Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Liberal tolerance


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Liberal tolerance Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/17/2014 1:40:37 AM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline 		As pointed out in previous links, the 'uncertainty' due to 'failure of climate to follow predictions' is a dead issue with the inclusion of recently compiled and published comprehensive Arctic on-the-ground and satellite data not included in the IPCC original assessment and the new studies showing the large scale warming in middle depths of the S. Pacific. There is now no 'missing heat' and the predictions are closely matching total known earth caloric increases. It just isn't showing up where expected from previous measurements. If people want to poke holes in Global Warming, they need to keep up with current research, as must credible 'deniers'.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/17/2014 10:42:21 AM   
Phydeaux


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

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

As pointed out in previous links, the 'uncertainty' due to 'failure of climate to follow predictions' is a dead issue with the inclusion of recently compiled and published comprehensive Arctic on-the-ground and satellite data not included in the IPCC original assessment and the new studies showing the large scale warming in middle depths of the S. Pacific. There is now no 'missing heat' and the predictions are closely matching total known earth caloric increases. It just isn't showing up where expected from previous measurements. If people want to poke holes in Global Warming, they need to keep up with current research, as must credible 'deniers'.


Yes you pointed out that ice in antartica is melting. Ignoring the truth (or more precisely, lack of truth) in that statement.

"it just isn't showing up where expected" is the crux of the matter.

You (IPCC) oh so confidently predicted increased temperatures. They didn't occur. The theory is wrong.

(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/17/2014 1:11:00 PM   
DomKen


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

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

As pointed out in previous links, the 'uncertainty' due to 'failure of climate to follow predictions' is a dead issue with the inclusion of recently compiled and published comprehensive Arctic on-the-ground and satellite data not included in the IPCC original assessment and the new studies showing the large scale warming in middle depths of the S. Pacific. There is now no 'missing heat' and the predictions are closely matching total known earth caloric increases. It just isn't showing up where expected from previous measurements. If people want to poke holes in Global Warming, they need to keep up with current research, as must credible 'deniers'.


Yes you pointed out that ice in antartica is melting. Ignoring the truth (or more precisely, lack of truth) in that statement.

"it just isn't showing up where expected" is the crux of the matter.

You (IPCC) oh so confidently predicted increased temperatures. They didn't occur. The theory is wrong.

We are experiencing increased temps. You are simply lying again.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/17/2014 3:30:47 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

As pointed out in previous links, the 'uncertainty' due to 'failure of climate to follow predictions' is a dead issue with the inclusion of recently compiled and published comprehensive Arctic on-the-ground and satellite data not included in the IPCC original assessment and the new studies showing the large scale warming in middle depths of the S. Pacific. There is now no 'missing heat' and the predictions are closely matching total known earth caloric increases. It just isn't showing up where expected from previous measurements. If people want to poke holes in Global Warming, they need to keep up with current research, as must credible 'deniers'.


Yes you pointed out that ice in antartica is melting. Ignoring the truth (or more precisely, lack of truth) in that statement.

"it just isn't showing up where expected" is the crux of the matter.

You (IPCC) oh so confidently predicted increased temperatures. They didn't occur. The theory is wrong.


So where "IS" it showing up ?



(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/17/2014 7:57:42 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


You (IPCC) oh so confidently predicted increased temperatures. They didn't occur. The theory is wrong.

Perhaps you might like to revise your claim in view of this graph, which clearly demonstrates that world temps have been increasing steadily and consistently this century. source

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 5/17/2014 8:00:44 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/17/2014 8:51:35 PM   
Louve00


Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline 		Perhaps 'climate change' and not global warming should really be the proper term. If you've ever watched a series called The Cosmos, narrated by Carl Sagan, you would know the climate of the earth has changed many times. It's changed even, and more than once or even twice, before our species came along. If we realize that it's changing now...at or not at man's cause...we have to wonder if it's time for our species to make room for another.

On another, more positive note than our species existence ( impending non-existance), I read this the other day.

