RE: climate change denier comes to his senses

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 4:50:29 PM)
quote: The temperatures are rising globally because black bears are shifting north! When they get on the ice fields, sunlight is no longer reflected into space by the ice, but instead it is being absorbed by the black bears. This causes the air around the black bears to heat up, which in turn melts the nearby ice. Wouldn't the hot air from the warm bears just rise, leaving the ice below them chilled?

DomKen -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 4:54:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: So the fact that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of AGW means there is no AGW? Are you really trying to argue that? It seems there is controversy within the Scientific Community . . . however much the alarmists proclaim the "science is settled." Ask Dr Curry if you are interested. There are still scientists who reject pretty much all recent theoretical advances. That doesn't mean there is still a controversy. All t means is a few outliers refuse to give up their pet hypothesi no matter how much evidence is against them. See for example Fedducia and the bird - dinosaur relationship In this case the data is in, the planet is warming and its happening quite quickly. The only viable culprit is anthrogenic CO2.

Rule -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 6:22:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: The temperatures are rising globally because black bears are shifting north! When they get on the ice fields, sunlight is no longer reflected into space by the ice, but instead it is being absorbed by the black bears. This causes the air around the black bears to heat up, which in turn melts the nearby ice. Wouldn't the hot air from the warm bears just rise, leaving the ice below them chilled? That may very well be the case. It all depends on whether there is wind or no wind and in the latter case on how the microcirculation of the air is directed. Since this hypothesis may be crucial to our understanding of global heating, it is imperative that several independent experiments using fake black bears on the polar ice are conducted.

Rule -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 6:27:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen In this case the data is in, the planet is warming and its happening quite quickly. The only viable culprit is anthrogenic CO2. [:-] Stop breathing, DomKen! Let it be recorded that I disagree with your assertion in bold.

tweakabelle -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 7:19:30 PM)
quote: If someone was reaching the correct conclusion because of an incorrect hypothysis, that has little bearing on whether the resulting truth of the end conclusion, that man made global warming is in fact the largest confidence game pulled off in the history of the world! It's being used to seize control of vast portions of the economies of virtually every industrialized nation, and woe be to the one who DARES to point out the Emperor has no clothes! Take a deep breath, get a grip, and try not to be quite so impressed with yourself. To my mind, this is where the case against AGW collapses completely. The idea that almost all climate scientists are engaged in some sinister conspiracy to "re-distribute wealth", or to "seize control of vast portions of the economies of virtually every industrialized nation" is so far-fetched it invites ridicule. To date, no evidence of any sort has been advanced to support this claim. Advancing a conspiracy theory that directly contradicts the empirical data is the hallmark of nutcases. Unless climate change deniers can come up with a credible explanation of why almost all of the world's climate change scientists agree that human-caused climate change is a scientifically valid conclusion, they remain mired in the same muck as 'birthers' and the like. As the evidence overwhelmingly supports the scientific consensus, this would appear to be a problem of insurmountable proportions for those arguing against human-caused global warming.

dcnovice -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 7:27:56 PM)
quote: To my mind, this is where the case against AGW collapses completely. The idea that almost all climate scientists are engaged in some sinister conspiracy to "re-distribute wealth", or to "seize control of vast portions of the economies of virtually every industrialized nation" is so far-fetched it invites ridicule. To date, no evidence of any sort has been advanced to support this claim. This point always strikes me too. One of the first things detectives always look for (at least in fiction) is a motive, and I've never heard anyone explain what would impel a host of scientists, the IPCC, the Smithsonian, National Geographic, and God knows who else to band together and try to sell people on AGW if they didn't believe in it.

Hillwilliam -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 7:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: We will be totally self sufficient energywise and those people in the mid east who have been buttfucking us over an oil barrel for the last 60 or so years can go back to eating dirt and rocks and happily slaughtering each other as they have for centuries. While I agree with you on the need for self-sufficiency I wonder if you don't give too much concern to the MidEast. Don't we get the greatest amount of our oil from Canada and Mexico? And weren't we net exporters this past year? Just askin . . . Indeed we get more oil from Canada than anywhere else and our biggest export is petroleum. Our problem is that the instabilities of the mideast are driving prices way out of proportion to their actual worth. If we weren't dependent upon petroleum, then their power over our wallets as well as their importance on the world stage would totally disappear.

