Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9029 total)
49 online now:
Rahvin, Raphael (2 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,368 Year: 2,014/14,102 Month: 382/624 Week: 103/163 Day: 23/40 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 3 of 824 (749355)
02-03-2015 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-03-2015 4:51 PM


The Earth is warming, and we’re doing it.

Hello Razd! Who is "we"?

What is it that global warming believers want?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2015 4:51 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by herebedragons, posted 02-03-2015 9:44 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 02-03-2015 11:09 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2015 7:45 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 02-05-2015 11:29 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 8 of 824 (749465)
02-04-2015 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by herebedragons
02-03-2015 9:44 PM


Haven't we been down this road before???

Not concerning this particular video. Similar discussions yes, but I wasn't the one that started this thread. And a moderator promoted it. So you can only scientifically place 33 1/3% of the blame on me.

My interest was slightly renewed just a week or so ago, when I saw a facebook share that made this statement;

quote:
To the 49 U.S. Senators that refuse to accept that human activity significantly causes climate change, SCIENCE DOESN'T GO AWAY JUST BECAUSE YOU VOTE AGAINST IT.

My friend who shared this is a reasonably intelligent person, but I suspect she may not be aware of the political activity that goes along with mandates to bring the earth's temperature back down to whatever reading that "science" finds acceptable. If public school children are being shown the above statement with no further explanation of the complications of how societies work, then the ignorance of the above statement could have consequences that many like myself find unacceptable.

quote:
The way of dealing with climate change has particular ethical issues and other issues related to the fairness of the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading

The way of dealing with climate change isn't automatically nuts-and-bolts science. To imply that it is is dishonest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by herebedragons, posted 02-03-2015 9:44 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 9 of 824 (749470)
02-04-2015 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
02-04-2015 7:45 AM


marc9000 writes:

Hello Razd! Who is "we"?

The human race as an aggregate whole, in spite of the efforts of some to decrease it.

But the 'blame" isn't equally spread among the humans, is it? The efforts of some to decrease it seem to never be to look at themselves, but to point accusing fingers at others, and have THEM decrease it.

When you drive a car or ride a bus you are contributing.

I take it you don't drive a car or ride a bus much. What fuel is used to heat your home? Is there anything YOU can do personally to combat global warming?

There are no believers when the facts show warming -- belief is for people without evidence.

But the beliefs run rampant when the political left is contemplating successful ways to combat it, don't they?

What global warming scientists -- including this former denier -- want is for people to accept the science and the facts.

Then they have got a whole lot more work to do. Part way through your video above, Muller says this;

quote:
(About going back 260 years in time) "The uncertainties get large, but it's still usable data"

That's science? It is if you started with a conclusion and are trying to make it work! But that's not overly convincing to a general public that isn't yet ready to be stripped of liberty and money so the scientific community can make ethical decisions about who will produce carbon dioxide and who will not.

More from the Wikipedia link;

quote:
Carbon emissions trading has been steadily increasing in recent years. According to the World Bank's Carbon Finance Unit, 374 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) were exchanged through projects in 2005, a 240% increase relative to 2004 (110 mtCO2e)[27] which was itself a 41% increase relative to 2003 (78 mtCO2e).[28]

and

quote:
With the creation of a market for mandatory trading of carbon dioxide emissions within the Kyoto Protocol, the London financial marketplace has established itself as the center of the carbon finance market, and is expected to have grown into a market valued at $60 billion in 2007.[33][not in citation given] The voluntary offset market, by comparison, is projected to grow to about $4bn by 2010.[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading

You mentioned in the o/p that Muller was partially funded by the Koch Brothers. He never said that in the video, but he implied that this recent study was completely on his own and unbiased. Are we supposed to believe that without question? Maybe the Koch Brothers were outbid - Billionaire Democrat political buyers like Michael Bloomberg, Henry Paulson, and most notably Tom Steyer are starting to take a big interest in the global warming pie. Maybe they like the looks of that London Financial Marketplace, maybe Steyer thinks he could do better there than he did in the oil and coal financial business.

