to have 2.5 children in order to maintain our economy growth. But the people who felt that overpopulation was a big concern decided to have 2 or less in order to do their part to save the earth. The US population growth has slowed somewhat. Some countries like Russia are actually having a negative population growth.
I was and still am to some extent a proponent of planting more, stopping the cutting down of massive amounts of forests, forest management, and to slow down global population growth. The US cannot do it by themselves. The problem is that it is not in the best economic interest of some countries to do any of these things. I think the key to maintaining our planet is to find a good balance.
-
I was around -- born in 1961. In elementary school, we got those little classroom Scholastic Magazine issues. They had lots of topics nationally and globally intended to "round out" local news.
There wasn't an issue I don't think that didn't have some dire prediction if "we" didn't stop some behavior that was causing the problem. First one I remember was how aerosol deodorant was responsible for depleted ozone, which was going to completely fry the surface of the Earth. Then there was overpopulation exceeding resources (mainly food), which was going to cause massive societal upheaval and a return to the dark ages.
Of course there were also predictions of the coming ice age that our factories, cars, trucks, railroads, etc. were ushering in.
I also remember one magazine said eggs were evil, and the cholesterol they contained were going to cause heart attacks in every single person who eats more than 3 per week. A year later, eggs were being called "the perfect food" based on new studies. Other protein sources compared to eggs were too high in saturated and poly-unsaturated fats.
Hurricanes, tornadoes, famine, gas shortages, pollution, holes in the ozone, cholesterol, saccharine, killer bees, species extinctions, .... there's no end to the number of apocalyptic predictions I've managed to survive! :shake:
I learned at a young age not to believe everything I read. First step to determine credibility: find out who paid for the study, and whether they benefit/profit from the findings presented.
"The Science Is Settled!!"
One thing I want to add to your post was the lie of “Peak Oil”. At first the idea of “Peak Oil” was defined as we have gone past the half way point of all of the earth’s oil reserves. In other words we only had 50% or less left. The hysteria was overwhelming! Mostly because the predictions were that we were pumping out so much so fast that we only had 20 years or less of oil reserves left. But then the oil companies started providing proof that they had oil reserves that would last up to another 200+ years. Especially large reserves in shale (Can we say fracking?). When the hysteria from that died down, they changed the definition of “Peak Oil”. Then “Peak Oil” was defined as we reached the peak of how much oil we can pump out of the ground every day while the demand continually rose. And we all know that when demand outstrips supply, they predicted the price of oil would rise to $20 a gallon! OMG people were panicking! And this was only 20 or so years ago! Of course then this lie was exposed and died down and now we know that we can increase supply any time we want as demand rises. And gas will only get to $20 a gallon as our governments add taxes to each gallon in an attempt to make it too expensive to own a car. And then we will be forced to find a “Greener” form of transportation. We now know this “Peak Oil” lie didn’t stick. The Global Cooling lie didn’t stick., Then the Global Warming lie didn’t stick, But it seems like the Climate Change lie seems to have stuck. Mostly because if we have a hot or cool year, or one more hurricanes than usual, or if there is flooding or fires worse than last year then it is blamed all on Global Warming. And as us older people die off, so will the past history of the lies and hysteria that we lived through. It’s too bad that the naive will believe the propaganda/lies they were taught about the climate and will never understand that all of this is a huge investment to control the population and steal money from everyone because they are taught that they literally are the cause of the climate changing. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
-
Follow the climate change money:
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/stephen-moore/stephen-moore-follow-climate-change-money#utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_campaign=c-SMoore-FollowTheClimateChangeMoney
-
My parents loved to watch nature documentaries in the 80s. Every episode ended the same with the bleeding heart crap of doom and gloom. I somewhat believe there is climate change but not the Al Gore bullshit.
On a somewhat different topic, there was no traffic during this morning's commute. My theory is that we wouldn't need a light rail if they literally bulldozed over UH Manoa and rebuilt everything at the west campus. They can turn the Manoa campus into a park for all I care. What's cheaper, building a second level of H1 or moving the Manoa campus to the west?
-
Of course, the new argument is, that "new" ice isn't as "good" as the "old" ice that melted.
Somehow, ice that's over 1,000 years old is preferable to ice that's newly formed -- even if the overall amount of ice is larger.
:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
-
Follow the climate change money:
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/stephen-moore/stephen-moore-follow-climate-change-money#utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_campaign=c-SMoore-FollowTheClimateChangeMoney
Nothing wrong with that, but shouldn't we follow the climate change denier money as well?
-
Awwwww did my comment wishing you good luck with your beliefs get you butt hurt?
Nope. Why would it? facts don't need egos. I care more about knowing the truth than defending an inaccurate statement because I don't want admit being wrong.
