3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Global Warming Hoax
jstcrsn
post Mar 25 2016, 09:44 PM
Post #1


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.641
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



many people believe man is contributing to the point of killing the planet, ( I don't) , But do you listen to the propaganda , or have you ever looked into it for yourself , seen were the real money (your tax dollars ) really gets filtered to, Scientists can just as easily be bought as anyone else.
but Kris lets us talk, lets keep it civil for that

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fzalfa
post Mar 26 2016, 11:15 AM
Post #2


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.601
Joined: 10-March 15
From: France, provence, vaucluse, carpentras
Member No.: 20.796



The Global warming alert have never more interrest scientist and student because they can earn money since some year with this topic.

Before no one have any interrest about climatology because people's in dont get any money, now everyone want to publish a theory or a survey...... pathetic.

in other case , some people have predic a global frost some years ago, and it was the most believed scenario since these last years !

the global warming is a truth, but the humans activities aren"t fully responsible, only some light percents, the whole part is about solar activities.....

Laurent


--------------------

Yes, i love badges.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rammikin
post Mar 26 2016, 02:33 PM
Post #3


Experienced Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 640
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 11.529



Anybody with even a passing familiarity with Cook's study would see this Molyneux guy the video is full of shit. He completely misrepresents how the study was performed and how the numbers were computed. His preposterous position that climate change must be explicitly stated in an abstract to be anthropogenic or otherwise the author doesn't agree with the consensus opinion is hilarious. By that logic, the observation that scientific papers rarely state: "the earth is round" would mean most scientists believe the earth is flat smile.gif. Further, he ignores the second method in the study where, instead of parsing the papers, they consulted the authors.

This quote from the consensus project is a good summary:

QUOTE
Climate contrarians everywhere protest there is no scientific consensus. If that were true, they should easily be able to show there is indeed a significant body of work that challenges mainstream science. Yet they haven’t and can’t, because a robust and coherent denial of man-made global warming does not exist.

Our study describes the state of expert opinion, it does not define scientific truth nor does it tell people what to think. Climate scientists today overwhelmingly endorse the consensus view that humans are the cause of most of recent global warming. That’s a fact.




Probably the more interesting topic is why so many people deny manmade climate change. Here's some reading on that:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/conspiracy/su...-climate-change



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Mar 26 2016, 04:38 PM
Post #4


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.641
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (Rammikin @ Mar 26 2016, 02:33 PM) *
Probably the more interesting topic is why so many people deny manmade climate change. Here's some reading on that:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/conspiracy/su...-climate-change

I will tell you why, not have some guy in the above study tell you why he thinks I don't believe man might contribute (but so little it is of insignificance)
first that story starts with them describing these models , but these models can't even accurately predict warming as compared with balloons that are actually taking temperatures , and when your whole ideology starts with something that does not make sense to me , it nullifies all the conclusions http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=222
I am a carpenter , if I told you i built your house with no foundation to save money , you would run out of it , in the same , I have to run from a study whose foundation i believe is faulty
second.Consensus is not science , and the fact that even three percent disagrees leads me to be skeptic , even more so the first law of thermal dynamics says you can't get something from nothing yet science breaks this first law for their model of the big bang , again leading to my skepticism

I am a slow typer so this is taking forever , so to cut it short . As i have gotten older , I have been slow to coming to a steadfast conclusion , as from experience I have seen so many things change( during my stay ) that mankind has argued as fact . Al gore said (20 years ago) we would be flooding Islands by now , katrina like storms would happen more often, in the eighties the earth was starting to freeze and look , all of this has changed,
here is some food for thought . I hate the term christian scientist as well as atheist scientist, to me , both these ( by definition have to make their evidence fit their world view ) and if you have to make evidence fit your world view (which has nothing to do with science)is that really science. I believe the best scientist should be skeptical of everything and be willing to be lead where the evidence takes them and be willing to change once new data has arrived .


but if you could answer one question for me , is it possible that we could get new information that shows everyone on both sides is wrong ?

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Mar 26 2016, 04:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fzalfa
post Mar 26 2016, 05:32 PM
Post #5


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.601
Joined: 10-March 15
From: France, provence, vaucluse, carpentras
Member No.: 20.796



totaly agree !

Laurent


--------------------

Yes, i love badges.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Mar 26 2016, 08:27 PM
Post #6


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.713
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Mar 26 2016, 10:38 AM) *
@I will tell you why, not have some guy in the above study tell you why he thinks I don't believe man might contribute (but so little it is of insignificance)

#Al gore said (20 years ago) we would be flooding Islands by now , katrina like storms would happen more often, in the eighties the earth was starting to freeze and look , all of this has changed,



@Then pray tell, where are the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 coming from? We have not had unusually high volcanic activity over the past century that would explain it. So where is it coming from, if not from human activities?

