Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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 >> Liberal tolerance Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 5:09:45 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
As reported in the WSJ, today:

" On May 8, Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climate scientist and meteorologist, joined the advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group that questions the reliability of climate change and the costs of policies taken to address it. While Bengtsson maintains he'd always been a skeptic as any scientist ought to be, the foundation and climate-change skeptics proudly announced it as a defection from the scientific consensus.

Less than a week later, he says he's been forced to resign from the group. The abuse he's received from the climate-science community has made it impossible to carry on his academic work and made him fear for his own safety. A once-peaceful community, he says in his resignation letter, now reminds him of McCarthyism.

"I had not expect[ed] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life," he wrote in his resignation. "Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship."

Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 5:12:32 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Oh.. and a quick fact check for global warmers.


The IPCC says climate warming is caused by Co2.
Over thousands of times in our past, temperatures (and CO2 concentrations) have been much higher than now.

So my question for you is: if you really think that co2 (and co2 alone) is responsble for global warming - then where did the carbon go. How did we get to the point where we have *lower* temperatures today.

Its not a facetious question. I use it to point out the obvious - that there are other mechanisms involved - and in fact other mechanisms that are more strongly involved than mere atmoshperic CO2.


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 5:20:03 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
First of all what the fuck does that have to do with liberals or tolerance?

And they were quoting another nutsacker, from another nutsacker dipshit rag nobody (the National Review, Buckley turning over in his grave at this shoddy shit) said he said that.

It is of dubious accuracy and certainly of no veracity, and it also points out the fuckin Daily Mail articles, and we know it is nutsacker asswipe from the inception, since it says 'he says in his resignation letter, now reminds him of mccarthyism. It then quotes him saying something completely different.


Yup, so some lazy bastard nutsacker didnt get his column done so robs a national review nutsacker op ed that includes the daily mail as a credible source in his eyes......we know its fuckin stupid.


Epic Fail

*snicker*

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 5:29:34 PM   
DomKen


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

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Oh.. and a quick fact check for global warmers.


The IPCC says climate warming is caused by Co2.
Over thousands of times in our past, temperatures (and CO2 concentrations) have been much higher than now.

So my question for you is: if you really think that co2 (and co2 alone) is responsble for global warming - then where did the carbon go. How did we get to the point where we have *lower* temperatures today.

Its not a facetious question. I use it to point out the obvious - that there are other mechanisms involved - and in fact other mechanisms that are more strongly involved than mere atmoshperic CO2.



Carbon was sunk into fossil carbon, dead animal and plant matter buried under ground and water and a variety or mineralogical processes that serve to sink carbon.

The fact that you didn't understand such a basic concept shows how scientifically illiterate you truly are.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 5:35:03 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
My god you moron, there are other GHG such as methane which are also contributing. But when you have an initial variable which is increasing at such a rate that CO2 is, then there is obviously going to be a reaction.

Not to mention that yes, CO2 was higher in the past to compensate for a dimmer sun. If you even understood the life cycle of stars you'd understand that they get progressively hotter over time until (stars like our own) reach the Red Giant stage. The earth moderates it's temperature through a variety of factors, and as the sun became hotter, the CO2 decreased accordingly.

How did we get to the point where we have lower temperatures today? Well, that's easy. A major factor is biology, and the other is weathering. As the sun increased it's radiance over time, it supplied more energy for plant matter and micro organisms to take up CO2. This then resulted in the CO2 becoming deposited and became embedded in the rock/crust reservoirs. The other factors is that the various processes that expose fresh rock can allow for carbonic acid to weather the rocks.


Yes there are other factors in play when it comes to climate, but when you have a scale and you start adding gold nuggets to one side and grains of sand to the other, it's not going to be equal any longer.

You really need to update your education, all of these answers were literally answered in the class I just took.

< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 5/16/2014 5:36:27 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 5:35:26 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The fact that you didn't understand such a basic concept shows how scientifically illiterate you truly are.


Well, someone is.


_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 5:36:53 PM   
Tkman117


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The fact that you didn't understand such a basic concept shows how scientifically illiterate you truly are.