So you truly think that predicting the future with a computer makes it more valid than if someone says it? Do you believe crystal balls, magic 8 balls, palm readers? :rofl: You truly are naive. You obviously don’t understand how computer programming works. The computer programmer writes the code to produce the results they want. They cannot program something random. And you believe that all these people who are being paid by those with an agenda who want certain results for the programmer to write code that gives opposite results? You truly don’t understand programming nor human nature. And you truly trust that the people who are paiid by those with an agenda and want these exact results to enter truthful information to begin with? And you believe in order for the computer to predict the future they had to hire a Swami wearing a turban who can see into the future to program the computers? Don’t answer any of these questions. They were asked to make you think.
Comparing climate modeling software to crystal balls is so clearly disingenuous I really have a hard time thinking you are taking this seriously. You seem to be more interested in things that confirm your beliefs and not really open to the possibility that your position is wrong.
If you truly wanted to know the truth you would research this beyond the first 40-50 pages of Google. Unfortunately, Google is also pushing the agenda by mostly putting forth this agenda in the first large amount of pages so people who really want to research both sides need to really dig deep. BTW, most of the results given by Google in the first whatever number of pages are all in on the agenda as well. Especially the MSM and the scientific community that has been bought and paid for. Considering you admit to not wanting to really do your due diligence on this or any subject I expect nothing less from you. Obviously you don’t want to believe the truth. That is your perogative. Just realize this is not your opinion and mine. There is the truth and then there is your truth. I have said nothing here that isn’t factual.
You are pretty clearly not being objective here. You just discount anything that disagrees with you by calling it bias. The government says it's real? Cause the government is biased. The universities say it's true? They are biased too. The scientists say it's true? They are biased too. Its not hard "prove" your position when you manage to selectively disqualify all evidence you don't like.
But do tell, how deep have you dug?
I’m not going to do your research for you. I have told you this in the past. I think it is time that you stop trying to have conversations with me. Please stop quoting me for everything I have posted here and everywhere. And I will stop doing the same with you. I believe you have this agreement with others so let’s do the same.
Strawman. I never asked you to do any research for me. My first post here was not even attempting an argument, I stated my position and gave my reason politely. You took issue with it and wanted a debate.
You and I disagree on this issue and that is fine, but I don't ridicule your position or insult you for that disagreement and I only request you do the same.
-
You ignore all the facts I presented to you because you cannot disprove any of them. By acknowledging them you you will have to admit that your beliefs are a lie. Which is why you just ignore them. Again, there is the truth and then there is your truth. You can believe all the lies you want. That is your perogative. Without doing sufficient research you will continuing believing a lie.
You are being intellectually dishonest. Case in point I asked you nicely to quit quoting me and you ignored that as well because it doesn’t suit you. Don’t ignore my request. Honor it.
-
You ignore all the facts I presented to you because you cannot disprove any of them. By acknowledging them you you will have to admit that your beliefs are a lie. Which is why you just ignore them. Again, there is the truth and then there is your truth. You can believe all the lies you want. That is your perogative. Without doing sufficient research you will continuing believing a lie.
You are being intellectually dishonest. Case in point I asked you nicely to quit quoting me and you ignored that as well because it doesn’t suit you. Don’t ignore my request. Honor it.
You didn't present any facts, you just said I was wrong and climate models are not trustable. I said their reliability has improved and are more trustworthy than you thing, and I provided links to support my statements.
You try to twist this into something about my pride, being unwilling to admit I am wrong but that argument fails by the very fact that I stated in my first post how my stance had come full circle. I had already admitted I was on the wrong side of the evidence.
What research have you done? You suggest I need to do so much more but have not put forth anything verifying what you say are facts.
What do you mean don't quote you? If I reply to your post it automatically puts in the quote part. Do you mean you don't want me to put my replies individually to each paragraph? Please be more specific and I will be happy to oblige, but my quoting that you don't like is hardly comparable to the way you react to my disagreement.
-
You didn't present any facts, you just said I was wrong and climate models are not trustable. I said their reliability has improved and are more trustworthy than you thing, and I provided links to support my statements.
You try to twist this into something about my pride, being unwilling to admit I am wrong but that argument fails by the very fact that I stated in my first post how my stance had come full circle. I had already admitted I was on the wrong side of the evidence.
What research have you done? You suggest I need to do so much more but have not put forth anything verifying what you say are facts.
What do you mean don't quote you? If I reply to your post it automatically puts in the quote part. Do you mean you don't want me to put my replies individually to each paragraph? Please be more specific and I will be happy to oblige, but my quoting that you don't like is hardly comparable to the way you react to my disagreement.