#No, nobody with a brain said any of the things you are talking about, that was all just mass media entertainment spoon fed for popular consumption. The glaciers will be gone, and yes the coastal cities will have to be evacuated, but that will be later in the century. There is uncertainty as to how much world temperatures will rise, but they certainly will rise. That is as certain as putting ice out on a summer day, put more CO2 into the atmosphere, the hotter the planet will be. It is much like what happens in a car during the summer. Short wave radiation comes in, and is converted after reaching surfaces to longer wave radiation. In a car windows allow the short wave to pass, but restrict the long wave getting out. Green house gases do the same on earth. A proper level of course is necessary to sustain life. The higher levels we are causing will create an environment more reminiscence of other periods in Earth history, for example in the Dinosaur era where CO2 levels were much higher.

CO2 is not the only green house gas. Methane actually has 31 times the effect, but is not as long lasting. Methane will dissipate within a century or so from the atmosphere. There is a huge amount of methane frozen under the oceans, and under the tundra. As world temperatures rise it is starting to melt. But it won't all melt immediately, that will take a century or two. But it will melt, and increasingly become a major factor. These changes will occur gradually. But keep in mind that when we say average world temperatures will rise by an amount, this implies that they will rise a lot less than that above the oceans, and much more than that on land. There are models for what the effects will be, where the droughts will occur, where the torrential rains will become more prevalent. Probably more scary will be the effect on the oceans, and ocean currents. And the effect on critical species low in the food chain living in the oceans. But the changes will be gradual, not overnight. Some years will still be cool. In some years areas destined to be drought areas will get some rain. And in some years we won't have as many hurricanes. But over time the end result is somewhat predictable.

Actually the frozen methane could possibly be used as an a cleaner energy sources, if we could figure out how to get it out (before it melts as ocean and world temperatures rise due to global warming). There is much more frozen methane out there than there is natural gas.

This post has been edited by fkalich: Mar 26 2016, 08:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Mar 26 2016, 10:07 PM
Post #7


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.641
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (fkalich @ Mar 26 2016, 08:27 PM) *
Actually the frozen methane could possibly be used as an a cleaner energy sources, if we could figure out how to get it out (before it melts as ocean and world temperatures rise due to global warming). There is much more frozen methane out there than there is natural gas.
this not about methane , but co2 , i did not want your whole post
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Mar 26 2016, 10:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rammikin
post Mar 27 2016, 06:10 PM
Post #8


Experienced Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 640
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 11.529



It's good to have an opinion, but at the end of the day, scientific consensus is a rational basis for public policy. Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories are not smile.gif.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Mar 29 2016, 02:08 AM
Post #9


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.641
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



follow the billions of dollars people , that scientists get for feeding politicians who in turn feed them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lye5liWuZw...ekNCbtXHeq1iFsA

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Mar 29 2016, 02:18 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Mar 29 2016, 07:36 PM
Post #10


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 13.781
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Have gotten some very good chuckles and enjoyed the back and forth here smile.gif That's what forums are for. Time will tell though right?

BTW here is a link to those "Hoaxers" at NASA talking about climate change just for reference smile.gif They just want more money though, greedy buggers wink.gif Also links many of the Scientific organizations studying climate change and whether it's caused by us and whether it's good or bad. You guys be the judge smile.gif

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Mar 29 2016, 08:34 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yoncopin
post Mar 30 2016, 03:08 PM
Post #11


Learning Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 376
Joined: 26-September 09
From: USA
Member No.: 7.667



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Mar 29 2016, 02:36 PM) *


This. /thread


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Mar 31 2016, 03:35 AM
Post #12


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.641
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (yoncopin @ Mar 30 2016, 03:08 PM) *
This. /thread
most of these quotes were 2009 and earlier. Now don't get me wrong , man could cause issues , But I don't think it is as critical as we are led to believe . I mean the governments want to spend billions on green energy whilst right now look at the extent of starvation
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Mar 31 2016, 04:57 PM
Post #13


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.328
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



This quote from the consensus project is a good summary:

"Climate contrarians everywhere protest there is no scientific consensus. If that were true, they should easily be able to show there is indeed a significant body of work that challenges mainstream science. Yet they haven’t and can’t, because a robust and coherent denial of man-made global warming does not exist.

Our study describes the state of expert opinion, it does not define scientific truth nor does it tell people what to think. Climate scientists today overwhelmingly endorse the consensus view that humans are the cause of most of recent global warming. That’s a fact."



Not so fast. This list of over 1350 peer reviewed papers that support skeptic's arguments was compiled in 2014 and there have been even more peer reviewed papers written since then that challenges the AGW hypothesis.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/p...ng.html#Preface

The fact is, there is no consensus. And even if there was , It wouldn't necessarily mean anything since the majority of scientists believing one thing have ended up being wrong on many occasions.

There are far too many problems with the hypothesis of AGW to warrant sweeping regulation and policy in my opinion. And when you have folks suggesting that deniers should be punished, which has been discussed with, and considered by the AG of the USA, and reported on in the media recently, well that should be a giant red flag right there, at least it is for me.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Mar 31 2016, 05:25 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rammikin
post Mar 31 2016, 05:15 PM
Post #14


Experienced Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 640
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 11.529



That's why the consensus figure is 97% and not 100%. If there was no disagreement, that would be suspicious smile.gif.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Mar 31 2016, 05:44 PM
Post #15


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 13.781
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



It's good to have both sides on any argument/issue smile.gif So thank goodness for Rich and CRSN. If everyone agreed with the majority, it would be boring. So we need folks to take the exact other side no matter what the evidence suggests. So keep on keeping on guys smile.gif The world needs dissenters. It keeps the rest of us honest.

