Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9029 total)
60 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 59 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,347 Year: 1,993/14,102 Month: 361/624 Week: 82/163 Day: 2/40 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 181 of 824 (766679)
08-20-2015 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by foreveryoung
08-20-2015 2:05 AM


quote:

Electromagnetic radiation in space is a field. It is not a wave. Changes in that radiation propagate as a wave in that field but the radiation itself. Anyone care to tell me why I'm wrong?

Well I guess the fact that it is called the wave model of light might clue you in to the fact that it deals with light as a wave. The fact that it is the waves that propagate - like the radiation - might be a further clue. So should the fact that the radiation behaves like a wave.

Faraday proposed the idea, Maxwell developed it and Herz confirmed it experimentally.

To be perfectly honest, don't you think you might be doing the paper a disservice by trying to defend it without understanding it?

I might also ask, what makes you think that the electromagnetic field, and the disturbances in it, cannot exist in empty space?

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by foreveryoung, posted 08-20-2015 2:05 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 182 of 824 (766681)
08-20-2015 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by foreveryoung
08-20-2015 1:30 AM


Have you even read the abstracts of the papers. Referring, for instance, to experimental refutations of Lu's claims, for instance, would seem to be a substantive point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by foreveryoung, posted 08-20-2015 1:30 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 302 of 824 (794661)
11-19-2016 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by foreveryoung
11-18-2016 7:01 PM


Are you actually sure that an increase of only 0.045% of solar radiation directly reaching the surface rather than being caught in the upper atmosphere is sufficient ?

Even assuming that the figures are correct, surely some of that energy caught by the ozone layer would have radiated downwards as heat.

And you will pardon me questioning the accuracy of figures when you use units of watts per second, which is rather obviously wrong. Perhaps, if you quote the correct figures - with the correct units, a comparison could be made


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by foreveryoung, posted 11-18-2016 7:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 525 of 824 (863278)
09-24-2019 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 523 by Faith
09-23-2019 7:01 PM


Re: Is this the right thread?
quote:
What for? Hysterically pointing the finger at people for a catastrophe she doesn't understand and has only been brainwashed into accepting?

Bringing attention to a very real danger is important. Going hysterical just because it contradicts the ideology of the American far-right is hardly sensible or productive.

quote:
The Left should be prosecuted for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. This is insane.

So people who dare to contract the falsehoods of your ideology should be labelled insane and locked up. Your Stalinist tendencies are showing again.

quote:
It's the Left that is destroying the next generation with its scare tactics.

The Left is not responsible for your actions.

If you destroy freedom of the press because newspapers tell truths you want suppressed that is you doing it, it the Left.

If you destroy the Constitution because the Left dare to point out what it says and even go to Court to try and enforce it, that is you doing it, not the Left.

And if you take action against these young people for drawing attention to reality that will be you doing it, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Faith, posted 09-23-2019 7:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by Faith, posted 09-24-2019 4:16 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 528 of 824 (863284)
09-24-2019 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 527 by Faith
09-24-2019 4:16 AM


Re: Is this the right thread?
Then stop telling such **** lies. I make no apologies for the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Faith, posted 09-24-2019 4:16 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by Faith, posted 09-24-2019 5:04 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 530 of 824 (863287)
09-24-2019 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by Faith
09-24-2019 5:04 AM


Re: Is this the right thread?
You expect me to stop telling the truth because you’ll lie about me?

Don’t be silly. ***** isn’t the answer to everything. You should have learned that by now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Faith, posted 09-24-2019 5:04 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 635 of 824 (872257)
02-23-2020 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 633 by marc9000
02-23-2020 4:23 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
quote:
I've heard the same thing about deadwood. I've heard that if allowed to decay on its own over long periods of time, it gives off exactly the same amount of heat as it does when burned quickly by humans for warmth. Yet when looking at countless websites advocating the government banning of wood burning stoves, I never see any of them trying to distinguish between cutting and burning live, green wood versus burning dead wood. It almost seems like there's more interest in BANNING, than there is in any concern for the actual science

It’s pretty clear that you are only interested in objecting to the ban and not at all in the science. The heat is not the issue, it’s the particulates in the wood smoke.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 633 by marc9000, posted 02-23-2020 4:23 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 647 by marc9000, posted 02-29-2020 4:32 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 652 of 824 (872613)
02-29-2020 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 647 by marc9000
02-29-2020 4:32 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
quote:
And particulates in wood smoke have what to do with climate change? Let me guess, absolutely nothing?

Yes, you were foolishly wrong to think they were related.

quote:
That's just a useful little side claim to justify less freedom and more government?