Don’t hit the quote button when it comes to my posts. How hard is that to understand? Jeeeeeez dude. I don’t want to converse with someone as dishonest as you. I asked nicely. Honor my request.
-
Enjoy!
-
Texas City Featured In Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Sequel’ Lost Millions In Its Green Energy Gamble
https://bit.ly/2LsGRnz
-
So Inspector cannot stand someone challenging his believe about climate change that he requests I not quote him.
If you don't want to debate the issue then that's fine, I can respect it if you don't want to get in a long detailed debate. Just say so.
But you don't have to be some snowflake about it and insulting at the same time. The fact I disagree with you (and so does science) does not make me dishonest. Remember, you are the one that started an argument, I posted a source for my argument and now you are the one running away from it so your insults are unwarranted.
-
So Inspector cannot stand someone challenging his believe about climate change that he requests I not quote him.
If you don't want to debate the issue then that's fine, I can respect it if you don't want to get in a long detailed debate. Just say so.
But you don't have to be some snowflake about it and insulting at the same time. The fact I disagree with you (and so does science) does not make me dishonest. Remember, you are the one that started an argument, I posted a source for my argument and now you are the one running away from it so your insults are unwarranted.
Here you go AGAIN ... going off on a tangent and making this a personal argument rather than supporting your opinions with facts and letting that stand on its on.
Just stop with the personal attacks. You always have to have the last word.
:stopjack:
-
So Inspector cannot stand someone challenging his believe about climate change that he requests I not quote him.
If you don't want to debate the issue then that's fine, I can respect it if you don't want to get in a long detailed debate. Just say so.
But you don't have to be some snowflake about it and insulting at the same time. The fact I disagree with you (and so does science) does not make me dishonest. Remember, you are the one that started an argument, I posted a source for my argument and now you are the one running away from it so your insults are unwarranted.
science disagrees with you
-
science disagrees with you
He thinks "science" and "scientists" are synonymous -- as if all scientists are infallible or completely honest.
-
You always have to have the last word.
That seems to be a trait among liberals trolling threads to "get" conservatives.
Had to put several on ignore on other sites. That "last word" business is so tiring and obvious.
-
Here you go AGAIN ... going off on a tangent and making this a personal argument rather than supporting your opinions with facts and letting that stand on its on.
Just stop with the personal attacks. You always have to have the last word.
:stopjack:
You went personal, I provided facts. You continued making it personal and now you are complaining that I replied in a personal manner? Give me a break.
This has nothing to do with the last word. You are just throwing that out there to try and end the discussion in your favor. You are trying to have the last word by accusing others of just wanting the last word.
Your comments were condescending from the beginning and you repeatedly claims you had facts and I didn't when I posted facts and you just posted claims.
Like I said, if you don't want to debate it then just say so but don't call me dishonest and then complain that I choose to defend myself against a personal attack.
-
He thinks "science" and "scientists" are synonymous -- as if all scientists are infallible or completely honest.
Stroke it somewhere else troll
-
science disagrees with you
Obviously I disagree. Are you interested in a debate or is this just a drive by comment?
-
You went personal, I provided facts. You continued making it personal and now you are complaining that I replied in a personal manner? Give me a break.
This has nothing to do with the last word. You are just throwing that out there to try and end the discussion in your favor. You are trying to have the last word by accusing others of just wanting the last word.
Your comments were condescending from the beginning and you repeatedly claims you had facts and I didn't when I posted facts and you just posted claims.
Like I said, if you don't want to debate it then just say so but don't call me dishonest and then complain that I choose to defend myself against a personal attack.
Hey, Dumbass. I was talking about you being a dick to Inspector. I'm not debating you on climate change. I know to not try to teach a pig to sing.
-
Obviously I disagree. Are you interested in a debate or is this just a drive by comment?
We can't debate someone who has no real knowledge or experience. You admit you weren't around in the 70s and 80s for all those decades of "lions and tigers and bears" apocalyptic "scientific" predictions that never happened.
All of your "facts" come from regurgitated articles about climate change -- no bias there of course.
Google results != knowledge
-
Obviously I disagree. Are you interested in a debate or is this just a drive by comment?
define climate change then tell me what hasn't changed on this Earth?
-
We can't debate someone who has no real knowledge or experience.
From your quote of the HPD troll, is is clear he just infests this site to argue endlessly.
Thank God for the ignore function, too many liberal trolls here just wanting to disrupt and argue liberal talking points.
-
We can't debate someone who has no real knowledge or experience. You admit you weren't around in the 70s and 80s for all those decades of "lions and tigers and bears" apocalyptic "scientific" predictions that never happened.
All of your "facts" come from regurgitated articles about climate change -- no bias there of course.
