3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
> 187 American Cities Pledge To Uphold Paris Accord
jstcrsn
post Jun 4 2017, 11:50 PM
Post #21


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.845
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (yoncopin @ Jun 4 2017, 10:52 PM) *
I'm very open to discussion, but credibility is key. I watched your three minutes and was wholly unconvinced in the premise presented. It is a common counter-argument that we are always in heating/cooling cycles and therefore man plays no part, but that is only a half truth. It's true that the earth's climate does cycle over time, but since 1950 (coinciding with mankind's rising use of fossil fuels) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere risen sharply.


Secondly, the scientific consensus on climate change being man-made is anywhere from 95-99% That's about as close to certainty as a scientific conclusion gets. Youtubers interviewing the 1% of PhDs that disagree and calling it a scam doesn't meet the rigors of peer reviewed science by a long shot. There will always be dissenters, but that doesn't make them right.

A humourous take on CO2 levels

I can give your report its due , but I have also been on the planet long enough to understand where and how NASA gets funding (it's always about money , on both sides , don't think that those on your side are not worried about their lively hood ) I think the answer lies more in the middle , and if in the middle that means we have time to figure it out properly rather than the doomsayers ( like Gore who said the poles would be gone by now )saying the sky is falling

P.S. history has shown us that the single dissenting voices ( that were mocked at their time ) we right

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jun 5 2017, 12:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yoncopin
post Jun 5 2017, 01:02 AM
Post #22


Learning Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 528
Joined: 26-September 09
From: USA
Member No.: 7.667



QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jun 4 2017, 06:50 PM) *
I can give your report its due , but I have also been on the planet long enough to understand where and how NASA gets funding (it's always about money , on both sides , don't think that those on your side are not worried about their lively hood ) I think the answer lies more in the middle , and if in the middle that means we have time to figure it out properly rather than the doomsayers ( like Gore who said the poles would be gone by now )saying the sky is falling

P.S. history has shown us that the single dissenting voices ( that were mocked at their time ) we right


I think that's why I'm so disappointed in our exit from the agreement. It was meeting in the middle, every nation in the world got together and said let's solve this together. Nothing heavy handed, but the beginning of a global effort to preserve our precious planet. After all the prosperity America has experienced through industrialization, we are not pulling our weight and are going back on our word. That saddens me greatly and just to score some cheap political points.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 5 2017, 02:23 AM
Post #23


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.876
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jun 4 2017, 05:01 PM) *
I guess that tells me how open for discussion you are . The Scientist was founding scientist for " Green peace " , does that not warrant maybe a short listen . start at 8:50 , and give it 3 minutes ?
I'm open to Peer Reviewed Journals, not you tube vids. I mean really. You tube is not the place to try to "prove" anything. If you can find 3 peer reviewed scientific journals that agree on climate denial, I'll read all three and we talk about that. I'll be you diamonds to doughnuts that you will have a hard time finding one article in a real, peer reviewed, scientific journal, must less 3. But as I said, if you can find 3 such works, in 3 such journals, I'd be happy to read and discuss. So yeah, I"m open smile.gif Just open to real research.

-----


P.S. Yoncopin. Well said!!
Secondly, the scientific consensus on climate change being man-made is anywhere from 95-99% That's about as close to certainty as a scientific conclusion gets. Youtubers interviewing the 1% of PhDs that disagree and calling it a scam doesn't meet the rigors of peer reviewed science by a long shot. There will always be dissenters, but that doesn't make them right.

---
I just challenged crsn to find any peer reviewed scientific journal featuring climate denial and offered to discuss it with him. He will have to dig pretty deep to find any smile.gif Assuming of course, we can all agree on what constitutes a peer reviewed scientific journal. Even that isn't a safe assumption sadly.

Todd

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 5 2017, 02:29 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
klasaine
post Jun 5 2017, 02:34 AM
Post #24


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.862
Joined: 30-December 12
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 17.304



It's temporary.
There's no money in pollution. Green and renewable is not only the future but the present. Big business knows that, insurance companies know it and so do all post secondary education institutions and so does damn near every kid in high school.