Well, someone is.



LOL, that's rich coming from you of all people

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 5:41:20 PM   
MistressMeghanH


Posts: 12
Joined: 5/16/2014
Status: offline
What does one's sexual predilections have to do with politics ? Sheesh.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 6:03:12 PM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Oh.. and a quick fact check for global warmers.


The IPCC says climate warming is caused by Co2.
Over thousands of times in our past, temperatures (and CO2 concentrations) have been much higher than now.

So my question for you is: if you really think that co2 (and co2 alone) is responsble for global warming - then where did the carbon go. How did we get to the point where we have *lower* temperatures today.

Its not a facetious question. I use it to point out the obvious - that there are other mechanisms involved - and in fact other mechanisms that are more strongly involved than mere atmoshperic CO2.



At this I have to say the credibility of your having read ANY 2000 or so papers on Global Warming is not credible. IPCC and others see CO2 as a Major climate warming driver, Not the only one. It's more human sourced than volcanic gases and positive feedbacks such as methane from melting perm frost.
What term is used for oil and coal carbon energy sources? "Historic" carbon, plant and animal remains buried during the hot spells that were feet to miles thick deposits of such unrecycled material accumulated in circumstances where the carbon Wasn't liberated back into the dynamic cycles of the era. Oxygen deficient water, fresh or salt, doesn't support the bacterial action that quickly frees carbon to the atmosphere. Huge areas of swamp in much of N. America and other continents were under shallow seas for up to hundreds of millions of years when sea levels were up to 300 ft higher than now. Our coal and 'fossil oil' deposits that accumulated through a number of different era, ('Carboniferous' ring a bell?) are being 'recycled' to the atmosphere by industrial processes in far less than a percent of the time it took to accumulate them. No natural process can cope with our additional carbon load to the atmosphere and the acidification of the seas. (the length of recovery required from the major volcanic outpourings such as the Siberian and Indian 'Deccan Traps' show how fast That works. WHY scientists measuring the problem are desperately trying to get public policy makers and industrialists to change course and adapt sustainable energy sources and manufacturing processes that Don't continue to liberate millions of years of carbon deposits in a couple of centuries or decades of human technological culture.

Did I mention the huge deposits of frozen clatherates (We'll wait while you Wikipedia it.) on the deep sea bottoms, another Many millions of years long accumulation of sequestered carbon as past ages 'stored' energy ultimately from the Sun,) that likely Will liberate equally warming amounts (Probably more, than the CO2 problem) of Methane (A more potent greenhouse gas) if the ocean bottoms warm more than about a degree. Plans to 'mine' it probably will be tried; if the resulting carbon that liberates isn't sequestered from the biosphere, we simply won't recognize the map of Earth a century on.

Simple calculations show sunshine on currently unused parts of the planet would supply more than enough energy for at least the next century. That and other sustainable, non-carbon liberating processes (Concrete curing out is a Major CO2 contributor!) won't happen with corporations politically blocking any serious investment in photovoltaic or other sources and power distribution technology that cuts their profits from the present CLEARLY unsustainable energy, industrial and agribusiness practices today for immense profits. The damage will cost More to fix and they won't be here then. YOU and your children reap the whirlwind of trying to restore a liveable planet before urban/technological civilization disappears.

And stop embarrassing yourself saying 'thousands of times in the past'. Warmer periods since life emerged as a biosphere force lasted Millions and Hundreds of Millions of years longer than temperate or ice age climate. The number of cycles between the extremes are quite few. Any text on geography and climate should have graphs even deniers can understand of the history of sea levels and of climate means/averages. The recent ice ages advance and retreat of ice cover of the N. hemisphere are about as dynamic as it gets.

< Message edited by epiphiny43 -- 5/16/2014 6:19:02 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 6:11:44 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Scientists In Cover-Up Of ‘Damaging’ Climate View

Date: 16/05/14
Ben Webster, The Times

Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.

Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published. “The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” he added.

Professor Bengtsson’s paper challenged the finding of the UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

It suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out “to reduce the underlying uncertainty”.

The five contributing scientists, from America and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected.

