Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNo mm. You have demonstated time and time again you do not have a very deep backgroud in science. So it is not ad hominem to say you should stop making absolute pronouncements based on articles from the climate science equivalent of AIG.
It is just good advice. It is ok if you want to believe these things in the sense that is your right. But pseudo science is not real science, and to make absolute pronouncements based on pseudoscience just isn't wise, or particularly flattering.
Youll notice ive complimented you on your intelligence before. Just a few posts previous in fact. Intelligence, however, only speaks to what you are capable of. But not having the requisite knowledge and training, intelligence can only help you if you are willing to learn what you havent yet learned, and once you have the skills, then you have to look at the data without the hindrence of a pre-concieved notion of what the right answer has to be.
Until then, your best bet would be to say something like, "this makes sense to me, why do you not find it convincing"
Jim
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostSparko, you're outright bullying him. I went back over two hundred posts and I can't see what warrants this.
For once, he wasn't wrong - but he dodged reflexively and they are continuing the usual water balloon fight."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostI'm pretty sure it was Rogue who posted a study indicating that those who are most skeptical of global whatsits are also the most likely to have actually implemented such changes to their lifestyles.
But if you (general) are gonna preach, make sure you have all your eyes free of woody obstructions.
And yeah, when the preachers aren't practicing, it DOES bring their belief in what they preach into question - that is true of Christianity and anything else.
It's not even obvious that private jets of a handful of people is the issue. Is all optics.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostSparko, you're outright bullying him. I went back over two hundred posts and I can't see what warrants this.
I gave a link earlier to the start of the discussion. I made a joke about the derail into lawns. Tassman made a stupid comment like derailing a thread was taking away from the important discussion of solving climate change. I, and cowpoke make a snide comment about how we seriously doubted any of us nerds was going to solve any pressing world problems on a discussion forum. Then Chuck had to stick his nose in and actually defend Tassman and claim that yes we could solve problems with our words. I, and cowpoke challenged him to show us what problems he has solved, at which point the back pedaled into saying he didn't mean any world problems, just problems, So now I am asking him what problems has he solved.
You are now all caught up.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostHe said specifically that writing on forums changes things but didn't back it up when confronted. Then he backpedaled - which was silly. He overstated, that was all - he should have defended the position that talking about issues does lead to political action that actually can change things.
For once, he wasn't wrong - but he dodged reflexively and they are continuing the usual water balloon fight.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostHe said specifically that writing on forums changes things but didn't back it up when confronted.
Originally posted by Charles View PostTyping words sometimes solves problems or helps to solve problems. Ideas and convictions influence our behaviour. I feel quite sure you are aware of it so it rather seems you are wasting your own time undermining your own reason to be here.Originally posted by Teallaura View PostThen he backpedaled - which was silly. He overstated, that was all - he should have defended the position that talking about issues does lead to political action that actually can change things.
For once, he wasn't wrong - but he dodged reflexively and they are continuing the usual water balloon fight.
Originally posted by Charles View PostHint: They way we live our lives, the politicians we vote for and the decisions they make are important factors.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SparkoTassman made a stupid comment like derailing a thread was taking away from the important discussion of solving climate change. I, and cowpoke make a snide comment about how we seriously doubted any of us nerds was going to solve any pressing world problems on a discussion forum. Then Chuck had to stick his nose in and actually defend Tassman and claim that yes we could solve problems with our words.
I thought it was something really offensive and annoying he'd have said longer back than that.
Mostly it seems to be an argument against serious discussion in any internet forum, and whether it matters or not. I'll gladly concede that what we say on this forum likely doesn't matter all that much. I have a gay friend who has a bigger outreach than all the visitors combined who visits this place. Including fence-sitters and conservatives. This is mostly a close-knitted community that goes back. We're here because we like the banter. Also sometimes we get to learn something. At least I do.
I also because I hope I can reach at least some of you on at least a few issues.
And also because Cow Poke starts posting threads about 'Where the Liberals have Gone'.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI read the article, there was nothing in making any sort of scientific arguments aside from an article talking about whether an actual greenhouse is heated more by trapped convection or trapping of infrared light.