The only coal jobs that will be created are gonna go to MIT grads with phds. Because they're the only one's who will be able to run and maintain the hundred or so giant, mechanized, robotic diggers that will be replacing (have already replaced) most of the the humans.
Fracking/oil/gas - Sure there will be jobs ... until they glut the supply/reserves and the price falls and then they lay everybody off again, same as last time.
Steel - Please. We've been producing a ton of steel, and with a 60% fewer work force since it's hey day in the 50s,60s and early 70s. I won't even go into 'competitive' pricing, regardless of some fairy tale tariff that's never gonna happen.

It's done, it's over. The bulk of the folks who are actually going to any get work out of this will be the friggin' army of lawyers that will be litigating (on both sides) the raft of legal challenges to digging, dumping, spilling, endangering as well as a ton of state's rights challenges. Neal Gorsuch by the way is big 'state's rights' guy.

So as childish, selfish and petty as we look, for the most part, the U.S of A will not be playing dirty so to speak.

This post has been edited by klasaine: Jun 5 2017, 02:35 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 5 2017, 04:04 AM
Post #25


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.876
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Also well said smile.gif Labor jobs go where labor is cheap and that ain't here. There is no such thing as "Clean coal", renewable energy is our future and the sooner we all embrace it and train for jobs related to it, the better. The days of mining coal, and building cars on the line are OVER, FOR GOOD. Mourn, scream, cry, and let it go.

Todd

QUOTE (klasaine @ Jun 4 2017, 09:34 PM) *
It's temporary.
There's no money in pollution. Green and renewable is not only the future but the present. Big business knows that, insurance companies know it and so do all post secondary education institutions and so does damn near every kid in high school.

The only coal jobs that will be created are gonna go to MIT grads with phds. Because they're the only one's who will be able to run and maintain the hundred or so giant, mechanized, robotic diggers that will be replacing (have already replaced) most of the the humans.
Fracking/oil/gas - Sure there will be jobs ... until they glut the supply/reserves and the price falls and then they lay everybody off again, same as last time.
Steel - Please. We've been producing a ton of steel, and with a 60% fewer work force since it's hey day in the 50s,60s and early 70s. I won't even go into 'competitive' pricing, regardless of some fairy tale tariff that's never gonna happen.

It's done, it's over. The bulk of the folks who are actually going to any get work out of this will be the friggin' army of lawyers that will be litigating (on both sides) the raft of legal challenges to digging, dumping, spilling, endangering as well as a ton of state's rights challenges. Neal Gorsuch by the way is big 'state's rights' guy.

So as childish, selfish and petty as we look, for the most part, the U.S of A will not be playing dirty so to speak.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jun 5 2017, 12:46 PM
Post #26


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.845
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 5 2017, 02:23 AM) *
I'm open to Peer Reviewed Journals, not you tube vids. I mean really. You tube is not the place to try to "prove" anything. If you can find 3 peer reviewed scientific journals that agree on climate denial, I'll read all three and we talk about that. I'll be you diamonds to doughnuts that you will have a hard time finding one article in a real, peer reviewed, scientific journal, must less 3. But as I said, if you can find 3 such works, in 3 such journals, I'd be happy to read and discuss. So yeah, I"m open smile.gif Just open to real research.

-----


P.S. Yoncopin. Well said!!
Secondly, the scientific consensus on climate change being man-made is anywhere from 95-99% That's about as close to certainty as a scientific conclusion gets. Youtubers interviewing the 1% of PhDs that disagree and calling it a scam doesn't meet the rigors of peer reviewed science by a long shot. There will always be dissenters, but that doesn't make them right.

---
I just challenged crsn to find any peer reviewed scientific journal featuring climate denial and offered to discuss it with him. He will have to dig pretty deep to find any smile.gif Assuming of course, we can all agree on what constitutes a peer reviewed scientific journal. Even that isn't a safe assumption sadly.

Todd

here is three
http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/crumbli...m.lVUVlEqn.dpbs
oops , I mean 500

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jun 5 2017, 01:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Jun 5 2017, 08:06 PM
Post #27


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.743
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jun 5 2017, 06:46 AM) *


Anyone with a background understands that there are quite a few factors that influence climate change, green house gases being one of those. All you did here was come up with some web site that compiled a list of research papers that discuss the other factors.