Personally, I"m with the 97 percent of scientific organizations, including the CDC and American Medical Association who say this is a man made problem. It's something we have done to ourselves and there will be a reckoning. For those with children, your children will grow up in a very different world. I have no kids so I can be a bit more nihilistic.

QUOTE (Rammikin @ Mar 31 2016, 11:15 AM) *
That's why the consensus figure is 97% and not 100%. If there was no disagreement, that would be suspicious smile.gif.



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Mar 31 2016, 05:53 PM
Post #16


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.328
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (Rammikin @ Mar 31 2016, 07:15 AM) *
That's why the consensus figure is 97% and not 100%. If there was no disagreement, that would be suspicious smile.gif.


Not sure that 97% figure is accurate. But even if it is. The vast majority of predictions made by these scientists have either turned out to be inaccurate or aren't panning out as predicted. They are having a hard enough time in even showing how the climate has warmed and will continue to warm using the much heralded models which do not accurately show the past, and which use arguably flawed ground based temperature data and other questionable data revisions or adjustments. Let alone the percentage of warming that mankind hypothetically contributes.

If you ask me if I thought the overall climate was warming, I would have to say that I really don't know. Here in Alaska where I live , it certainly appears that it is. But as to the extent that mankind contributes to this warming, it seems to me that the evidence is extremely flimsy that mankind has a significant impact. I think that policy's being considered and implemented to combat this are over reaching and quite possibly extremely dangerous to the lives and well being of many of the planets poor and undeveloped nations as well as the rest of us.

I also believe that it is the nature of governments to try and exert more and more control over the populace and have also shown time and time again that they will stretch, bend and alter the truth to achieve that goal.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Mar 31 2016, 06:04 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fran
post Mar 31 2016, 07:27 PM
Post #17


Learning Rock Star - Wiki Coordinator
Group Icon

Group: GMC Senior
Posts: 7.838
Joined: 20-November 07
From: Spain
Member No.: 3.338



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Mar 29 2016, 08:36 PM) *


Seems like pretty scientific proof to me. And Im a science man.
Until I see such powerful proof on the contrary, I know who I believe.


This post has been edited by Fran: Mar 31 2016, 07:28 PM


--------------------
Guitars:
Fender American Deluxe Stratocaster, Ibanez RG2570MZ, Epiphone SG G-400
Amp:
Vox AC4TVH head + V112TV cab
Effects:
Vox Satchurator, Vox Time Machine, Dunlop CryBaby, Boss MT-2, Boss CE-5, Boss TU-2, Boss ME-70
Recording:
Line-6 POD X3 + FBV-Express, Pandora PX5D

GMC wants YOU to take part in our Guitar-Wikipedia!
Have a good time reading great articles and writing your own with us in our GUITAR WIKI!
Share your playing and get Pro-advice from our Instructors: Join REC
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Apr 2 2016, 12:49 AM
Post #18


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 13.781
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



I hear ya smile.gif But like I was saying, it's really important to have dissenting voices on any issue. Without these, we just have a monologue, and not a dialogue. Dialogue is often a great way to get through to the heart of a given matter as it helps chip away various bits until we get to something closer to what is more or less true. So for those in dissent, keep dissenting smile.gif

QUOTE (Fran @ Mar 31 2016, 01:27 PM) *
Seems like pretty scientific proof to me. And Im a science man.
Until I see such powerful proof on the contrary, I know who I believe.



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Apr 2 2016, 05:43 PM
Post #19


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.328
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



This is part of the problem. The heavily exaggerated way that the AGW hypothesis is portrayed in the media and by political leaders.
There is no factual conclusion (Proof of AGW) whatsoever coming from the studies of the so called consensus, look it up. Even the authors and scientists that have taken part of the studies will tell you that if put on the spot.
20 years ago or more we were told the debate is over. Obviously, it is not.
The movement is taking the form of a religious belief.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 3 2016, 04:45 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Apr 4 2016, 06:15 AM
Post #20


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 13.781
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



More dissent!! smile.gif Always welcome. I'm pretty swayed by the American Medical Association as they give it more of a medical problem analysis and such. But there is no hard fast proof that we even exist much less that the climate is changing because of us. So in the end, one must take what evidence one can find and make up ones own mind. Personally, I think we are going to see the oceans rise quite a bit and Florida sink. But like I said, time will tell smile.gif


QUOTE (AK Rich @ Apr 2 2016, 11:43 AM) *
This is part of the problem. The heavily exaggerated way that the AGW hypothesis is portrayed in the media and by political leaders.
There is no factual conclusion (Proof of AGW) whatsoever coming from the studies of the so called consensus, look it up. Even the authors and scientists that have taken part of the studies will tell you that if put on the spot.
20 years ago or more we were told the debate is over. Obviously, it is not.
The movement is taking the form of a religious belief.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd January 2017 - 01:27 AM