_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/17/2014 10:01:51 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

On another, more positive note than our species existence ( impending non-existance), I read this the other day.

I got a pop-up at that link which included in its message the advice that if it didn't appear, you should refresh the page.

K.

(in reply to Louve00)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/18/2014 3:14:38 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

Perhaps 'climate change' and not global warming should really be the proper term. If you've ever watched a series called The Cosmos, narrated by Carl Sagan, you would know the climate of the earth has changed many times. It's changed even, and more than once or even twice, before our species came along. If we realize that it's changing now...at or not at man's cause...we have to wonder if it's time for our species to make room for another.

On another, more positive note than our species existence ( impending non-existance), I read this the other day.

The link that you kindly supplied looks utterly fascinating. Thank you so much.

We have had a few threads here discussing the nature of consciousness, and whether consciousness has a non- or extra-material aspect to it. Lanza's ideas provide another intriguing contribution to that discussion. Again thanks.

_____________________________



(in reply to Louve00)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/18/2014 5:05:46 AM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

There is little to no evidence that D/O cycles occur outside of glacial periods and within interglacial periods. If they do occur their effects are minuscule and range from mild periods to cold periods, not hot periods.


Says the person I had to teach they existed.

Also to be noted: Not true.
But even if it *were* true there have, in fact, been thousands of such cycles. Hell man, there are a hundred or so documented since the eemian. And thats just a blink of an eye - what 150K years ago?


Absolutely fucking wrong, the evidence that DO cycles even happened came from the Greenland ice cores, which while they have stretched back to Eemian, only 25 of these cycles have been documented since the last glaciation. And if you decide to argue bond events instead, only 8 of these have been documented since the last glaciation. Once again I explain that DO events we're tied to the bipolar seesaw, where when it got colder in the north it got hotter in the south, and vice versa. The warming we are currently seeing World Wide has not been that of the seesaw, but that of a world wide warming event happening at the same time. If this was a DO event, we would see places like South America and Australia reporting cooler temperatures on average and we would be seeing Antarctica growing in land ice volume, not decreasing. As a result, DO events have been completely ruled out. Not to mention that since the end of the glacial period it's obvious that these DO events were getting weaker, giving more hints to the idea that DO events we're stronger during times of glaciation. I dislike using Wikipedia, but I thought it may be better to use it to drive the reality home since you have difficulty accepting "liberally biased sources" like SS. C'mon man, you may have introduced me to DO cycles, but you didn't teach me anything of value besides the name. Go get a proper education.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard–Oeschger_event
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event

Lastly, why does your whole hypothesis hinge on a cycle which is still contested? Some scientists still don't see it as a proper cycle simply because of the fact that it's quasi-periodical and because it's magnitude of cooling isn't always the same each cycle. If your denial hinges on a concept which is still under scrutiny, then you really need to look in the mirror and ask why you so obsessively deny the existence of AGW.

< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 5/18/2014 5:28:49 AM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/18/2014 5:24:58 AM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline 		Double post

< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 5/18/2014 5:25:32 AM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/18/2014 5:59:18 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
Lastly, why does your whole hypothesis hinge on a cycle which is still contested? Some scientists still don't see it as a proper cycle simply because of the fact that it's quasi-periodical and because it's magnitude of cooling isn't always the same each cycle. If your denial hinges on a concept which is still under scrutiny, then you really need to look in the mirror and ask why you so obsessively deny the existence of AGW.


I'm not going to speak for Phydeaux, but, maybe you should look in the mirror, too. The concept of AGW is still under scrutiny.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/18/2014 7:33:55 AM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline 		By who? People who either don't understand it or people who make a profit from convincing people tha it doesn't exist? If you follow the sciences, you reach a conclusion. Do the research for yourself, formulate the questions and you'll fond the answers.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/18/2014 7:52:47 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
By who? People who either don't understand it or people who make a profit from convincing people tha it doesn't exist? If you follow the sciences, you reach a conclusion. Do the research for yourself, formulate the questions and you'll fond the answers.