The rest of the article read like a conspiracy theory paper that is wildly off in details in various places. It doesn't seem to care about making any accurate statements. It also calls Hansen a disciple of Velikovsky (who was a crank talking about mythological events being caused by wild swinging planets).
It also claims that it was first proposed in the 1980ies. This pretty much ignores that historically it's been suggested and talked about in the scientific community since the thirties, and the earliest mention is all the way back in 1896 in Arrhenius's work On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostTranslation: "I wasn't insulting you, I was just... insulting you."
Truth is, I actually have become a bit fonder of you over the last few months. You can be annoying (and insulting yourself -e.g. 'hypocrite'), but a good bit of the time you do try to engage the topic.
OTOH, the evidence is you are easily led down the primrose path as it were with topics involving science. And really what I'm trying to say is that as much as you like the POV of wattsup, it just isn't science. And you just haven't demonstrated you really know how to analyze what they are saying and put that up against a more complete knowledge of the data. So If you could just recognize that and acknowledge it, you could probably both learn enough to make more intelligent assessments of what that site posts, AND you would find those you converse with the topic a bit less antagonistic.
For example, look at what Leon has done. He's been able to just sort of ignore the bluster and give you some good data to help you understand what is wrong with what you read on Wattsup. I am and will continue to work on being more like that myself (and kudos to Leon), but you ARE an intelligent man, just lacking in some areas of training/knowledge. So to understand why things like what you posted are not convincing to the scientific community at large, you need to look a bit more in depth (i.e. read the article Lean linked to), and you probably need to learn more as well.
I hope I have not failed again and you see this post as yet another insult. That is not my intent. You're a smart fellow. I am saying what I'm saying within a context of personally respecting that intelligence.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostSparko is bullying him, it's a dead horse, move on.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostAnother successful derail
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAnd this is a good thing is it? The planet is faced with catastrophic global warming and you think it cute to "derail" the thread and talk about AstroTurf. Be aware that most of the world does not believe that these are the End-Times and that Jesus is about to return on his cloud of glory. Most of us are more concerned about the futures of our grand-kids on an uninhabitable planet than the religious delusions of the few.Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSo why are you here? Get your sorry butt out there and solve the problem instead of wasting your time typing words!Originally posted by Charles View PostTyping words sometimes solves problems or helps to solve problems. Ideas and convictions influence our behaviour. I feel quite sure you are aware of it so it rather seems you are wasting your own time undermining your own reason to be here.Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYeah, please explain to me how a very caustic poster waging war on a discussion board solves climate change.Originally posted by Charles View PostHint: They way we live our lives, the politicians we vote for and the decisions they make are important factors.Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYou do make me smile, Charles. Thanks for trying. None of that has anything to do with bloviating on a discussion board.Originally posted by Sparko View PostI haven't seen you solving any world problems lately Chuck, so why do you post on discussion boards? Other than to nanny?
And it goes on from there. It's essentially a derail about a derail started by Tassman with Charles throwing in his two cents. I gotta say on this I agree with Sparko and CP. Derails are just natural parts of message forums, and none of expect that we'll necessarily change the world with a post. The very best we can hope for is maybe getting other board members to consider our words, but more likely than not it's an exercise in helping us work through these issues for our own benefit.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI will admit my wording was too close to an insult for it to be fair to expect you not to be insulted. And I apologize. I was not trying to insult you.
Truth is, I actually have become a bit fonder of you over the last few months. You can be annoying (and insulting yourself -e.g. 'hypocrite'), but a good bit of the time you do try to engage the topic.
OTOH, the evidence is you are easily led down the primrose path as it were with topics involving science. And really what I'm trying to say is that as much as you like the POV of wattsup, it just isn't science. And you just haven't demonstrated you really know how to analyze what they are saying and put that up against a more complete knowledge of the data. So If you could just recognize that and acknowledge it, you could probably both learn enough to make more intelligent assessments of what that site posts, AND you would find those you converse with the topic a bit less antagonistic.
For example, look at what Leon has done. He's been able to just sort of ignore the bluster and give you some good data to help you understand what is wrong with what you read on Wattsup. I am and will continue to work on being more like that myself (and kudos to Leon), but you ARE an intelligent man, just lacking in some areas of training/knowledge. So to understand why things like what you posted are not convincing to the scientific community at large, you need to look a bit more in depth (i.e. read the article Lean linked to), and you probably need to learn more as well.
