Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/8/2014 9:21:23 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


a). The science is bullshit.



No it isn't.

quote:



b). The prescription (that the us should switch to solar/wind) would have the net effect of INCREASING carbon emissions, driving jobs overseas, and drastically increasing power prices here, and decrease the reliability of the power grid.



Nope.

quote:


c). Because the best return on investment (as several papers not just the famous yale paper) has shown is to do NOTHING. Better results are obtained by growing the economy now and dealing with the problems later.



Errr nope.


_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/8/2014 9:25:44 AM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline 		Lets just put it this way, I agree with normal conservative positions in some cases, but those who label themselves conservatives down in the US range from extreme to taliban-like in thoughts and ideologies. True conservatives down in the US likely affiliate themselves with the Dems since the entire spectrum has shifted. If it's bigoted to call the Taliban insane, then I'm a bigot and I embrace it completely. If it's bigoted to call the US Taliban insane, then I again embrace it. Unless things begin to shift back towards the centre, there is little reason to treat conservatives with respect since their extremism is what has caused the majority of problems in your country.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/8/2014 10:25:32 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Phydeaux, seriously, doesn't it bother you that you hold such an extremist position on climate change? I thought you rightie types prided yourself on being down to earth and balanced, and stuff. Why do you side with the fruitcake scientists on this subject alone?


Are you sure because I thought it was the lefties that were supposed to be down to earth and balanced. Oh well based on the number of extremists on both sides of the fence I would say it's a mute point either way. As to why he believes the scientists, I would say for the same reason the extremists on the left believe everything the ones on the left tell them. It shores up what they are saying and they like that.


Climate change supporters are the vast majority, THB. They are middle of the road. I know some righties have ploughed plenty of energy, not to say money, in trying to convince us all otherwise, but it just ain't so.


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/8/2014 8:39:37 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Lets just put it this way, I agree with normal conservative positions in some cases, but those who label themselves conservatives down in the US range from extreme to taliban-like in thoughts and ideologies. True conservatives down in the US likely affiliate themselves with the Dems since the entire spectrum has shifted. If it's bigoted to call the Taliban insane, then I'm a bigot and I embrace it completely. If it's bigoted to call the US Taliban insane, then I again embrace it. Unless things begin to shift back towards the centre, there is little reason to treat conservatives with respect since their extremism is what has caused the majority of problems in your country.


If you think that helps your case in any way you are wrong.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/8/2014 9:48:23 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

'600 page litany of doom': Weather Channel Co-Founder John Coleman slams Federal climate report: A ‘total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk’

Coleman: 'When the temperature data could no longer be bent to support global warming, they switched to climate change and now blame every weather and climate event on CO2 despite the hard, cold fact that the “radiative forcing” theory they built their claims on has totally failed to verify.'

'The current bad science is all based on a theory that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the exhaust of the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in “the greenhouse effect” causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the 2.6 billion dollars of year of Federal grants for global warming/climate change research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.'




Yea, I am going disbelieve a man whose opinion is bought with a small infinitesimal portion of that $2.6 billion rather believe the greedy capitalist scum who profit to the tune of exponentially more 10's of billion$ every year in profit from spewing CO2 into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. Suuureee

That's make a whole lotta sense. Those $2.6 billion pale in comparison to the onslaught of $billions spent on filling the skies with what obviously is a fucking greenhouse gas if one just uses his basic logic to look at the planet Venus.

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/8/2014 10:56:18 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Snicker. I have read well north of 2000 climate papers.



In my experience, "reading" doesn't always equate with "Understanding"

quote:




And there are hundreds of papers that disagree with the IPCC theory of global warming.

Hell for that matter the IPCC's data doesn't agree with their theory either.

So, I suggest you read CERN's experiments on aerosol formation especially the endpapers (which are hard to find) and then Svenmark's research on ionizing radiation and cloud formation.

Both are completely devestating to the IPCC model.


Neither are completely devestating [sic] to the IPCC model. As it happens, if you actually cared about the facts, and if you had actually read and understood enough research you'd know very well that the "cosmic rays" myth has been debunked many many times.

Snicker.


_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/9/2014 2:47:56 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
Neither are completely devestating [sic] to the IPCC model. As it happens, if you actually cared about the facts, and if you had actually read and understood enough research you'd know very well that the "cosmic rays" myth has been debunked many many times.

Snicker.


The funny thing is I've dealt with the "cosmic rays form clouds which will drastically cool the Earth" nonsense twice now and he just handwaved away the results including statements by the researchers themselves.

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/9/2014 9:02:50 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline 		Cosmic rays causing a cloud? Sure do. A cloud of highly charged particles called the "Van Allen Belt". Nothing to do with changing the insulating properties of the air and cooling the earth. It is linked to the ozone layer in the atmosphere though.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/9/2014 10:12:53 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Snicker. I have read well north of 2000 climate papers.



In my experience, "reading" doesn't always equate with "Understanding"

quote:




And there are hundreds of papers that disagree with the IPCC theory of global warming.