I read some of the abstracts and found none that expressed skepticism about serious impact on our climate do to green house gases released by recent human activity. The claim that this set of research papers support a skeptical position is totally fallacious. I invite you to prove me wrong. Just go in the order that they are presented and you tell us which is the first one that you think supports that position.

The bleak reality is that human produced green house gases is just one of a number of environmental time bombs humanity is setting itself up for in the not too distant future. In 60 years at the current rate of depletion the Earth's top soil will be gone. We are losing species to extinction at a rate more than a 1,000 times the normal rate. By the year 2050 30 to 50% of species will be extinct. And to the extent species low in the food chain are lost human survival will be threatened. Phytoplanktin loss in the oceans is now at 30 to 40%. If that goes, we are all dead, at least most of us are. And those are just a few of the ecological time bombs out there set to go off as this century progresses, the list goes on and on.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/phytopl...ng-indian-ocean

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-s...hern-hemisphere

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/...ton-population/

This post has been edited by fkalich: Jun 5 2017, 08:31 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 5 2017, 09:39 PM
Post #28


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.876
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Sadly, you failed here as none of these seems to express any doubts as to the impact of green house gasses on climate. As FKalich mentioned. So, still waiting, just 3, that come close to climate denial smile.gif

Perhaps that's too tall a task. How about just one? One peer reviewed journal article that pushes climate denial, that isn't funded by Exxon/Gulf/etc.

This issue has become politicized when in fact it's not political. It's just science. The "Right" has somehow become convinced that recognizing the impact we are having on climate change will result in MASSIVE tax burdens and a complete destruction of our global economy.

Instead, the "Right" has decided that simply letting the sea levels rise, letting florida sink in to the ocean, and raising global temps to the point where agriculture is impossible is a much better option. Hmm.

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jun 5 2017, 07:46 AM) *


This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 5 2017, 09:44 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
klasaine
post Jun 5 2017, 10:11 PM
Post #29


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.862
Joined: 30-December 12
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 17.304



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 5 2017, 01:39 PM) *
One peer reviewed journal article that pushes climate denial, that isn't funded by Exxon/Gulf/etc.


Ha, ha! Even Exxon/Conoco/Phillips is in favor of the Paris Accords ... https://www.ft.com/content/acf309b0-13b3-11...f4-13e067d5072c
There will always be room for fossil fuels but even they know that green is good. For the earth, for consumers (that they'd like to keep around) and by extension - for their profits.

Regardless of whether hazardous global warming is the result of relatively recent human activity or not ... all our potential grand kids are gonna die from either pollution or starvation unless we all do something about it.

Causation is, at this stage, a moot point.

This post has been edited by klasaine: Jun 5 2017, 10:17 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jun 5 2017, 10:39 PM
Post #30


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.845
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 5 2017, 09:39 PM) *
Sadly, you failed here as none of these seems to express any doubts as to the impact of green house gasses on climate. As FKalich mentioned. So, still waiting, just 3, that come close to climate denial smile.gif

Perhaps that's too tall a task. How about just one? One peer reviewed journal article that pushes climate denial, that isn't funded by Exxon/Gulf/etc.

This issue has become politicized when in fact it's not political. It's just science. The "Right" has somehow become convinced that recognizing the impact we are having on climate change will result in MASSIVE tax burdens and a complete destruction of our global economy.

Instead, the "Right" has decided that simply letting the sea levels rise, letting florida sink in to the ocean, and raising global temps to the point where agriculture is impossible is a much better option. Hmm.
you asked (quit snarkily I might add ) for three peer reviewed , they were reviewed . Then you stipulate( a narrow as hell )factor that I need to achieve while at the same time saying its complicated and there are many factors that can effect it
As I builder I understand the value of a foundation , and if these papers arent exactly what " you " need , they chip away at what you so certainly thought was an impossibility to achieve . I found them , You then changed the requirements . Now these requirements may or may not be met , but to me every time I answer, it takes another chunk out of the foundation , you thought , was so stead fast .
I have no illusion that if Its out there , you will come up with another excuse as to why it's illegitimate , so my question is ?

How many times can I bring you information ( you don't think is there cause you can't get out of your echo chamber )until you might start to wonder just a little ?