Muller did the facepalm thing when he looked at carbon dioxide, something we all exhale. The population of the planet has more than doubled in the past 60 years. If you global warming believers want people to "accept the science and the facts", a new place to start would be to show, on graphs and charts, the warming and cooling trends that Muller claims have happened in the past 260 years, in a form that non scientists can easily understand. Then follow that up with ways to distinguish between where this carbon dioxide comes from, people exhaling, or from any number of human activities, like using fossil fuels, in certain areas during certain seasons. They need to be shown measurement methods, foolproof ones. A thing called accountability for those who claim to have all the answers to re-cool the planet.

Most of all, they need to know that the Koch Brothers aren't the only ones who are big political donors. Many of us do, and that's one big reason for the frustration in Democrat political global warming advancements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2015 7:45 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2015 6:09 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 13 by glowby, posted 02-05-2015 11:31 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 12 of 824 (749568)
02-05-2015 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by NoNukes
02-05-2015 6:09 AM


Are you capable of doing simple math? Why don't you compare the increase in technological carbon with contribution from biological carbon and tell us the result?

I am not a global warming advocate. I would expect YOU and your allies here to do comparisons and tell ME the result. Let's run through it again;

marc9000 writes:


razd writes:

What global warming scientists -- including this former denier -- want is for people to accept the science and the facts.

Then they have got a whole lot more work to do.

If you still don't understand, just don't worry about it. I suspect Razd is working on some lengthy comparisons for me, and you should just try reading what we both say for comprehension for a change.

Is there any argument too stupid for you to use?

Is there any condition of your drunkenness that you won't attempt to post on forums?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2015 6:09 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2015 1:06 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 15 of 824 (749656)
02-06-2015 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by glowby
02-05-2015 11:31 PM


marc9000 writes:

I suspect Razd is working on some lengthy comparisons for me,

And here they are! But WAIT, Razd lost interest in this thread at exactly the same time as someone else with very identical views and posting style jumped right in, supporting Razd's links perfectly! It's a scientific miracle!

Yes. Using usable data is science. If usable data were ignored, you'd be right to complain and might very well claim conspiracy or cover-up.

But if it's uncertain usable data, then its testability and falsifiability fade quickly. The applications of uncertainty are obviously quite subjective in science, not surprisingly, considering most of its members very one-sided political views.

Muller started with a bias against anthropogenic global warming! And some of his funding came from folks with a similar bias. In this interview he says the Koch brothers funded 1/4 or 1/6 of it:

And in this video, he doesn't demonize the Koch brothers like so many in the scientific community do. He also said, at about the 17:30 mark, that "science has hurt itself by exaggerating" concerning global warming. Not many numbers in this vid, but he did say that global temperatures have risen about 1 degree in the past 50 years. He himself (in the previous vid the interviewer showed him of himself) said that there were no increases in temperature in the past 10 years. 12 years, according to this column, written in 2014, a few years newer than these vids we're seeing here of Muller.

http://townhall.com/...ing-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full

quote:
There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

So Muller, and this author, agree that there has been no global warming since the mid 1990's.

I didn't see the facepalm thing.

It was at the 1:55 mark. Sorry you missed it.

Neither did I sense that he thought the CO2 in our exhalations
was an issue.

I didn't see that either, the other vid especially, shows that he targets the usual things, large cars, coal etc. but he never said anything about Gore's and Steyer's private jets.

The carbon we ingest and the CO2 (and methane) we expel are part of the natural carbon cycle. No one eats fossil fuels (purposely).

"Natural carbon cycle" v technological carbon cycles, I'm not yet seeing how the carbon dioxide measurements of each are distinguished from each other. I'm hearing that humans are causing it, but not ONLY their technology. Before NoNukes screams that I need to look around and find it myself, I have to say again that I'd expect to see it presented from global warming advocates on threads like these.

I'm seeing that the claims about global warming seem to focus on only the past few centuries, not millions or billions of years that I would expect to see from evolutionists. In looking back over some past "ice age" speculation, I found this on Wikipedia

quote:
A 2012 investigation finds that dinosaurs released methane through digestion in a similar amount to humanity's current methane release, which "could have been a key factor" to the very warm climate 150 million years ago.[43]

(bolded mine) When we combine ALL this methane release, with ANY type of fuel used to keep 7 billion people warm in winter, I'm wondering just what global warming advocates want to ban to slow all this man made global warming. If all this farting and keeping ourselves warm in winter is okay with them, they're only after technology, like coal, or the wicked Koch brothers, they should make that clear, in threads like this one.