Musicmystery -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 8:20:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: The temperatures are rising globally because black bears are shifting north! When they get on the ice fields, sunlight is no longer reflected into space by the ice, but instead it is being absorbed by the black bears. This causes the air around the black bears to heat up, which in turn melts the nearby ice. Wouldn't the hot air from the warm bears just rise, leaving the ice below them chilled? That may very well be the case. It all depends on whether there is wind or no wind and in the latter case on how the microcirculation of the air is directed. Since this hypothesis may be crucial to our understanding of global heating, it is imperative that several independent experiments using fake black bears on the polar ice are conducted. But since black bears hibernate when the weather is cold, they would not be a significant factor in an arctic environment.

Real0ne -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/11/2012 8:36:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: If someone was reaching the correct conclusion because of an incorrect hypothysis, that has little bearing on whether the resulting truth of the end conclusion, that man made global warming is in fact the largest confidence game pulled off in the history of the world! It's being used to seize control of vast portions of the economies of virtually every industrialized nation, and woe be to the one who DARES to point out the Emperor has no clothes! Take a deep breath, get a grip, and try not to be quite so impressed with yourself. To my mind, this is where the case against AGW collapses completely. The idea that almost all climate scientists are engaged in some sinister conspiracy to "re-distribute wealth", or to "seize control of vast portions of the economies of virtually every industrialized nation" is so far-fetched it invites ridicule. To date, no evidence of any sort has been advanced to support this claim. Advancing a conspiracy theory that directly contradicts the empirical data is the hallmark of nutcases. Unless climate change deniers can come up with a credible explanation of why almost all of the world's climate change scientists agree that human-caused climate change is a scientifically valid conclusion, they remain mired in the same muck as 'birthers' and the like. As the evidence overwhelmingly supports the scientific consensus, this would appear to be a problem of insurmountable proportions for those arguing against human-caused global warming. yeh who would ever do something to unthinkable (well aside from the banking and oil cartels of course) as to try and grab the largest market share and create a monopoly for themselves. History notwithstanding of course. the silliness of it all! Especially when the charts show higher carbon does not create higher temps. With all that empirical theory who could ever think such a thing? Do tell! [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/911/global%20warming/carbon_dioxide.jpg[/image] This is the same chart AL GORE used! Nice huh! just look at all that co2 and temps are falling. Never fear! Mr Freeze will save you! [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/Mr_Freeze.jpg[/image]

Rule -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/12/2012 12:24:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery But since black bears hibernate when the weather is cold, they would not be a significant factor in an arctic environment. lol. There is that, yes.

Phydeaux -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/12/2012 12:34:34 AM)
Not.. 'outliers'. There are thousands of scientists, engineers, climatologists that disagree with 'global warming'. Including the scientists of Cern, who found that half or more of global warming has been caused by changes in solar output.

vincentML -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/12/2012 5:16:49 AM)
quote: Indeed we get more oil from Canada than anywhere else and our biggest export is petroleum. Our problem is that the instabilities of the mideast are driving prices way out of proportion to their actual worth. If we weren't dependent upon petroleum, then their power over our wallets as well as their importance on the world stage would totally disappear. You make a good point but if we are net exporters than we are not so dependent, are we? And lets have a look at where the pricing occurs . . . in the speculative commodity exchange pits in Chicago and other places on a 10% margin. Maybe raising margins on the gamblers would put a drag on speculation and calm the costs, although I realize there are some such as airlines that must of necessity hedge with futures contracts. At any rate, it would be good to reduce the environmental pollution caused by deep sea drilling and such. A pipeline welder I met said to me "There is nothing I can make that Nature cannot break." There isn't a pipeline that hasn't fouled the land somewhere. Running a pipeline across the water reserves of Nebraska is madness imo. And the welder questioned the risky business of deep sea drilling since there are such great amounts of oil to be had in Canadian shale, although the drilling/fracking/cracking/whatever is devastating the land. The same to be said for shale harpooning in Pennsylvania and New York despite the TV propaganda of 'clean' drilling below the aquafers. It would be helpful if we could get past the age of petroleum, although there have been many benefits gained, and although I can't imagine how airlines and a powerful Military could function. Then maybe we shouldn't have so powerful a Military, hey?

