Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 20, 2013 - 01:47pm PT
|
Like shooting fish in a barrel:
I simply took the two sentences which clearly indicate that you stand firm on a fatalistic concept of fantasy.
Yes, a "fantasy" based on years of scientific study.
The fact is, no one really truly knows why it is warming.
Well, if you believe in the scientific method, we do have a very good idea of why it is warming.
However, if you believe to listen to the mis-information given our freely by those who want you to believe otherwise (other than the scientific method, that is), then yes, you would have no idea why the Earth is warming. But then neither would you have any idea how the keyboard you use to type with works.
Nor do they know the level or to what degree the planet will change as it or if it truly does warm.
More gibberish based on the other gibberish you wrote.
It is true that nobody knows the extent which the planet will change. Be we do know with certainty that it will change by growing warmer to the point that many adverse things will happen.
And we know this with with the certainty that we know that when you type your name Knotts on the keyboard, that it will indeed spell out Knotts.
You see, that is because the scientific method is very good at the things it sets out to do. Most adults realize this without needing to be told.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 02:07pm PT
|
Mr Crunch.
I did nothing of the sort.
In point of fact, yes you did misquote me.
The fact is, no one really truly knows why it is warming. Nor do they know the level or to what degree the planet will change as it or if it truly does warm.
Umm. that's confused. It seem pretty clear that human forcing, adding CO2, is creating some effect, driving change. But you are right that no one knows "to what degree the planet will change." That was my point, too. ;-)
I used "spectrum" and you used "degree" to indicate a level of uncertainty. We agree.
|
|
kennyt
climber
Woodfords,California
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 02:16pm PT
|
nitwits?
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
|
kenny nailed it
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 02:24pm PT
|
all other fellow realists-good job... your audience..
doesn't know jack sh#t about science or statistics
|
|
Knotts
Mountain climber
State of Reality
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 02:31pm PT
|
It seem pretty clear that human forcing, adding CO2, is creating some effect, driving change.
It just might be based on your perceptional attitude. If you want it to be, so it is. But the reality is that not one published scientific research paper has come out with 100% "clear and proven" certainty that humans are in fact the primary cause. Still all speculation, scientific theory and fantasy modelling. Not one climate scientist can discern clearly what amount of the C02 content is from humans or is natural. There are no mechanical instruments that can identify nor measure which is which and from what source it comes from. Let's be clear on that.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 02:31pm PT
|
some pretty screwed science behind the whole "polar bear demise"
Ah, more "the science behind blahblahblah is screwed up" from the man who stuffs dead things. Yeah, well, your mounts don't look life like at all.
But the reality is that not one published scientific research paper has come out with 100% "clear and proven" certainty that humans are in fact the primary cause.
More proof that fuknard doesn't understand the first thing about scientific research. ALL scientific research is subject to falsification as new empirical data helps refine our understanding of how the world works. No scientist in their right mind would ever say anything is proven with 100% certainty... we leave that to the mindless religitards who can't handle the uncertainty of reality.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 02:40pm PT
|
Translation, go stuff some dead things... which everyone knows look fake, but you can pretend they are life-like.
|
|
Dubop
climber
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 02:41pm PT
|
The us government is controlled by multi-national corporations. They write the laws which govern their operations and they oversee their own compliance to these laws. In essence, these massive companies are in control of our countries energy policies and are operating outside of any true regulatory environment.
It is a mistake to think there is a difference between big business and big government. Therefore, there can be no governmental solution to this problem. There will only be change when individuals change their lives.
|
|
Knotts
Mountain climber
State of Reality
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 02:59pm PT
|
MountainLions decree of more tornadoes is not the issue nor valid. Fact is the amount of tornadoes is irrelevant. The issue is that humans in the tornado belt of Amerika have expanded their urban areas. Thus there are far more targets to rip apart when any tornado comes along than there were say 30 or so years ago. No one addresses this aspect of human expansion. Kind of like building ones house directly next to a small river never contemplating the fact that a once in a hundred year flood can ruin your day in hours. Or building your home on the shoreline in a hurricane prone beach front. It'll never happen to me thinking. Now we blame piss poor planning of urban expansion on Climate Change. That of course is according to NASA's Mr. Gavin Schmidt. Listen to what he states at mark 3:20. "We did not expect the earth to change." Hmmm. Where was all the science say 30 years ago concerning the dynamic nature of this round planet?
