3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Closed TopicStart new topic
> Ice
fkalich
post Jun 26 2017, 08:24 AM
Post #41


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 25 2017, 10:29 PM) *
I picked that site because I knew you could not question it seeing how it is on your side of the argument , and I showed many links as to debunk your clear exaggeration of 25 million years , why did you not due your diligence and post 25 million when it was so easily debunk-able ?.
This is why it is impossible to debate someone who exaggerates , they will (as you just did ) exaggerate to make their point seem more valid!

.



No, not an exaggeration, I know the source. It was from a series of 48 lectures I watched on earth science by a professor at St. Louis University, a very good school, one of the Great Courses series. I am not sure how long it has been, but it has been one hell of a long time. I see other links to a study saying 15 million years ago. That 3.8 million year link may be correct, I don't know. Even if it has been 2.2 million years small brained Homo Erectus was walking around at the time. It was a long time ago in comparison to the past 200 years where man has been burning fossil fuels, about 1/10,000th of that time frame.

Then you come up with a nearly 20 year old study that suggest high CO2 levels during an ice age, 450 million years ago. So what? The Earth was a snowball about 600 million years ago. Sure there could have been conditions that countered the CO2 effect if that study is valid. I can think of any number of things. The orbit of the Earth might have been more elliptical, or maybe something else. Any number of things might have been radically different from the current Epoch to counter the warming effects of CO2 at that time.

I give up.

This post has been edited by fkalich: Jun 26 2017, 10:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jun 26 2017, 12:10 PM
Post #42


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.844
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 26 2017, 08:24 AM) *
No, not an exaggeration, I know the source. It was from a series of 48 lectures I watched on earth science by a professor at St. Louis University, a very good school, one of the Great Courses series. I am not sure how long it has been, but it has been one hell of a long time. I see other links to a study saying 15 million years ago. That 3.8 million year link may be correct, I don't know. Even if it has been 2.2 million years small brained Homo Erectus was walking around at the time. It was a long time ago in comparison to the past 200 years where man has been burning fossil fuels, about 1/10,000th of that time frame.

Then you come up with a nearly 20 year old study that suggest high CO2 levels during an ice age, 450 million years ago. So what? The Earth was a snowball about 600 million years ago. Sure there could have been conditions that countered the CO2 effect if that study is valid. I can think of any number of things. The orbit of the Earth might have been more elliptical, or maybe something else. Any number of things might have been radically different from the current Epoch to counter the warming effects of CO2 at that time.

I give up.

you also showed us a picture of Lindsay Buckingham and said it was you , so unless you can prove it to be true , I really can't believe a story you say you remember from long ago , then condemn my actual science link as an old study . your response has more so what's than I know what to do with . No science , no links , all conjecture leading me to believe there are many reasons to debate.

I still can't get over the "so what" line. That's the problem with that side of the argument , if your off by tenfold , no big deal . so lets say warming is of by tenfold too . That gives us 500 years to figure this thing out correctly
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 28 2017, 02:45 AM
Post #43


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.873
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



I still wanna know what attracts you CRSN and RICH to this particular side of this particular issue. It's beyond the facts it seems. It's got to be a personal motivation. Please help us understand what it is smile.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Jun 28 2017, 03:44 AM
Post #44


GMC:er
*

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



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 27 2017, 08:45 PM) *
I still wanna know what attracts you CRSN and RICH to this particular side of this particular issue. It's beyond the facts it seems. It's got to be a personal motivation. Please help us understand what it is smile.gif


I now just close my eyes a bit to blur my vision when I pass one of their comments. I think they just believe that mankind will always find a way to solve all problems with technological advances. That would be very possible, if not for the fact that the world is so overpopulated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Jun 28 2017, 06:56 PM
Post #45


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.674
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 27 2017, 05:45 PM) *
I still wanna know what attracts you CRSN and RICH to this particular side of this particular issue. It's beyond the facts it seems. It's got to be a personal motivation. Please help us understand what it is smile.gif

Beyond the facts? What "facts" exactly?
I believe that question has already been answered and you just choose to ignore and dismiss it so here is an answer I am sure you will embrace.
Because as conservatives, we love dirty air and water and we enjoy killing the planet ph34r.gif mwahahahaha!
Does that work better for you?