QUOTE (klasaine @ Jun 5 2017, 10:11 PM) *
Ha, ha! Even Exxon/Conoco/Phillips is in favor of the Paris Accords ... https://www.ft.com/content/acf309b0-13b3-11...f4-13e067d5072c
There will always be room for fossil fuels but even they know that green is good. For the earth, for consumers (that they'd like to keep around) and by extension - for their profits.

Regardless of whether hazardous global warming is the result of relatively recent human activity or not ... all our potential grand kids are gonna die from either pollution or starvation unless we all do something about it.

Causation is, at this stage, a moot point.

I Know the future is green as well , i just don't think tech is there quit yet and I don't believe the sky is falling prophets either
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rammikin
post Jun 5 2017, 10:45 PM
Post #31


Experienced Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 875
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 11.529



QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 5 2017, 07:06 PM) *
I read some of the abstracts and found none that expressed skepticism about serious impact on our climate do to green house gases released by recent human activity. The claim that this set of research papers support a skeptical position is totally fallacious.


I found a couple of articles in that list which contradict the widely held predictions regarding the amount of temperature increase. But...that falls far short of "expressing skepticism about serious impact on our climate due to green house gasses" . In any case, those are few and far between in that list of 500. It looks to me like the few papers which express skepticism are even outnumbered by the number of dead links in the list.

Far more prevalent in the list of articles that actually support the widely held position of man's role in predicted climate change and the consensus opinion on the magnitude of that change. You see many papers mentioning things like "recent warming largely attributable to anthropogenic radiative forcing". Most of what's in the list is simply climate measurement and analysis of climate change science, including attempts to quantify errors in models and suggestions for improving models.

I think what happened here is the person who compiled this list confused analysis of climate change science with denial. I think it's safe to say most of the authors of the papers in this list would be surprised to find their papers were included on a list entitled "Papers Published Which Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm". I suppose the compiler of the list was hoping nobody would actually read the papers.




--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jun 5 2017, 11:11 PM
Post #32


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.845
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



Climate scientists at Switzerland’s renowned ETH Zurich and the University of Bern have long warned of the risks of man-made global warming.

But in a brand new study their results now appear to have compelled them to postpone the expected global warming – by a few decades!
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/31/breakin...h.2onbOruG.dpuf

http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/31/breakin...h.2onbOruG.dpbs

Chip, Chip , Chip

QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 5 2017, 08:06 PM) *
Anyone with a background understands that there are quite a few factors that influence climate change, green house gases being one of those. All you did here was come up with some web site that compiled a list of research papers that discuss the other factors.

I read some of the abstracts and found none that expressed skepticism about serious impact on our climate do to green house gases released by recent human activity. The claim that this set of research papers support a skeptical position is totally fallacious. I invite you to prove me wrong. Just go in the order that they are presented and you tell us which is the first one that you think supports that position.

see my reply to Todd on why other factors cause suspicion

And PLEASE take it easy with if I accidentally lumped your answer in with some one else s question

QUOTE (Rammikin @ Jun 5 2017, 10:45 PM) *
I think what happened here is the person who compiled this list confused analysis of climate change science with denial. I think it's safe to say most of the authors of the papers in this list would be surprised to find their papers were included on a list entitled "Papers Published Which Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm". I suppose the compiler of the list was hoping nobody would actually read the papers.

Thats a major statement to use to try to disprove them m, I tell what why don"t you send them the link and If they have it pulled from the site , I will legitimize your argument . I can't be the only one that has to do things

I do do appreciate that you at least spent some time looking at my response

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jun 5 2017, 11:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rammikin
post Jun 8 2017, 12:30 AM
Post #33


Experienced Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 875
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 11.529



Here's a typical article on the list: the author wanted to measure people's attitudes about living near a wind turbine, so he surveyed the public, and reports that 35% of people approve of having a wind turbine near their home. That's all there is to the article.

That could be useful information for policy makers. However, the person who compiled the list of 500 scientific articles is misrepresenting this paper when he says it refutes the consensus scientific opinion on climate change.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 8 2017, 05:55 AM
Post #34


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.876
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Good point smile.gif The only real reason to establish causality going in is to try to create a solution coming out. Hopefully, something can be done. if not, we are all gonna be doing more swimming smile.gif


QUOTE (klasaine @ Jun 5 2017, 05:11 PM) *
Ha, ha! Even Exxon/Conoco/Phillips is in favor of the Paris Accords ... https://www.ft.com/content/acf309b0-13b3-11...f4-13e067d5072c
There will always be room for fossil fuels but even they know that green is good. For the earth, for consumers (that they'd like to keep around) and by extension - for their profits.