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 03:07pm PT
|
Not one climate scientist can discern clearly what amount of the C02 content is from humans or is natural.
This is clearly wrong. The amounts of CO2 humans are adding are very measureable and being measured. The amounts are immense. According to USGS Humans add 100 - 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes do every year. Does that sound like we don't know where it's coming from? It's you, Knotts, that does not know where it's coming from. It's measureable in the thousands of shiploads of coal and oil that go up in gas every year. I forget the numbers exactly, but I think in terms of oil alone, a line of ships the size of the Exxon Valdez, 4,000 miles long, goes up in smoke every single year. You give yourself away as not knowing much with that statement. There is no way the increases in CO2 are 'natural'.
Most people clearly do not know the scope of what we are doing to the planet.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 03:12pm PT
|
That is silly. It ain't hard to determine how much CO2 is anthropogenic and how much is "natural" based on the isotopic signature.
|
|
Knotts
Mountain climber
State of Reality
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 03:14pm PT
|
There is no way the increases in CO2 are 'natural'.
Really? Please site a ref where any one scientist has a peer reviewed published paper that indicates your claim with 100% certainty. This is your and the rest of the alarmists speculation. Nothing more. Human and/or Naturally produced C02 are one in the same. Please do site how one or the other can be measured differently and deemed as such. Natural or human produced.
It ain't hard to determine how much CO2 is anthropogenic and how much is "natural" based on the isotopic signature
Where is this signature extracted from?
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 03:16pm PT
|
You make a good example of the denialists side of the argument. Without Humans adding CO2, the carbon was essentially in balance.
It does not matter if it has a signature, we know how much we are adding, thousands of shiploads and railcars at a time. You are not thinking clearly. The carbon system was basically closed and confined ( relative to what we are doing to it ) before we came along this last century.
|
|
Knotts
Mountain climber
State of Reality
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 03:18pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is not a reference to your claim Mr. Navy. Do you have one or not?
Without Humans adding CO2, the carbon was essentially in balance.
Are you now going to state that as Mr. Schmidt did, the earth is not dynamic. Rather a balanced static constant sphere blue ball. Nature does not change. Nothing changes. Oh the modern humanoid expectations of it all.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 03:21pm PT
|
You make a good example of the denialists side of the argument.
No, he make a good example of the completely clueless about science in general and climate science in particular side of the argument. There are at least much better and more convincing denialist arguments.
|
|
Knotts
Mountain climber
State of Reality
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 03:23pm PT
|
Where are the isotopes extracted from and how are those isotopes differentiated when extracted?
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 03:31pm PT
|
Where are the isotopes extracted from and how are those isotopes differentiated when extracted?
^^^^ hahaha... fuking clueless!
They are extracted from the air, ice cores, marine sediments, water, etc etc etc. They are differentiated in mass spectrometers. Scientists have been doing it with remarkable consistency and reproducibility for over a century. I've personally extracted stable isotopes from carbonates, silicates, waters, plants, and sea shells. I still haven't had a chance to do a laser ablation on small silicate samples, but that is only because I became a hydrologist instead of a petrologist.
Please do continue to show your ignorance, it really is quite amusing... if not sad.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
May 20, 2013 - 03:43pm PT
|
Well at least you have Caribou Barbie on your side
Global warming isn't happening, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) argued over the weekend, pointing to the fact that it was snowing in Alaska in May.
"Global warming my gluteus maximus," she wrote in a post on her Facebook page, adding a small dose of politics to a picture of her youngest daughter Piper in the snow after graduation. "This is what 'Grad Blast' means in Alaska! We'll move our graduation b-b-q indoors and watch the mini-blizzard from 'round the fireplace."
Palin has been a reliable denier of climate science in the past. She's referred to studies supporting climate change models as "snake oil," and as a vice presidential candidate in 2008, she argued that humans haven't influenced changes in climate.
In her Facebook argument, Palin confuses weather with climate, a mistake frequently made by climate change deniers. Palin has made this blunder in the past, suggesting that local atmospheric conditions over short periods of time and small areas have bearing on larger trends averaged over long time periods and greater areas.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!