Estimates of man's contribution to greenhouse gases BESIDES fossil fuel emissions range from about 15-30% of our total output. This includes land use and biomass burning, byproducts of agriculture (including cow farts), waste processing, etc.

The graph on that link showed carbon dioxide emissions continuing to shoot up through the mid 1990's past 2000 and beyond. Yet Muller (and other sources) say that there has been no temperature increase in that period. Must be some of that exaggeration Muller was talking about.

marc9000 writes:

If you global warming believers want people to "accept the science and the facts", a new place to start would be to show, on graphs and charts, the warming and cooling trends that Muller claims have happened in the past 260 years, in a form that non scientists can easily understand. ...

Here you are: http://blogs.nature.com/...ends-record-upholds-findings.html
(That darn hockey stick again!)

A pretty fuzzy little chart, it would be nice to just see temperatures for the past 260 years in....25 year increments or so. That chart shows the temperature moving right on up through 2000, even though Muller and others say the increase has thus far, stopped since about 1997. From part of that link;

quote:
concluding that the globe has warmed around 2.5 degrees Celsius over the past 250 years (see graph at right; PDF available here). Discussing the unpublished work with typical flair in an op-ed for the New York Times, physicist and self-proclaimed skeptic-turned-believer Richard Muller said “essentially all” of the increase is due to humans.

"Due to humans" - again, no distinction between biological and technological. No distinction in measurement methods.

If it was dumbed-down enough that anyone could understand it despite their degree of scientific literacy, deniers would certainly label it as non-scientific propaganda (which they do in any case).

It's not a case of "dumbing down", it's a case of showing basic numbers. If political "action" must be taken to address global warming, then targets, goals should be set, to measure the successes of the political action, and make accountable any political action taken to address global warming.

marc9000 writes:

... Then follow that up with ways to distinguish between where this carbon dioxide comes from, people exhaling, or from any number of human activities, like using fossil fuels, in certain areas during certain seasons. They need to be shown measurement methods, foolproof ones.

We have reasonable estimates (above).

Where above? Those are long links, a lot of rabbit trails. Can't you just tell me the most commonly believed percentages of biological carbon dioxide v technological carbon dioxide, and tell me how it's measured?

They're certainly sufficient to give good evidence for anthropogenic global warming. In certain areas? Do you insist on knowing precisely how much CO2 our horses, dogs, cats, and hamsters exhale too? Will you require that fart-o-meters are installed on all people and domesticated animals?

For 2.5 degrees C over 250 years when the human population went from under 1 billion to over 7 billion, including the corresponding increase in the animal population, I don't need to know precisely, I just need to know basically how it's all measured before I surrender any of my liberties and money to claims from a special interest group.

I don't believe any degree of accountability would satisfy you.

Maybe it wouldn't, but if it satisfied enough others (like the 49 Senators that I mentioned above) my opinion wouldn't matter much. The statement that I referred to above;

quote:
To the 49 U.S. Senators that refuse to accept that human activity significantly causes climate change, SCIENCE DOESN'T GO AWAY JUST BECAUSE YOU VOTE AGAINST IT.

I know is heartily agreed to by most evolutionists. They really should learn the difference between actual science and ethics. Between science and political decisions.

The scientific community at large, like Muller, has only suggested ways to slow the warming: use less fossil fuels. They notion of "re-cooling" the planet is a denier meme, not a serious scientific proposal.

What other purpose does addressing global warming have? (Other than the power and the money and the carbon credit trading and all of that, not a real smart idea to try to sell THOSE ideas to the general public.) If something is warm, and it's a problem, then COOLING is the only thing that could solve the problem, right?

You'll notice that I've avoided addressing any of the political and economic (or personal) issues you've raised.

I noticed. You're using a computer, and it rode on a diesel truck at one time. You probably ate something today, and it rode on a diesel truck at one time. How guilty do you think YOU are about global warming? Some would say you are slightly guilty, others would say you're not guilty at all, the trucking company has to shoulder all the blame. There are countless other variables about who to ~licence, regulate, restrict, prohibit~ to combat global warming. They're ethics, they're political, and the scientific community can butt the hell out, unless they can show some accountability and be much more transparent about how they get their measurements.