By other climate scientists.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/18/2014 9:03:48 AM   
DomKen


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

ORIGINAL: Louve00

Perhaps 'climate change' and not global warming should really be the proper term. If you've ever watched a series called The Cosmos, narrated by Carl Sagan, you would know the climate of the earth has changed many times. It's changed even, and more than once or even twice, before our species came along. If we realize that it's changing now...at or not at man's cause...we have to wonder if it's time for our species to make room for another.

On another, more positive note than our species existence ( impending non-existance), I read this the other day.

Unfortunately the article in question misunderstands the book.
Here is a less mangled view of the philosophy of the book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe

basically the book argues that biology not physics should be the foundation for viewing the universe.

(in reply to Louve00)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/18/2014 9:09:25 AM   
DomKen


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

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
Lastly, why does your whole hypothesis hinge on a cycle which is still contested? Some scientists still don't see it as a proper cycle simply because of the fact that it's quasi-periodical and because it's magnitude of cooling isn't always the same each cycle. If your denial hinges on a concept which is still under scrutiny, then you really need to look in the mirror and ask why you so obsessively deny the existence of AGW.


I'm not going to speak for Phydeaux, but, maybe you should look in the mirror, too. The concept of AGW is still under scrutiny.


All science is always under scrutiny but  at this point it is simply ridiculous to imagine the possibility that CO2 is not a photon trap. It is also ridiculous to even speculate that the rapid change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is not causative to the observed climatic changes the planet has experienced.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/18/2014 9:42:26 AM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
By who? People who either don't understand it or people who make a profit from convincing people tha it doesn't exist? If you follow the sciences, you reach a conclusion. Do the research for yourself, formulate the questions and you'll fond the answers.


By other climate scientists.



If you ask a geologist if the earth is round or flat, he'll tell you it's round. If the flat earth society payed him a quarter of a million a year to say otherwise, would you still believe him because he's a geologist?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/18/2014 11:36:12 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
If you ask a geologist if the earth is round or flat, he'll tell you it's round. If the flat earth society payed him a quarter of a million a year to say otherwise, would you still believe him because he's a geologist?


Not really.
The Earth is an oblate spheroid. Flatter at the poles with a belly bulge.

Those are only differences that matter if you are doing cartography, writing software for a GPS, navagating a ship, flying an airplane, or firing a missile.

The devil jumped out and bit me in the details. <grin>

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/18/2014 11:54:46 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
By who? People who either don't understand it or people who make a profit from convincing people tha it doesn't exist? If you follow the sciences, you reach a conclusion. Do the research for yourself, formulate the questions and you'll fond the answers.

By other climate scientists.

If you ask a geologist if the earth is round or flat, he'll tell you it's round. If the flat earth society payed him a quarter of a million a year to say otherwise, would you still believe him because he's a geologist?


Certainly wouldn't. That's why I'm skeptical of all those who are getting funding to show AGW exists, too.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/18/2014 4:33:07 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm not going to speak for Phydeaux, but, maybe you should look in the mirror, too. The concept of AGW is still under scrutiny.

Only by morons

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/18/2014 4:34:58 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

As pointed out in previous links, the 'uncertainty' due to 'failure of climate to follow predictions' is a dead issue with the inclusion of recently compiled and published comprehensive Arctic on-the-ground and satellite data not included in the IPCC original assessment and the new studies showing the large scale warming in middle depths of the S. Pacific. There is now no 'missing heat' and the predictions are closely matching total known earth caloric increases. It just isn't showing up where expected from previous measurements. If people want to poke holes in Global Warming, they need to keep up with current research, as must credible 'deniers'.


Yes you pointed out that ice in antartica is melting. Ignoring the truth (or more precisely, lack of truth) in that statement.

"it just isn't showing up where expected" is the crux of the matter.

You (IPCC) oh so confidently predicted increased temperatures. They didn't occur. The theory is wrong.


So where "IS" it showing up ?






As Diana Ross once sang "I`m still waiting"

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Liberal tolerance Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.125