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Jun 28 2017, 07:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jun 29 2017, 12:37 AM
Post #46


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.844
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



here is some more science from ETH Zurich , A Global warming science /university etc in Switzerland
https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-...ng-a-break.html

Even they concede that Global warming is taking a break
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 29 2017, 07:04 AM
Post #47


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.873
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Still dancing around the question a bit CRSN and RICH, what draws you to the other side of this particular argument?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jun 29 2017, 01:31 PM
Post #48


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.844
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 29 2017, 07:04 AM) *
Still dancing around the question a bit CRSN and RICH, what draws you to the other side of this particular argument?

Conclusion

Regardless of any unsettled science details, it seems sure that current climate models cannot represent what is actually happening in the atmosphere -- and therefore one should not rely on predictions from such unvalidated models that are based simply on increases of carbon dioxide. It should be obvious that this discussion has important policy consequences since so many politicians are wedded to the idea that CO2 needs to be controlled in order to avoid “dangerous changes of the global climate.”

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/20...l#ixzz4lOULtW1V
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jul 2 2017, 07:20 AM
Post #49


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.873
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



So bottom line is that you are attracted to the other side of this argument because you feel politicians will use it, if accepted, to do what exactly? CRSN?

Still waiting on RICH for his reply on the "Why"? smile.gif


QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jun 29 2017, 08:31 AM) *
Conclusion

Regardless of any unsettled science details, it seems sure that current climate models cannot represent what is actually happening in the atmosphere -- and therefore one should not rely on predictions from such unvalidated models that are based simply on increases of carbon dioxide. It should be obvious that this discussion has important policy consequences since so many politicians are wedded to the idea that CO2 needs to be controlled in order to avoid “dangerous changes of the global climate.”

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/20...l#ixzz4lOULtW1V
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jul 2 2017, 07:20 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jul 2 2017, 12:14 PM
Post #50


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.844
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jul 2 2017, 07:20 AM) *
So bottom line is that you are attracted to the other side of this argument because you feel politicians will use it, if accepted, to do what exactly? CRSN?

Still waiting on RICH for his reply on the "Why"? smile.gif

WRONG . you have two more guesses till the game is over
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jul 2 2017, 05:56 PM
Post #51


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.873
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



I get it, you are just "Right" got it smile.gif took me a while. Now I get it. It needs no explanation. Which is handy since one isn't forthcoming, so that'll have to do smile.gif


QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 2 2017, 07:14 AM) *
WRONG . you have two more guesses till the game is over



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jul 5 2017, 12:52 PM
Post #52


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.844
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jul 2 2017, 05:56 PM) *
I get it, you are just "Right" got it smile.gif took me a while. Now I get it. It needs no explanation. Which is handy since one isn't forthcoming, so that'll have to do smile.gif

i am not saying your wrong and i am always right , i am saying your wrong in your assessment of were i stand . that's why i told you i wont answer a question that assumes my stance within the question ( you remember that P.M. in which I stated that ) . I have stated where I stand in this thread , it's just by your question its as if you are telling me I stand somewhere different than where I am telling you I stand . So until you stop telling me what my answer should be and at least accept where I say I stand , I feel it unnecessary to answer your question .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jul 7 2017, 02:43 AM
Post #53


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.844
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733





go ahead, lets see your science to disprove this
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jul 7 2017, 02:48 AM
Post #54


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.873
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Have it your way bud smile.gif You are not the first person who sits on that side of the issue that has a tough time articulating exactly why in a succinct manner. In fact, I've yet to meet anyone on that side of the argument that could give me a succinct "why". But it really doesn't matter in the long run. Folks are gonna believe whatever resonates with them and they are going to be influenced by their media intake. Time will tell what is going to happen with sea level rise. We can't stop it at this point, so it really doesn't matter who/what is causing it, making the entire thing a bit of a moot point. So I'm gonna stop asking.

For levity, here is a skeptics view of the earth being a globe.


QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 5 2017, 07:52 AM) *
i am not saying your wrong and i am always right , i am saying your wrong in your assessment of were i stand . that's why i told you i wont answer a question that assumes my stance within the question ( you remember that P.M. in which I stated that ) . I have stated where I stand in this thread , it's just by your question its as if you are telling me I stand somewhere different than where I am telling you I stand . So until you stop telling me what my answer should be and at least accept where I say I stand , I feel it unnecessary to answer your question .


This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jul 7 2017, 02:52 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kristofer Dahl
post Jul 7 2017, 08:11 AM
Post #55


GMC Founder & Rocker
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 15.276
Joined: 15-August 05
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Member No.: 2



It's time to close this topic. We have come back to embedded youtube videos and no factual arguments - which means the discussion is over.


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

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Closed 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: 22nd August 2017 - 10:03 AM