Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 17, 2011 - 12:10pm PT
|
The Chief, I already showed you the definition of History, and how the claims of these record-breaking weather induced disaters are based on historic records. What's this with your "ever" charge now?
Also, you state, "Not static as the AGW science leads on that it is."
I am curious, please show me where the AGW science is static.
Thanks.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 12:13pm PT
|
Saw a Nat Geo show on rising sea levels last night. If ya gots a condo in
Miami ya better hope it is on an upper floor. And N'Awleans? Fuggetaboutit.
San Francisco ain't lookin' so hot either - they're talking a dam across the
Golden Gate! Oh, yeah, and one across the Pillars of Hercules. That one
will only cost $300 Billion! Sounds a bargain to me.
Oh, and y'all better leave Bangladesh tout de suite.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 12:24pm PT
|
Trying again to look at things from the Chief's point of view.
He has stated that he is living on a limited budget and has also expressed his concern
because of his budget he may have difficulty paying a "carbon tax" that might, maybe, someday be levied against him personally.
His financial concern is legitimate in light of his financial disclosure, and he has stated that this concern is part of his opposition to the science of climate change being accorded too much credibility.
It helps to keep in mind the motivation behind the positions that people take.
I can now better understand the Chief's personal opposition to this.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 01:19pm PT
|
Regarding fires, tornadoes, floods, huricanes, droughts and so forth --
Were they happening before humans came on the scene? Of course they were.
Are they related to climate? Of course they are.
So when climate changes, do the distributions of fires, tornadoes, etc. change as well? Of course they do. That's equally basic.
What people want to argue about is whether climate actually is changing now. Most scientists think so; evidence from thousands of studies show rising temperatures, melting ice, shifting species and other signs.
But what about extreme events? If climate is changing, the distribution of extreme events will change too. More drought some places, more floods in others. Studies of the past suggest what other states are possible; modeling work and close observation hint at where we might be heading.
It's tough to point at any one weather event and say "climate change caused this," but if the frequency of events is systematically shifting, that looks like yet another fingerprint of change. When the events are things we don't like, such as droughts, it's another reason for concern.
Many things caused climate change in the past, and all those forces still operate. The sun, volcanoes, orbital variation are closely studied. But you can subtract out those forcings and see that they don't come close to explaining what is happening now. We're changing the atmosphere of the planet.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 01:37pm PT
|
Climate is ALWAYS changing.
Of course, over long enough time scales. Nobody disagrees with that.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 17, 2011 - 01:47pm PT
|
Do you concur with statements posted above by K-man and Dr.F that include the verbiage "ever" within them?
Hmm, did I ever make a post claiming "ever?" Interesting reading comprehension there, The Chief.
BTW, which is a longer time period, ever or never?
The Chief, your bludgeoning posts tire me. Yet they pull me into making rash responses--kind of stooping to the level of the "conversation."
This thread is very interesting to me because so many folks with real scientific knowledge have posted many relevant things worthy of reading, they allow me to better understand the climate science and where we stand in the midst of it all. Thanks to those who have taken the time to post these things.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 01:50pm PT
|
Curious that Warmist's are so prone to self deception: thinking they can modify the climate. Luckily most people are not so gullible once they know the facts about the carbon credit ripoff scam.
Society's standard practice of heaping ridicule and shame is totally justified with these climate hoaxers.
Quickest way to get rid of them.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 01:59pm PT
|
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 17, 2011 - 02:07pm PT
|
Hey CC, as I recall, the data that was manipulated was done so to show that AGW was not occurring. Was there something I missed?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 17, 2011 - 02:08pm PT
|
The Chief--Please show a post of mine where I stated this "ever" think you keep trying to tie me to.
Otherwise, cease and desist!
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 02:22pm PT
|
Warmists are crying 'fire' in a crowded theater (which is not on fire) and then trying to charge an exit fee -carbon credits- from the frightened attendees to just get outside.
The 'big lie' can't work on an informed society.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 17, 2011 - 02:26pm PT
|
"in hisorty" and "ever" are stated several times within the video. -- The Chief
1) The words of the video narrative are not my words.
2) I already discussed the "hisorty" and placed it in context. Sorry you missed that--twice.
3) Exactly how many time does the narrative use the word "ever"?
4) Too bad that you watched that video and all you got out of it was your straw-man argument on the word "ever."