I don't really see any point in discussing the pros and cons of various solutions to the problem with someone who seems to deny there actually IS any problem.

I can agree with you there, 2.5 degrees in 250 years, NOTHING since 1997. I'm not alone in deciding there is no problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by glowby, posted 02-05-2015 11:31 PM glowby has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by herebedragons, posted 02-07-2015 7:48 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2015 3:41 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 21 by glowby, posted 02-07-2015 6:15 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 16 of 824 (749657)
02-06-2015 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NoNukes
02-06-2015 1:06 PM


Let me lay out your idiocy. The net result of human respiration over a lifetime is to remove carbon from the atmosphere. All of the carbon breathed out comes from food consumed. Food comes from atmospheric carbon. But since most of us die with more carbon in our bodies than we are born with, our burial represents a net removal of carbon. You are a blooming idiot.

quote:
A 2012 investigation finds that dinosaurs released methane through digestion in a similar amount to humanity's current methane release, which "could have been a key factor" to the very warm climate 150 million years ago.[43]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

IN A SIMILAR AMOUNT TO HUMANITY'S CURRENT METHANE RELEASE. There are several ways other than breathing, that humans produce carbon dioxide. Including ways to keep warm in winter.

Please keep posting, you represent the knee-jerk childishness of much of the scientific community very well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2015 1:06 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by herebedragons, posted 02-07-2015 7:00 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2015 10:31 AM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 24 of 824 (749809)
02-08-2015 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by herebedragons
02-07-2015 7:00 AM


No one that knows anything about climate change denies the contribution of methane to global warming.

I wonder why Richard Muller didn't mention methane in the vid in the o/p? At the end of the vid, he seemed pretty adamant that carbon dioxide was IT.

So now it sounds as if you agree that humans are the major contributor to global warming.

The numbers, 1 degree over 50 years, 2.5 degrees over 250 years, show me that it's not happening to any extent that it has to be scientifically or politically addressed. Those 2.5 degrees, over a period that the population went from under 1 billion to over 7 billion, could very well have been contributed by humans. But it's important to divide "human causes" into 2 distinct classifications; 1) the mere existence of humans, and 2) the late 20th and early 21st century of technological activity of humans.

Except for population control, which never has and never will get anywhere, science has no way of addressing the mere existence of humans. All of it's attempts to combat global warming have to target current technological activities of humans, which involve ethics and politics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by herebedragons, posted 02-07-2015 7:00 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 25 of 824 (749810)
02-08-2015 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by herebedragons
02-07-2015 7:48 AM


There has been some discussion as to ways to artificially cool the planet, but they are just too uncertain as to what side effects they might have. I personally hope that they aren't trying any of those techniques yet.

I'm kinda surprised you don't buy into this conspiracy theory that the government is using chemtrails to spray chemicals that reduce global temperatures.

The only conspiracy theories that I buy into are actions and tricks that are similar, or exactly alike actions and tricks that actual history shows have happened before.

It's the scientific community that said "hey, we have a problem here."

Yes, 2.5 degrees over 50 years, and no one but us is qualified to determine that it's a problem. And we'll address it! And cash in on it while we're at it! We'll issue commands about which technological companies will succeed, and which will fail. We'll sell carbon credits to anyone who has the bucks. We'll make everyone drive econobox cars, and we'll freely allow billionaires that we like, like Al Gore to fly his private jet all he wants. We''ll tell farmers new green ways to grow that food, and if it makes a mess of the economy, we won't take the blame. And we won't call it politics, we won't call it tyranny, we'll call it science!!

And at first met with stiff resistance. But through continuing efforts and by verifying the data and conclusions they were making, slowly people began to wake up and realize that what the scientific community was saying was real and that we need to respond to it.

I don't see evidence anywhere that a noticeable percentage of people are ready to concede their liberties to attempts to somehow control one degree of temperature change in 50 years.