Hell for that matter the IPCC's data doesn't agree with their theory either.

So, I suggest you read CERN's experiments on aerosol formation especially the endpapers (which are hard to find) and then Svenmark's research on ionizing radiation and cloud formation.

Both are completely devestating to the IPCC model.


Neither are completely devestating [sic] to the IPCC model. As it happens, if you actually cared about the facts, and if you had actually read and understood enough research you'd know very well that the "cosmic rays" myth has been debunked many many times.

Snicker.



I've read the debunking. To put it mildly they are full of bunk.

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/9/2014 10:14:16 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Cosmic rays causing a cloud? Sure do. A cloud of highly charged particles called the "Van Allen Belt". Nothing to do with changing the insulating properties of the air and cooling the earth. It is linked to the ozone layer in the atmosphere though.


While what you say about the van allen belts is true it is not relevent to this discussion.

My topic is actually ionizing radiation (not merely 'cosmic rays') causing low level tropospheric cloud cover.

Which does in fact, cool the earth.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/9/2014 10:46:25 AM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline 		So do brown clouds, other aerosols, and other many different variables which would constitute a very long list. But when you have something which off sets those values such as a massive increase in a group of chemicals which trap infrared radiation and keep it within the atmosphere, you see a net increase in temperature, which has and is being seen in the global temperature averages on a yearly basis. There are many variables in the climate system which contribute to it's function, but to pick it apart and say "well this part cools the earth so the climate can't be warming" is akin to not liking bread because you don't like the taste of flour.

< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 5/9/2014 10:50:40 AM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/9/2014 10:57:58 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

So do brown clouds, other aerosols, and other many different variables which would constitute a very long list. But when you have something which off sets those values such as a massive increase in a group of chemicals which trap infrared radiation and keep it within the atmosphere, you see a net increase in temperature, which has and is being seen in the global temperature averages on a yearly basis. There are many variables in the climate system which contribute to it's function, but to pick it apart and say "well this part cools the earth so the climate can't be warming" is like being picky about bread because you don't like the taste of flour.


Nor is that my position.

The IPCC theories (graphs provided) posit UNLIMITED forcing due to CO2 concentration.

Which is frankly, clear nonsense. I've outline more than a dozen papers for you that suggest that the limit to co2 forcing is limited to probably 2 degrees from our baseline (or .8 degrees higher than now).

We agree that climate is a complicated phenomenon. And dozens of things factor into it - from albedo, solar variation (minor), c02, Pacific and Atlantic duodenal (and other) oscillations.


So the IPCC modals which focus almost exclusively on CO2 concentration are wrong. As anyone with eyes can see because the data stopped matching the modals around 1997.

And as I provided links previously, NASA and other organizations have said that the modals for aerosol formation (and hence cloud cooling) are completely wrong in the IPCC report.

And they have said that the net factor of carbon dioxide absorption in the atmospheric column is WRONG.

In other words. If we have 400 ppm in the troposphere we can posit a certain amount of radiative warming. At various other altitudes however we don't know whether the net contribution is positive or negative. Hence nasa's report saying that the size of the net contribution of C02 in the atmospher is unknown.

Look I've been saying for 3 years now that the mean satellite temperatures are for all intents and purposes flat. By its very nature - as co2 concentrations have steadily risen this means that the IPCC cannot be correct as other factors must be occuring.

Will warming resume? Yes, I think it will, sometime between 2017 and 2030.
Will it resume with the same speed that occured in the 1980's? I am unsure, but I don't think so.

Are the doomsday predictions of eco-terrorists like yourself justified?
No.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 5/9/2014 10:58:41 AM >

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/9/2014 12:59:21 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Which is frankly, clear nonsense. I've outline more than a dozen papers for you that suggest that the limit to co2 forcing is limited to probably 2 degrees from our baseline (or .8 degrees higher than now).


You know you've made this claim several times but you've never actually done it.

Present one published peer reviewed paper that presents a mechanism that would limit CO2 forcing to 2 degrees C.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/9/2014 3:20:21 PM   
Sampleme


Posts: 8
Joined: 2/9/2013
Status: offline 		Well said!

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/10/2014 1:22:57 AM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline 		http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131113092217.htm Opps, wrong link earlier.
The linked study shows No pause in global warming, as expected when the most dynamic climate area lately is fully studied and included in the total biosphere caloric balance. During the supposed 'pause' the Arctic actually warmed, about 8 times faster than the rest of the planet. This along with similar now quantified mid ocean depth warming in the South Pacific changes our understanding by clearly eliminating the warming 'pause'. Which knocks not just holes but the whole foundation from under the deniers position that there is in reality any serious deviation from predictions of accelerating global warming in lockstep with atmospheric carbon and other greenhouse gasses.
ALL recent studies show rapidly changing Arctic ice albedo lowering due to anthropogenic and volcanic carbon particulate matter, which is increasing world wide, accelerating fastest in the Arctic. And here I thought particulates and ionizing radiation had increased cloud cover. Seems not.
Again, ionizing radiation may change cloud formation, It's not a major effect if the observed planetary balance is warming and the radiation is increasing. I'll guess Svenmark's theory needs a tweak or 3.