To me, your attempts at trying to put words in my mouth are a sign that you don't know what you're talking about, but are here to just harshly argue your opinions.
Nuff said.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 06:27pm PT
|
This is like arguing evolution vs. creationism. The creationists will question all evidence which paints a picture they don't like, and latch onto any possible doubt or missing information to try to say evolution is "just a theory". Which is fine but then they state how stupid and brainwashed people who believe in evolution are, and project many other faults in their thinking on the other side.
It's so obvious when someone's ideology drives their views, except to themselves I guess.
No one on the taco wants AGW and realizes they may have to sacrifice to deal with it, none of them has an "agenda" other than preserving our economy and environment. While plenty of folks on the taco don't want to face the possibility of AGW, because they don't to modify their lifestyles or have to pay anything to help anyone but themselves, so they come up with all kinds of strawmen, persecution complexes, twisted logic, and lies to justify their position.
There are plenty of ways to dispute AGW. There are plenty of ways to dispute AGW would cause significant problems. There are plenty of ways to claim the cost of preventing AGW is more than it's affects. But of course the deniers don't pick one of those, they claim all of them shifting from on denial reason to another, because it's not about logic and reason, it's about ideology, self delusion, and selfishness.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 06:48pm PT
|
Chief, I guess last night I when I used the whole house fan instead of turning on the A/C. Oh and this morning I recycled a milk jug.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 07:04pm PT
|
Ed - There are no stable conditions anywhere on the Earths surface.
Warmists working from such a fallacious premise is laughable. Just as the scare tactics to collect money to protect something that does not exist ie stable climate or weather.
Humans and our crops have evolved to survive these variations and will continue to do so while ignoring IPCC headlines of "Yer All Gonna Die!!"
But it is a clever scam. The question is will the unwashed masses buy it and fork over their money? I think not.
cheers
cc
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 07:30pm PT
|
Why didn't you just open your windows and not use any electrically powered mechanism to rotate the air and make you comfortable?
Because as I have said many times, but you keep choosing to ignore, we don't have to ELIMINATE all carbon emissions, we should probably just REDUCE them to a level that the Earth can handle to prevent a significant change to the climate.
We are doing this because neither of us wants to be involved/associated with society and all the propaganda policy political horseshet that it entails, such as AGW.
Puts your opinion on this whole AGW deal into perspective now.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 07:43pm PT
|
Basically the "warmists" are saying lets control the amount of co2 in the atmosphere because it is a greenhouse gas. We are playing with the composition of the Earth's atmosphere and the results could be disastrous.
The "deniers" are saying it doesn't matter if we have increased the amount of co2 in the atmosphere by 20% already and it will go much higher. We'll adapt and deal with any possible aftermath later.
To me that's like saying "I can't afford to change the oil in my car." If anything happens I'll fix it later.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 08:00pm PT
|
You may convince yourself it's a play on words chief, but it's paramount to the discussion. I guess it's a nice strawman argument you aren't willing to give up.
I've reduced my carbon emissions about 40%. Is it hypocrisy that it's not 0? No because we don't need to have 0 carbon emissions. The earth can absorb about 11 gigatonnes of co2 from humans a year. What we need to do is get to that level. Not have 0 emissions. Is that really that hard to understand?
And exactly how am I a part of this "scam". I have nothing to gain from efforts to reduce AGW. I'm skeptical so I look at the data and it leads me to believe AGW is highly likely and is going to cause problems for the environment and the economy. I think trying to reduce AGW is the right thing to do.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 08:12pm PT
|
Whether or NOT it is true that humans have contributed to global warming seems irrelevant at this point.
The bigger question seems to be if we humans, striving mightily collectively, could
make enough of a difference to change or even mitigate slightly the rise in temperatures.
And even if we could, what goal would be worth it, a half of a degree less increase
over say a period of decades? Assuming we could even measure such a thing?
And not a half a degree reduction, but a half a degree lessening in the trend?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 08:42pm PT
|
Norton, it's very relevant. Because that it the mechanism of change. Humans are most likely causing a very fast and significant change to the level of co2 in the atmosphere. So of course on of the easiest ways to reduce it is it address the cause.
I don't think we'll be able to agree on a goal. I think what will happen is we'll just take baby steps towards working on it, until we see very obvious economic and environmental impacts and then we will increase our efforts.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!