Regardless of whether hazardous global warming is the result of relatively recent human activity or not ... all our potential grand kids are gonna die from either pollution or starvation unless we all do something about it.

Causation is, at this stage, a moot point.


Dude, just asked you to share journal article that proved your point. You didn't. The 500 articles in question DON"T REFUTE the point of humans causing climate change. Did you read any of the abstracts? As Yoncopin pointed out, it's just a wad of articles roughly related to climate. It seems to have been compiled just so folks like you could have something to point to, even though it doesn't actually support your argument. sad.gif

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jun 5 2017, 05:39 PM) *
you asked (quit snarkily I might add ) for three peer reviewed , they were reviewed . Then you stipulate( a narrow as hell )factor that I need to achieve while at the same time saying its complicated and there are many factors that can effect it
As I builder I understand the value of a foundation , and if these papers arent exactly what " you " need , they chip away at what you so certainly thought was an impossibility to achieve . I found them , You then changed the requirements . Now these requirements may or may not be met , but to me every time I answer, it takes another chunk out of the foundation , you thought , was so stead fast .
I have no illusion that if Its out there , you will come up with another excuse as to why it's illegitimate , so my question is ?

How many times can I bring you information ( you don't think is there cause you can't get out of your echo chamber )until you might start to wonder just a little ?

I Know the future is green as well , i just don't think tech is there quit yet and I don't believe the sky is falling prophets either


What I really want to know is CRSN: why are you so against the idea that it's basically us causing climate change/sea level rise? Why are you so against that as an idea? Take the 95 percent agreement of all climate scientists and NASA out of the equation. You personally. Why are YOU so against it? Maybe that will help me and the rest of us understand why some folks just oppose the idea.

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 8 2017, 06:02 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Jun 8 2017, 06:03 AM
Post #35


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.743
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (Rammikin @ Jun 7 2017, 06:30 PM) *
Here's a typical article on the list: the author wanted to measure people's attitudes about living near a wind turbine, so he surveyed the public, and reports that 35% of people approve of having a wind turbine near their home. That's all there is to the article.

That could be useful information for policy makers. However, the person who compiled the list of 500 scientific articles is misrepresenting this paper when he says it refutes the consensus scientific opinion on climate change.


It is a pretty good list of papers. As you said, for the most part they lend little support to what the web site claims. The ones I looked at seemed primarily to concern themselves with other factors that affect climate change. Of course there are a number of those. Someone posted a chart of world temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years. This reflects a composite of the various cycles and perhaps some non-cyclical major events that had long reaching effects. You might notice that there is a major repeating pattern every 100,000 years approximately. This if I remember right is due to the cycle the earth follows in it's orbit, 3 different wobbles. As you see the inter glacial periods are short and stable. The last one coincided with the emergence of our species in its modern form, which I believe was 70,000 years ago. And I think that our cultural emergence from being hunters and gathers little different from other primate is due to this stable warm climate.

But anyway, it is ridiculous how people argue that the CO2 will not have a serious impact, it of course will, the question is how bad it will be. The median estimates are pretty dismal though. Sustaining a human population pushing 10 billion can't withstand drastic shocks that effect food production.

The political ramifications are dire. And this is nothing new. You know of the French revolution. But few know of the real underlying cause. Just prior to that there had been serious volcanic eruptions that lead to several years of low crop yields as weather cooled, famine, and that lead to revolution. When multitudes are starving around the world, nobody is going to be safe, not even American bible thumping conservatives.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 8 2017, 06:12 AM
Post #36


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.876
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



CRSN: HERE IS A QUOTE FROM YOUR NEW SHARED ARTICLE: Did you read it btw?