Hillwilliam -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/12/2012 5:50:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Indeed we get more oil from Canada than anywhere else and our biggest export is petroleum. Our problem is that the instabilities of the mideast are driving prices way out of proportion to their actual worth. If we weren't dependent upon petroleum, then their power over our wallets as well as their importance on the world stage would totally disappear. You make a good point but if we are net exporters than we are not so dependent, are we? And lets have a look at where the pricing occurs . . . in the speculative commodity exchange pits in Chicago and other places on a 10% margin. Maybe raising margins on the gamblers would put a drag on speculation and calm the costs, although I realize there are some such as airlines that must of necessity hedge with futures contracts. At any rate, it would be good to reduce the environmental pollution caused by deep sea drilling and such. A pipeline welder I met said to me "There is nothing I can make that Nature cannot break." There isn't a pipeline that hasn't fouled the land somewhere. Running a pipeline across the water reserves of Nebraska is madness imo. And the welder questioned the risky business of deep sea drilling since there are such great amounts of oil to be had in Canadian shale, although the drilling/fracking/cracking/whatever is devastating the land. The same to be said for shale harpooning in Pennsylvania and New York despite the TV propaganda of 'clean' drilling below the aquafers. It would be helpful if we could get past the age of petroleum, although there have been many benefits gained, and although I can't imagine how airlines and a powerful Military could function. Then maybe we shouldn't have so powerful a Military, hey? I think we'll need petroleum for long distance transport but that's a tiny fraction of our use. Alternative energy would first affect the electricity markets. That demand drop alone would crash prices. There is the problem. Big Oil knows that. They spend a lot of money behind the scenes to convince the American people that alternative energy is a waste of time. Fusion will be practical. Solar is now practical and will become more efficient. As for the Commodity exchange pits, where does their volatility come from? The mideast. If the civilized world doesn't need mideast oil, that volatility doesn't happen.

vincentML -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/12/2012 6:00:25 AM)
quote: To my mind, this is where the case against AGW collapses completely. The idea that almost all climate scientists are engaged in some sinister conspiracy to "re-distribute wealth", or to "seize control of vast portions of the economies of virtually every industrialized nation" is so far-fetched it invites ridicule. To date, no evidence of any sort has been advanced to support this claim. You paint with too broad a brush, Tweake. The case against AGW does not collapse because of some fringe conspiracy claims. There are serious questions raised about the IPCC consensus building process. See the postings of Dr Judith Curry. She has legitimate credentials as a climatologist. http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/08/consensus-by-exhaustion/ quote: Advancing a conspiracy theory that directly contradicts the empirical data is the hallmark of nutcases. Unless climate change deniers can come up with a credible explanation of why almost all of the world's climate change scientists agree that human-caused climate change is a scientifically valid conclusion, they remain mired in the same muck as 'birthers' and the like. Dr Curry also questions the simplicity of the current model used by the IPCC and offers an alternative for investigation here http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/07/trends-change-points-hypotheses/ which may be considered. She has some observations about Richard Muller with whom she worked http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/04/the-irresistable-story-of-richard-muller/ And here we learn that the Muller study has not yet been submitted for peer review: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/amid-criticism-berkeley-earth-extends-record-upholds-findings.html which includes this interesting paragraph at the end . . . As it happens, one group of prominent skeptics has released a study claiming problems with the US temperature record (part of the same record analyzed by BEST) that lead to an overestimation of warming from 1979 to 2008. The study has yet to be published, but on the blog Watts Up With That Anthony Watts and fellow authors write that the announcement of the paper prior to publication “follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller.” So, assertions that the science is settled or that consensus should not be questioned are still in doubt within the community of scientists. The question that remains is whether lay people and politicians have been so overwhelmed with alarmists propaganda that they are unable or passionately unwilling to examine scientific skepticism. Muller said "“These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does,” Dr Curry is suggesting (my words) that the data may be based on a specious assumption that there is a linear causal relationship between CO2 and a dynamic, chaotic atmosphere/ocean climate machine.