A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was “less than helpful”.

The unnamed scientist concluded: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”

Professor Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of Lord Lawson of Blaby’s climate sceptic think-tank this week after being subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics.

Lord Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor, said that the pressure exerted by other climate scientists had been appalling and the comparison with McCarthyism was “fully warranted”.

The claims are a stark reminder of events at the University of East Anglia in 2009. Scientists there were accused of manipulating data and suppressing critics of global warming predictions in the run-up to the crucial Copenhagen climate change conference.

They were later cleared, though the IPCC was found to have misrepresented their research by failing to reflect uncertainties over raw temperature data.

Professor Bengtsson, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, said he accepted that emissions would increase the global average temperature but the key question was how quickly.

He added that it was “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.”

Scientists from around the world sent messages of support to Professor Bengtsson.

(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 6:19:28 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

He's a member of the flat earth society.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 6:20:30 PM   
Phydeaux


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Oh.. and a quick fact check for global warmers.


The IPCC says climate warming is caused by Co2.
Over thousands of times in our past, temperatures (and CO2 concentrations) have been much higher than now.

So my question for you is: if you really think that co2 (and co2 alone) is responsble for global warming - then where did the carbon go. How did we get to the point where we have *lower* temperatures today.

Its not a facetious question. I use it to point out the obvious - that there are other mechanisms involved - and in fact other mechanisms that are more strongly involved than mere atmoshperic CO2.



Carbon was sunk into fossil carbon, dead animal and plant matter buried under ground and water and a variety or mineralogical processes that serve to sink carbon.

The fact that you didn't understand such a basic concept shows how scientifically illiterate you truly are.



I understand the processes very well actually. As well of the magnitude of the uptake, and "sinks".

You answer the question exactly correctly. And thereby demonstrate the ipcc to be, in a word, wrong.

The point(s) which you so richly missed - is that *if* warmer and higher temperatures occured in the past

a). There are other processes that impact "global warming" and indeed may be larger than carbon forcing.
b). That the "irreversible" climate change alarmists natter on about, is in fact, reversible. As it has reversed many many times in the past.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 6:22:06 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Speaking of other factors....

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CE8QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lancaster.ac.uk%2Fstaff%2Fmaherb%2Fpapers%2FMaherProsperoetal.EarthSciRevsMarch%25202010.pdf&ei=z7h2U9aGOM2hqAb_pIGIBw&usg=AFQjCNGeToVfXl92xwgokJGv-UDNH_MkQA&bvm=bv.66917471,d.b2k

A study that links climate change strongly to dust....

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 6:31:28 PM   
Phydeaux


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Oh.. and a quick fact check for global warmers.


The IPCC says climate warming is caused by Co2.
Over thousands of times in our past, temperatures (and CO2 concentrations) have been much higher than now.

So my question for you is: if you really think that co2 (and co2 alone) is responsble for global warming - then where did the carbon go. How did we get to the point where we have *lower* temperatures today.

Its not a facetious question. I use it to point out the obvious - that there are other mechanisms involved - and in fact other mechanisms that are more strongly involved than mere atmoshperic CO2.




1. Did I mention the huge deposits of frozen clatherates (We'll wait while you Wikipedia it.) on the deep sea bottoms...

2. Simple calculations show sunshine on currently unused parts of the planet would supply more than enough energy for at least the next century...

3. And stop embarrassing yourself saying 'thousands of times in the past'. Warmer periods since life emerged as a biosphere force lasted Millions and Hundreds of Millions of years longer than temperate or ice age climate. The number of cycles between the extremes are quite few. Any text on geography and climate should have graphs even deniers can understand of the history of sea levels and of climate means/averages. The recent ice ages advance and retreat of ice cover of the N. hemisphere are about as dynamic as it gets.



1. As for me not understanding about klathrates.. you're rather late to the dance party - as I've written on them in these forums more than a dozen times, including the fact that Japan has introduced its first klathrate platform - and has more than 200 years supplies off its coasts.

2. Really. Lets see you run the calcuations. Because frankly I don't think you have the mathematic or engineer profs to do so.
Solar currently supplies - oh call it 2% of american power. Do you really propose to cover 1/3 of the united states and triple the cost of electricity?