It’s your claim, so the motives for making it would be yours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 647 by marc9000, posted 02-29-2020 4:32 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 660 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2020 9:07 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 672 of 824 (873038)
03-09-2020 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 660 by marc9000
03-08-2020 9:07 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
quote:
I just pointed out that they were not related, after you implied that they were

I didn’t imply any such thing. I pointed that the restrictions on wood-burning stoves were about particulate emissions. After you ignorantly rambled about heat emissions and complained that other people didn’t care about the science. I didn’t mention global warming at all.

Obviously you thought that the restrictions on wood burning stoves were supposedly about global warming. And you were ignorant and wrong.

quote:
TDR (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is getting more contagious here than coronavirus in Washington state.

And what has that to do with your scientific ignorance?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 660 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2020 9:07 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 683 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 7:06 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 673 of 824 (873039)
03-09-2020 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 659 by marc9000
03-08-2020 9:02 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
quote:
The scientific community's effects are constitutionally required to be controlled by a political process

Again we see your totalitarian impulses.

The Tenth Amendment, unfortunately for you, is about the rights of the States and limits on the Federal Government. It does not empower the Federal Government to dictate what scientists study, nor the conclusions they reach.

(Message 667)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

quote:
The scientific community is very mischievous these days, considering it's largely controlled by atheism and one political party.

By which you mean that science finds truths you want suppressed. Totalitarian for sure.

Edited by PaulK, : Added reference to the message where Marc claims that the 10th Amendment enables political control of science


This message is a reply to:
 Message 659 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2020 9:02 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 684 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 7:10 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 674 of 824 (873040)
03-09-2020 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 659 by marc9000
03-08-2020 9:02 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
Surprise, surprise when I look at the link, Marc is quote mining again.

quote:
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

Marc doesn’t say that the first method is utterly rejected, as to the second - the real point of the Amendment is to protect against the tyranny of the majority:

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression

Political control of science would be a scheme of oppression, exactly what Federalist Paper 10 is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 659 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2020 9:02 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 690 of 824 (873474)
03-16-2020 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 683 by marc9000
03-15-2020 7:06 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
quote:
What we've been referring to in much of this thread is government mandates concerning both C02 and pollution.

So? It doesn’t change the fact that you hadn’t bothered to find out the relevant science - and accused others of not caring about the science based on your own ignorance.

quote:
And the scientific community's obvious willingness to constantly combine/separate, combine/separate, combine/separate in any way it can to increase it's own political power.

Your ignorance isn’t anybody else’s fault. Inventing ridiculous conspiracy theories is hardly going to help cover up your hypocrisy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 683 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 7:06 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 691 of 824 (873475)
03-16-2020 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 684 by marc9000
03-15-2020 7:10 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
quote:
It's actually very fortunate for me.

That your assertion was completely wrong? That’s fortunate for you?

quote:
Because it does not allow the conclusions the scientific community reaches to be unlimited in the amount of liberty and money it proposes to strip from the people.

It doesn’t forbid the scientific community from finding out truths you want suppressed, which is the real point. In fact it doesn’t forbid the scientific community from doing anything, because they aren’t the Federal Government.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 684 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 7:10 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 692 of 824 (873476)
03-16-2020 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 685 by marc9000
03-15-2020 7:16 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
quote:
So the government is MORE LIMITED if we let the scientific community by-pass the constitution and join with big government advocates and take away as many of our freedoms and as much of our money as it wants?

Let us correct the silly misrepresentation.

“So the government is MORE LIMITED if we don’t rewrite the Constitution to let the Federal Government take political control of any faction it likes. Controlling everything they say or do.” Which is where you were going with your dishonest quote-mine of Federalist Papers 10

Scientists, of course do not make the decisions on policy. That is a political role and always has been. So you don’t have anything to complain about there, or is there any by-passing of the Constitution.

As for loss of freedom, the totalitarian control you propose is a massive loss of freedom and a massive increase in Government power. Obviously you don’t object to either. What you do object to is people having freedoms you don’t like. Like the freedom to find out that your creationist beliefs are false and say so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 7:16 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 712 of 824 (882062)
09-10-2020 12:44 AM


Maybe this will make the Right stop and think
Climate Change may Wreck Economy (Ars Technica)

A report from the Commodities Future Trading Commission indicates the climate change is already affecting markets.

Regulators "must recognize that climate change poses serious emerging risks to the US financial system, and they should move urgently and decisively to measure, understand, and address these risks."

The report, called "Managing Climate Risk in the US Financial System," was written by a group of 35 advisors from major banks such as Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, environmental groups such as The Nature Conservancy and Ceres, energy firms such as BP and ConocoPhillips, several investment firms, and experts from several universities.

They conclude that the markets are failing to take climate change into account, even though the effects are already causing problems.

They argue that it will take international action to control the problem and urge that the US rejoin the Paris Agreement.

With the Trump administration taking the opposite tack, will the voices of sanity speak up? Or will the Republicans continue their slavish devotion to Trump?


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021