I hope I have not failed again and you see this post as yet another insult. That is not my intent. You're a smart fellow. I am saying what I'm saying within a context of personally respecting that intelligence.
Jim
Maybe try focusing less on me and more on what I've actually posted?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostWell, regardless of when it was first proposed, there is little if any convincing evidence that man-made CO2 has a significant impact on global temperatures.
* Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (19792000) lay outside the range of normal natural variability, nor were they in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earths climatic history.
* Solar forcing of temperature change is likely more important than is currently recognized.
* No unambiguous evidence exists of dangerous interference in the global climate caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.
* Any human global climate signal is so small as to be nearly indiscernible against the background variability of the natural climate system. Climate change is always occurring.
https://www.heartland.org/_template-...licymakers.pdf
Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (19792000) lay outside the range of normal natural variability
Recent surface warmings are many times faster than at any point in the Earth's history.
Originally posted by NOAA - Paleoclimatic Data for the Last 2,000 YearsThe similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimate reconstructions of the last 2,000 years provides confidence in the following important conclusions, as reported in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report:
Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.
For average annual Northern Hemisphere temperatures, the period 19832012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1,400 years.
Warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere since the mid 20th century than in any previous time.
Its true that sunlight does act as a forcer, just as CO2 does it. But its not enough to explain the rise in temperature since the seventies. Its significant enough that it needs to be included in the model, and can explain perhaps as much as 20%-30% of the variance we're seeing. But its not sufficient.
Originally posted by Changing Sun, Changing Climate?Total solar irradiance (energy received from the Sun) as observed directly by satellites... minor wiggles while Earth's temperature soared. From the low to high point of a sunspot cycle, the change in "radiative forcing" (roughly speaking, the change in energy transferred to our planet) is equivalent to the interference in radiation passing through the atmosphere caused by 15 years of human emissions of carbon dioxide.
https://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm
Last edited by Leonhard; 08-20-2019, 02:04 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostYou're moving the goal post. Your post was that the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas being debunked in an article.
As for any arguments based on NOAA or NASA data, they have been caught deceptively manipulating their numbers so frequently and so blatantly that I simply don't trust them. Sorry.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI'm curious to read that one to see what counts and what the data consists of. Its certainly interesting, but I've got a lot of skeptical questions. For instance is it studies of Twitter data (which is what I'm seeing so far).
True, at least from the stand point of pure politics. It is still a weak argument. It doesn't actually change whether there's a problem or not.
It's not even obvious that private jets of a handful of people is the issue. Is all optics.
Here are some numbers for the FAA itself:
commercial flights per month average around 1.3 million
private buisiness jet flights average around 350,000
kg CO2 per km: Bombadier lear jet 45: 0.684
kg C02 per km: Airbus A321: 9.074
So, taking the liberty of just generalizing based on FAA data and US/Canada and these airplanes - per km flown (not incredibly accurate)
commercial aviation puts out 11,760,000 kg CO2,
buisiness travel puts out 253,000 kg CO2
That is - per km flown* - commercial aviation puts out about 46 times as much carbon as private. which leaves the playthings of the rich and powerful adding about 2.15% to the total aviation carbon output.
note, most 737s are comparable, while 747 (and likely 777, airbus 380s) are more than 3x the A321 so I don't think this is a low-ball sort of estimate, that is, buisness jets may well have a smaller impact than 2%
Jim
*I did not take into account a potential difference in the average flight length commercial vs private jet.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/
https://aspm.faa.gov/apmd/sys/bjpdf/b-jet-201703.pdf
https://micpohling.wordpress.com/200...-by-aeroplane/My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:42 AM
|
7 responses
30 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:44 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 08:04 AM
|
26 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Today, 11:48 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 07:47 AM
|
19 responses
61 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 11:54 AM
|
||
Started by Starlight, Yesterday, 10:22 PM
|
12 responses
81 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 08:49 AM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:39 PM
|
13 responses
54 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:27 AM
|
Comment