Yeah. That will work.

3. D/K D/O etc cycles happen every 1000 years or so. Ie. one thousand times in a million years. The earth is 4 billion years old. Life has been on earth approximately 3.5 billion years. Sooooo.. a simple review of math reveals.. yes, indeed it is in fact.. thousands of times.

Perhaps you ought read more.




(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 6:41:25 PM   
Tkman117


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

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 6:45:29 PM   
Phydeaux


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

ORIGINAL: Tkman117


Not to mention that yes, CO2 was higher in the past to compensate for a dimmer sun. If you even understood the life cycle of stars you'd understand that they get progressively hotter over time until (stars like our own) reach the Red Giant stage. The earth moderates it's temperature through a variety of factors, and as the sun became hotter, the CO2 decreased accordingly.

You really need to update your education, all of these answers were literally answered in the class I just took.


You really need to go to a real school.

the life span of our sun will be - call it 10 billion years. This means the change per year is something like 1E-10.

Or to be more graphic for you: the change in the sun's luminosity due to the life cycle of the stars is .0003% since the age of the dinosaurs.

Or to make it even a little more clear just how bad your classes are:

The 11 year sunspot cycle chance the luminosity of the sun by about .1%. Or about 3 thousand percent more than change due to the senescence of the sun.....

Might I suggest poli sci?


< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 5/16/2014 6:46:04 PM >

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 6:51:29 PM   
Phydeaux


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

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?

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 8:09:23 PM   
DomKen


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

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Oh.. and a quick fact check for global warmers.


The IPCC says climate warming is caused by Co2.
Over thousands of times in our past, temperatures (and CO2 concentrations) have been much higher than now.

So my question for you is: if you really think that co2 (and co2 alone) is responsble for global warming - then where did the carbon go. How did we get to the point where we have *lower* temperatures today.

Its not a facetious question. I use it to point out the obvious - that there are other mechanisms involved - and in fact other mechanisms that are more strongly involved than mere atmoshperic CO2.



Carbon was sunk into fossil carbon, dead animal and plant matter buried under ground and water and a variety or mineralogical processes that serve to sink carbon.

The fact that you didn't understand such a basic concept shows how scientifically illiterate you truly are.



I understand the processes very well actually. As well of the magnitude of the uptake, and "sinks".

You answer the question exactly correctly. And thereby demonstrate the ipcc to be, in a word, wrong.

The point(s) which you so richly missed - is that *if* warmer and higher temperatures occured in the past

They definitely did occur. So that is not even up for discussion.

quote:

a). There are other processes that impact "global warming" and indeed may be larger than carbon forcing.
b). That the "irreversible" climate change alarmists natter on about, is in fact, reversible. As it has reversed many many times in the past.

You are a fucking fool.
It is a fact that CO2 levels were much much higher at times in the distant past when the planet was also much hotter. So hot that humanity would likely not have been able to survive. The simple fact is that the sequestering of so much carbon has allowed the planet to cool to a point where our civilization is possible.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 8:12:11 PM   
DomKen


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

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Speaking of other factors....

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CE8QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lancaster.ac.uk%2Fstaff%2Fmaherb%2Fpapers%2FMaherProsperoetal.EarthSciRevsMarch%25202010.pdf&ei=z7h2U9aGOM2hqAb_pIGIBw&usg=AFQjCNGeToVfXl92xwgokJGv-UDNH_MkQA&bvm=bv.66917471,d.b2k

A study that links climate change strongly to dust....

You completely failed to understand that paper.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Liberal tolerance - 5/16/2014 8:14:35 PM   
DesideriScuri


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

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Scientists In Cover-Up Of ‘Damaging’ Climate View
Date: 16/05/14
Ben Webster, The Times
Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.


The problem is, unless it's proven, it can be claimed all they want. I can claim all sorts of things about why someone did something, but without proof, I have nothing, other than opinion. This could easily be "sour grapes" and not really suppression.

_____________________________

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 Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Liberal tolerance Page: [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