Google results != knowledge
Oh, and you are a climate scientist? Did you spend hours upon hours at your local library? If not then stop being a hypocrite. So far I have seen no one here who claimed to be a climate scientist so we all rely on various sources including news, google, etc. to gather our information.
You have no problem with regurgitated articles when they support your position. But what does it matter if facts are regurgitated?
What facts did you bother to present? Make sure they don't have any bias as you claim that your standard.
-
Oh, and you are a climate scientist? Did you spend hours upon hours at your local library? If not then stop being a hypocrite. So far I have seen no one here who claimed to be a climate scientist so we all rely on various sources including news, google, etc. to gather our information.
You have no problem with regurgitated articles when they support your position. But what does it matter if facts are regurgitated?
What facts did you bother to present? Make sure they don't have any bias as you claim that your standard.
I'm not pretending to have a "debate", am I - unlike you.
-
Hey, Dumbass. I was talking about you being a dick to Inspector. I'm not debating you on climate change. I know to not try to teach a pig to sing.
So does Inspector ask you to coddle his balls or do you volunteer?
My comments to inspector were polite until he became rude. I will not back down from this BS where he levies an insult then whines when I reply to defend myself.
Tell Inspector to get a new ankle biter guard dog because you are a joke.
-
I'm not pretending to have a "debate", am I - unlike you.
Haha, your dodge is so obvious.
Typical troll.
-
Haha, your dodge is so obvious.
Typical troll.
Once again -- you have to have the last word.
Typical troll behavior.
-
Once again -- you have to have the last word.
Typical troll behavior.
Trolls always complain about others having the last word so they can troll about having the last word.
Your trolling is obvious and pathetic.
-
Trolls always complain about others having the last word so they can troll about having the last word.
Your trolling is obvious and pathetic.
define climate change.
-
So does Inspector ask you to coddle his balls or do you volunteer?
My comments to inspector were polite until he became rude. I will not back down from this BS where he levies an insult then whines when I reply to defend myself.
Tell Inspector to get a new ankle biter guard dog because you are a joke.
No apology for blasting me when you thought you were talking to Inspector?
Not holding my breath.... :geekdanc:
-
define climate change.
The issue being politicized which is climate change caused by humans, anthropogenic climate change. Some people still claim the Earth isn't warming but some say it is but that man isn't a factor so depending on where you are coming at it from would sort of set the framework for a discussion/debate.
a
-
The issue being politicized which is climate change caused by humans, anthropogenic climate change. Some people still claim the Earth isn't warming but some say it is but that man isn't a factor so depending on where you are coming at it from would sort of set the framework for a discussion/debate.
a
that post makes even less sense than your normal posts
-
No apology for blasting me when you thought you were talking to Inspector?
Not holding my breath.... :geekdanc:
Sure, I will admit you got me. I responded to the quote without reading the author. But why would I apologize to you? You go around being insulting and condescending then you want an apology. Stop being a dick and I would apologize.
-
that post makes even less sense than your normal posts
Why?
I am trying to define the parameters of the discussion so we can be more clear and avoid confusion or covering areas not in dispute.
-
Sure, I will admit you got me. I responded to the quote without reading the author. But why would I apologize to you? You go around being insulting and condescending then you want an apology. Stop being a dick and I would apologize.
Projection. Typical Liberal troll behavior.
-
Are you guys high?
Climate change .....changing of the climate.
Man contributing or not ?
( Man can stop it or not? Point of discussion.)
Flapp aka Moosed aka Darmok At Jalad aka can’t remember other
Name,
Still don’t understand how one member gets Four screen names on this forum.
And Mac, you should probably moderate as a moderator.
Just my unwelcome 2 cents.
-
Projection. Typical Liberal troll behavior.
(https://www.mememaker.net/api/bucket?path=static/img/memes/full/2018/Nov/14/20/man-midol-183.png)
-
everything changes nothing stays the same. to think that we cause things on this great big Earth is hubris
-
(https://i.imgur.com/SB1h5mw.jpg?1)
-
everything changes nothing stays the same. to think that we cause things on this great big Earth is hubris
This sounds true on some intuitive level but it completely ignores science. Now we can debate about how much influence humans have had but to think that with all the chemicals we have put into the air that there has been zero effect on the climate just isn't supported by the science.
-
Are you guys high?
Climate change .....changing of the climate.
Man contributing or not ?
( Man can stop it or not? Point of discussion.)
Flapp aka Moosed aka Darmok At Jalad aka can’t remember other
Name,
Still don’t understand how one member gets Four screen names on this forum.
And Mac, you should probably moderate as a moderator.
Just my unwelcome 2 cents.
Man contributes due to habitat and ecosystem destruction for resources and population expansion. The damage is easily repairable in few generations.
Thanks can fix this problem for us.