Real0ne -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/12/2012 6:16:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam If the civilized world doesn't need mideast oil, that volatility doesn't happen. converting thuggery from MOB bullets flying on the street to MOB pens scratching in the courts is nonetheless still thuggery. At least in the street you know who to shoot at. Whats civilized about that?

DomKen -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/12/2012 6:43:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Dr Curry is suggesting (my words) that the data may be based on a specious assumption that there is a linear causal relationship between CO2 and a dynamic, chaotic atmosphere/ocean climate machine. It certainly is your words becaus Curry woud know better. Muller made no such assumption. You even complained about it previously in this thread.

vincentML -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/12/2012 7:10:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Dr Curry is suggesting (my words) that the data may be based on a specious assumption that there is a linear causal relationship between CO2 and a dynamic, chaotic atmosphere/ocean climate machine. It certainly is your words becaus Curry woud know better. Muller made no such assumption. You even complained about it previously in this thread. I think I captured the essence of Curry's position correctly. I am referring to the assumption that all alarmists make, not just Muller. You are welcome to to find evidence in Curry's comments and Blog posts that I have her wrong instead of just making an unsourced pronouncement. You did not object previously when I reported Curry's theory. Well yeah, you did. You parroted Muller's claim that it is untestable. So basically, you don't read any information that contradicts your hardened position? [8\|]

vincentML -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/12/2012 7:16:31 AM)
quote: I think we'll need petroleum for long distance transport but that's a tiny fraction of our use. Alternative energy would first affect the electricity markets. That demand drop alone would crash prices. There is the problem. Big Oil knows that. They spend a lot of money behind the scenes to convince the American people that alternative energy is a waste of time. Fusion will be practical. Solar is now practical and will become more efficient. Well yeah, the future will be different. You read it here first [:D] But your points are well made. Here is something that might interest you . . . a future overabundant supply of oil . . . Until very recently, our collective assumption was that oil was running out. That was partly a matter of what seemed like geological common sense. It took millions of years for the earth to crush plankton into fossil fuels; it is logical to think that it would take millions of years to create more. The rise of the emerging markets, with their energy-hungry billions, was a further reason it seemed obvious we would have less oil and gas in 2020 than we do today. Obvious – but wrong. Thanks in part to technologies like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking, we are entering a new age of abundant oil. As the energy expert Leonardo Maugeri contends in a recent report published by the Belfer Center at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, “contrary to what most people believe, oil supply capacity is growing worldwide at such an unprecedented level that it might outpace consumption.” Maugeri, a research fellow at the Belfer Center and a former oil industry executive, bases that assertion on a field-by-field analysis of most of the major oil exploration and development projects in the world. He concludes that “by 2020, the world’s oil production capacity could be more than 110 million barrels per day, an increase of almost 20 percent.” Four countries will lead the coming oil boom: Iraq, the United States, Canada and Brazil. http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2012/08/09/the-coming-glut-in-oil-%e2%80%93-and-its-impact/

Hillwilliam -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/12/2012 7:38:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Obvious – but wrong. Thanks in part to technologies like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking, we are entering a new age of abundant oil. I have a hard time taking someone seriously who says that hydraulic fracking is a technique for oil extraction. It's a gas extraction technique, not oil. I mean, would you take a mechanic seriously if he told you that he wanted to change the spark plugs in your diesel engine? Key words here. "and a former oil industry executive,"

Musicmystery -> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses (8/12/2012 7:47:59 AM)
And fracking is super destructive. Count me among NY's avid opposition. Pennsylvania can keep their (literally) flaming water.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125