They got a taste of "response to it, in my area, from the late 1990's to about 2005, and they REALLY woke up. The EPA of the Bill Clinton administration got auto emissions testing started. Some people were denied the use of their cars to drive to work so they could make a living, and when some of them realized that Al Gore was freely allowed to fly his jet anywhere he wanted, (polluting hundreds of times more than their car), they got Patrick Henry-style FIGHTING mad. They got Ted Nugent-style FIGHTING mad. The U.S. had a very bloody internal war 150 years ago, due to slavery and states rights, at a time when blacks weren't very well respected anywhere in the country, including the north. What do you think of the possibility of a future internal global-warming war in the U.S.? Would you like to see it? Thankfully, as things were getting really tense, the greater Cincinnati test program ended in about 2005. No explanation as to why, maybe it was the more relaxed EPA of the Bush administration. Maybe it was only intended as a test, to find out how the sheeple would react. Or maybe some arrogant test officials were afraid of getting their heads blown off. No wonder most all global warming advocates also like gun control. For everyone except the government and its EPA, of course.

marc9000 writes:

unless they can show some accountability and be much more transparent about how they get their measurements.

I outline some of that in a previous thread, but you ignored it.

Which thread was that, the one you linked to in a previous message in this thread, the one I started about something other than global warming, the one where I had about 15 opponents hammering on me? How about linking your previous outline of transparency in measuring methods, or re-posting it here?

Human activity is the primary source of atmospheric carbon and that human activity is contributing significantly to global climate change. That case is now a slam dunk. It just can no longer be denied by anyone by the most stubborn.

What is the difference between climate change and global warming? The two terms seem to be used interchangeably.

You are right in pointing out the demands we have as consumers for energy consumption. This is one of the things that culturally needs to change. We need to be aware of the ways we waste energy and be willing to change our lifestyles to reduce the amount of energy we consume. So yes, there is a huge cultural component to this issue.

So you admit that it is ethics, politics, and NOT SCIENCE?

Cap and trade and carbon credits is a terrible idea, but it's the only thing anyone was willing to do so it is better than nothing. And yes, some people are going to make money from it, so what?

$18 Trillion in debt, that's so what. Money is generated from production. Some people who don't eat, sleep and breath science have opinions too.

Science is kind of stepping back now. What else can they do?

Not surprisingly, since some of their doom and gloom predictions for 2013 didn't come true. But the stepping back never completely stops, this thread was started for example, using a vid that was over 2 years old. Selling global warming fear by repeating it over and over again does tend to change the minds of uninterested, uninformed people.

The case has been made and it is very well supported. Now it is up to the cultural and political forces to take action. Humans have made a mess of this world and it is time for us to do something about it.

What have YOU done personally? Is there anything in your lifestyle that's going to change to help address it? Here's an idea, if so many people are convinced that global warming is something to be feared and addressed, then all they have to do is volunteer to change their own lifestyle to address it, then all those non believers can be left alone!

One thing the scientific community is doing now is beginning to shift our thinking from "is the climate changing?" to "how do we react to climate change?" Since it is inevitable that global temperatures will rise significantly in the next 50 years...

One more degree? Two? What is the projection? Numbers please.

Marc, the debate about climate change is over. It is real and it is serious. The debate about how to respond is what lies before us.

Maybe in the scientific community and the Democrat party. But not everywhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by herebedragons, posted 02-07-2015 7:48 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by herebedragons, posted 02-09-2015 10:08 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 26 of 824 (749811)
02-08-2015 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes
02-07-2015 10:31 AM


So now you are going to pretend that your comments referred to methane? Let's check that...

marc9000 writes:


Then follow that up with ways to distinguish between where this carbon dioxide comes from, people exhaling, or from any number of human activities, like using fossil fuels, in certain areas during certain seasons.

So I take it we can all agree that what you actually wrote in your post was just ignorant.

I didn't specify which end was doing the exhaling! Seriously, it was you, earlier, who made the distinction between biological versus technological sources of carbon dioxide. If biological carbon dioxide is doing any sizable contribution to global warming, why should technological carbon dioxide, be made to negate not only its own contribution, but also offset something else that has nothing to do with technology?

There is no need to distinguish between carbon dioxide from exhaling and carbon from any number of human activities because exhaling does not increase atmospheric carbon.

But mere human existence does!

Methane is not carbon dioxide. Further, your quote is comparing all of humanity's methane release (which is also dominated by the technological component) to the dinosaurs digestive methane release, and not the tiny amount of methane that humans fart out.