I really have to wonder just how over 2000 studies were chosen and read while completely missing virtually ALL the work on Antarctic ice caps and glaciers, where cap instability is increasing and flow velocity accelerating everywhere measured. The new EU satellite radar surface surveyor found parallel changes in the 6th larges ice cap on Earth, the Norwegian Austfonna Ice Cap, which has changed to flowing to the sea 10 times faster in the last decade. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27330321. Which is not an anomaly, but typical of most studied ice concentrations on the planet. Some warming pause!

< Message edited by epiphiny43 -- 5/10/2014 1:46:57 AM >

(in reply to Sampleme)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/10/2014 5:33:22 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline 		I'm pretty sure the shonky myth peddling climate denial sites don't provide links to that kind of paper.

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/11/2014 12:33:30 AM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline 		Yeah, I know. It's good science if it fits an agenda, obvious collusion, propaganda and conspiracy if it doesn't. The studies keep elaborating on just how complex and unanticipated so many feedbacks and interactions are, but no game changers yet in terms of overall accelerating global warming. On balance more new work shows faster unanticipated effects and positive feedbacks than moderating factors. It's Not looking fun to be a mid to late 21st Century Man.
A number of studies show if we solved the fossil carbon emissions today, it wouldn't make a substantial difference, as at least half the anthropogenic carbon is from land use changes, mostly cutting forest to graze beef, or now in the USA, ruin even more unsuitable soil and watershed with crops for methanol bio-fuels. Current land conversion to palm oil plantations world wide is the greatest assault on tropical rain forest since Man stood up on his back legs.
We not only have to stop eating off the top of the food chain and become a primarily vegetarian species again, restore much of the damaged or removed forest but also find ways to remove a third or more of present CO2 and other greenhouse gases before the positive feedback mechanisms create a climate that a huge part of humanity probably won't survive. Looks like a lot of the tropics simply won't be inhabitable by humans otherwise and far too much food growing area will be significantly degraded or eliminated from our agriculture inventory. The land loss from any significant sea level rise impacts a startling percentage of both urban and third world humanity. There simply isn't any place for them to live or grow food without displacing other people. Which is code for invade and kill.

What the climate change deniers keep trying to do with all the red herrings about agenda driven funding and such is to make everyone think climate and Earth scientists are sitting around in offices being paid to drag shit out of their ass like the deniers are. The actual science of climate change is being written by the people taking the trouble to go out there and LOOK and MEASURE the planet and it's changes. Those recording what dates spring flowers bloom, migratory animals shift environments, snow melts in mountains and plains, pulling up ice cores thousands of years old and measuring the gas concentrations, dropping temp and chemistry probes in deep oceans, measuring current glacial faces against historic photos and records, putting increasingly precise and novel ground, ice, temperature and water measuring instruments in orbit aren't making up their data, they don't have to. And their contemporaries cross check the work repeatedly, making the type of fraud so common in politics a career death in science. The reality says all that is needed to back up evolving ideas of what technological civilization has done to the biosphere.
If you want fraud, follow the money. Those being paid to spin data to show reality isn't happening are the same kind of morally destitute shills who worked for the tobacco companies 'producing' studies proving tobacco wasn't doing harm or had health issues. Nice guys. I suppose there are suckers who still believe them too.

< Message edited by epiphiny43 -- 5/11/2014 1:19:57 AM >

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/11/2014 6:16:57 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
If you want fraud, follow the money. Those being paid to spin data to show reality isn't happening are the same kind of morally destitute shills who worked for the tobacco companies 'producing' studies proving tobacco wasn't doing harm or had health issues. Nice guys. I suppose there are suckers who still believe them too.

Not the same sort. The same guys literally.

(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/11/2014 10:03:11 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131113092217.htm Opps, wrong link earlier.
The linked study shows No pause in global warming, as expected when the most dynamic climate area lately is fully studied and included in the total biosphere caloric balance. During the supposed 'pause' the Arctic actually warmed, about 8 times faster than the rest of the planet. This along with similar now quantified mid ocean depth warming in the South Pacific changes our understanding by clearly eliminating the warming 'pause'. Which knocks not just holes but the whole foundation from under the deniers position that there is in reality any serious deviation from predictions of accelerating global warming in lockstep with atmospheric carbon and other greenhouse gasses.


Weak paper. And saying "we know where the heat is going" doesn't change the fact that the average temperature has declined over the last 15 years.

And it doesn't change the fact that the IPCC model predicted they would increase.

(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 5/11/2014 10:04:48 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

I'm pretty sure the shonky myth peddling climate denial sites don't provide links to that kind of paper.


You're pretty sure cause you never even bother considering the other side of the equation.

the Nongovernment Panel on climate change has a library of more than 10,000 papers equally well sourced that disagree in whole or in part with the IPCC theory of global warming.

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109