"According to project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. ""

so there is the head of the project saying that the sun's impact will do little to compensate for HUMAN INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE. I'd agree smile.gif It's human induced climate change that is the problem!!!! It's the very thing we are all talking about and what 95%+ of all climate scientists agree on. "Human induced Climate Change" is the problem. So sorry to say, no chips, not even dents. In fact, the article you shared actually hurts your case and goes against the very argument you were trying to make by sharing it. Swing and a miss. sad.gif

*P.S. The site you are using is a CLIMATE DENIAL web site. You might want to pick a reference source that is a pinch less biased toward climate denial and more based on science. sad.gif

-------
But in a brand new study their results now appear to have compelled them to postpone the expected global warming – by a few decades!
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/31/breakin...h.2onbOruG.dpuf

http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/31/breakin...h.2onbOruG.dpbs

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 8 2017, 06:19 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 8 2017, 03:55 PM
Post #37


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.876
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



I have to agree smile.gif What I'd like to know is the personal reason for folks like CRSN to be swayed by such poor data/research, as to think that climate denial is a genuinely defensible position in sheer scientific terms. My fear is that most folks that are climate deniers have been swept up in the politics of it, as right wing sources tend to be climate skeptic. Also, they tend to associate it with HUGE personal monetary costs for some reason, including global economic oblivion if we try to take action to prevent the ice caps melting at the current rate.

As we approach the magic 10 Billion, in terms of population, we are going to be pushing every resource beyond what can be readily sustained. Even worse, the march to 12 Billion is going to take far less time than it did from 8 to 10. It's around this point that we really will need to find other places to live, e.g. space, etc. Some folks think we can stretch things until 2050. I hope they are right smile.gif The collapse will be must faster than the expansion IMHO.


QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 8 2017, 01:03 AM) *
It is a pretty good list of papers. As you said, for the most part they lend little support to what the web site claims. The ones I looked at seemed primarily to concern themselves with other factors that affect climate change. Of course there are a number of those. Someone posted a chart of world temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years. This reflects a composite of the various cycles and perhaps some non-cyclical major events that had long reaching effects. You might notice that there is a major repeating pattern every 100,000 years approximately. This if I remember right is due to the cycle the earth follows in it's orbit, 3 different wobbles. As you see the inter glacial periods are short and stable. The last one coincided with the emergence of our species in its modern form, which I believe was 70,000 years ago. And I think that our cultural emergence from being hunters and gathers little different from other primate is due to this stable warm climate.

But anyway, it is ridiculous how people argue that the CO2 will not have a serious impact, it of course will, the question is how bad it will be. The median estimates are pretty dismal though. Sustaining a human population pushing 10 billion can't withstand drastic shocks that effect food production.

The political ramifications are dire. And this is nothing new. You know of the French revolution. But few know of the real underlying cause. Just prior to that there had been serious volcanic eruptions that lead to several years of low crop yields as weather cooled, famine, and that lead to revolution. When multitudes are starving around the world, nobody is going to be safe, not even American bible thumping conservatives.


This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 8 2017, 04:00 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jun 8 2017, 11:40 PM
Post #38


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.845
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 8 2017, 05:55 AM) *
? Take the 95 percent agreement of all climate scientists and NASA out of the equation. You personally. Why are YOU so against it? Maybe that will help me and the rest of us understand why some folks just oppose the idea.

did you know that 95 -99 percent of climate scientists believe CNN is fake news ( come on , we have to lighten things from time to time )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 9 2017, 02:52 AM
Post #39


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.876
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



So about my question, what makes you personally attracted to the idea of climate denial CRSN???

At this point, you'd have to say honestly that your line of argument is falling apart. So I wanted to find out what motivates you, and thus other folks to latch on to this idea?

Todd


QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jun 8 2017, 06:40 PM) *
did you know that 95 -99 percent of climate scientists believe CNN is fake news ( come on , we have to lighten things from time to time )


This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 9 2017, 02:54 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Jun 9 2017, 03:32 AM
Post #40


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.676
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



There is a lot of talk here about bias from deniers and oil companies etc. But what about the bias of gov funded research? I think when politics is mixed with science, the science tends to be devoured by the politics and I think we know very well where the majority of the politicos stand.
This should probably be included in the discussion.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-feder...imate-research/

https://www.cato.org/publications/working-p...federal-funding

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/file...ng-paper-29.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Jun 9 2017, 03:34 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th August 2017 - 09:35 AM