The Wikipedia link I referred to earlier claimed a close comparison to the several thousand (or several million) dinosaurs fart machines to 7 billion human fart machines.

Humans don't increase carbon dioxide levels simply by living and breathing. Period. You have no clue, marc9000.

Living, breathing, burning things to keep warm, driving even the tiniest compact cars, allowing rich global warming activist billionaires to fly jets, oh yes they do, clueless one.

Would it be too hard to familiarize yourself with the actual arguments deniers make that actually require some thought to address?

I put up a link in a previous post showing some. Here it is again just for you. None of you has done anything with them. Razd took one, and copy/pasted a whole bunch of rabbit trails to try to draw me into years worth of dances that the scientific community has come up with. A typical diversion tactic from a basic discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2015 10:31 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 02-09-2015 10:45 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 02-09-2015 1:03 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 27 of 824 (749812)
02-08-2015 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
02-07-2015 3:41 PM


Re: Sorry, there was no "pause" in global warming ...
Or the knowledge of global warming is so pervasive that just about anyone can answer your concerns, probably even high school kids that haven't had an education handicapped by institutional ignorance (like creationist schools) ...

Except for 31,000 scientists ?

So I'll just touch on one of your more willfully ignorant comments ... and go long on that:

It wasn't MY comment, it was the comment of someone writing a column, that had more time and ability to research than I could.

It would have been more impressive if you'd have addressed each of his 5 points briefly and concisely. The global warming scare is only a few decades old, unlike evolution, which has had about 100 years to politically strengthen itself. Evolution is pretty advanced in finding ways to rationalize its failures. Global warming advocates have a long way to go to rationalize their failures.

http://www.breitbart.com/...%20-findings-arctic-ice-increase

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/...ce-coverage-up-50-percent


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2015 3:41 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Pressie, posted 02-08-2015 11:52 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 29 by AZPaul3, posted 02-09-2015 7:27 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 31 by jar, posted 02-09-2015 9:51 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2015 12:13 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 35 of 824 (749875)
02-09-2015 8:43 PM


HBD hasn't checked in yet, so I'll wait another day or two before I have more questions, and probably a summary. But here are a few questions that I've asked that haven't been addressed yet, very basic ones that any honest global warming advocate should be able to easily answer;

Message 9 I take it you don't drive a car or ride a bus much. What fuel is used to heat your home? Is there anything YOU can do personally to combat global warming?

a similar one;

Message 15 How guilty do you think YOU are about global warming?

But the following one is the most important one;

Message 25 What is the difference between climate change and global warming?

This one I haven't asked yet, but after watching the o/p vid again, it comes to mind;, At the 1;01 point, Muller says that his findings come as a "wonderful surprise", at the 1:38 point, the upswing in temperatures is a "nice curve", and at about the 2:00 mark he's so happy about global warming he looks like he would if he was about to get laid! What is it about what is considered a worldwide problem that makes some people so HAPPY?

Edited by marc9000, : typo


Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by glowby, posted 02-12-2015 5:46 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 36 of 824 (749876)
02-09-2015 9:30 PM


Just up on FB, case closed!

quote:
It's a Hoax, Folks - Soapbox 2/9/15

When Al Gore released his “An Inconvenient Truth” movie a few years ago he opened up a can of worms that crawl the earth to this day.

Let me preface this column by first of all admitting that I don't believe in man made global warming, that the temperature of this and every other planet is controlled by the hand of the Creator and that it is arrogant for man to think he could assume that role for either bad or good purposes.

I do not deny that the earth warms and cools but that is a natural occurrence that has taken place since the earth was created and will continue as long as the world exists.

My source, The Holy Bible "As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." – Genesis 8:22.

Thus has it been and thus shall it ever be as long as earth endures and though man can certainly contribute to making the earth a better place to live he will never be able to bring the global temperature up or down by as much as one degree, greenhouse gases and other factors notwithstanding.

Now the name of the “problem” has been changed from “global warming” to “climate change,” an innocuous title that can be stretched in either direction to accommodate a record snowfall or a record heat wave and any of the numerous natural geological anomalies can be incorporated into the catch all "climate change".
For over one hundred years the global warming, global cooling, climate change crowd have vacillated several times between global heat that would melt the polar ice caps and global freezing which would bring on a new ice age.

Please don't take my word for this or any of the rest of the information I use in this column, as it is easily accessible, just do some research on your own.

First of all, global warming, climate change or whatever the nom du jour, has little to do with the weather on Planet Earth and almost everything to do with scaring the heck out of the population so they will be willing to allow global bureaucracies and enforcement agencies to be created to deal with it, all at our expense naturally.

So who do they come after? Why the most ecologically compliant nations who just happen to be the most prosperous nations on earth, all but ignoring the real offenders of China, Russia, India, practically all of the oil rich Middle East, the destitute nations of Africa, where almost continual war has created deforestation causing dust bowls, and unmanageable refugee problems.

They show you heart-tugging pictures of struggling polar bears floating around on little ice Islands, never telling you that this is normal behavior for polar bears which are capable of swimming 75 to 100 miles and go wherever the food is, never stymied by open water.

They tell you that it's "settled science" knowing full well that two out of the three imminent, world class scientists at the recent Mombasa conference disputed the "settled science".

They don't tell you that the Global Historical Climate Network, a U.S. Government entity, has been adjusting the temperature findings to reflect a warming trend. Proven by Paul Homewood, who recorded the actual temperatures in several locations and found them to reflect different numbers than the ones reported by the GHCN.

They want you to forget about the leaked emails from the UK’s University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit which show that these climate researchers were conspiring to “adjust” temperatures up and down in their findings to support the claims of man made warming.

In a perfect world and an administration that was motivated by truly serving the American public rather than trying to gain more power would have exposed this and punished the guilty parties.

And folks, that's what this whole thing is about, globalization, income redistribution and centralization of power, control over every aspect of public and personal life, a scare tactic, predicated on a lie and promoted by the same people who assured you that "there's not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS", that "you can keep your own doctor period", that ISIS was a “JV team".

The theory so soundly endorsed by Al Gore and his ilk is falling apart and you aren't likely to read about it in the New York Times or see a CBS special on the subject, so if you want the truth just start digging around for yourself.

Check the history of the movement, check all of the latest findings and consider what the politicians pushing this hoax have to gain and what you and your kids and grandkids have to lose.

It will be a sobering experience.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.
God Bless America

Charlie Daniels



Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by herebedragons, posted 02-09-2015 10:18 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 39 by subbie, posted 02-09-2015 10:53 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 40 of 824 (749978)
02-10-2015 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by NoNukes
02-09-2015 10:45 AM


Get it?

I've pretty well got it, thanks. What I've been searching for, and what you've somewhat explained, is what the scientific community expects to target to combat global warming. (or climate change, whichever it is this week)

Apparently, the extermination of 2 or 3 billion human beings isn't on the radar, so that's a relief. But other than breathing, walking, farting, just about every other human activity could be subject for future scientific investigation, to see if it will be permitted, or simply licensed, regulated, or restricted.

marc9000 writes:

allowing rich global warming activist billionaires to fly jets

Surely, this is among one of the more idiotic reasons to ignore a problem.

Idiotic? Questioning corruption, and uneven application of rules?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 02-09-2015 10:45 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 02-11-2015 7:22 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 41 of 824 (749979)
02-10-2015 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by herebedragons
02-09-2015 10:08 PM


Sorry marc, really busy. I shouldn't even be on here right now... I have more important things I should be focused on. So I will just address a couple of things real quick.

Time is not a problem, take the time you need. I do appreciate responses without personal attacks.

marc9000 writes:

What is the difference between climate change and global warming? The two terms seem to be used interchangeably.

Yea, the terms are used kind of interchangeably. Climate change is actually the more accurate description. As some one pointed out (RAZD I think) that on a global scale, temperature is rising but some areas are actually cooling. The reason that climate change is a better descriptor is that what we are seeing is a shifting in climatic conditions on a global scale.

It's logical to view that with suspicion, as many people do, because at first, warming was suspected on a global scale. That was how the hoax got started. When some cooling trends were discovered, a hasty change had to be invented to keep the hoax going. (Yes, I use the term "hoax" now, as I easily find new information. Explanations to follow.

No. Science is neutral in regard to ethics and politics. Science identified a problem. How we as humans respond to that problem is dependent on ethics and politics. So there is the science of climate change and the politics and ethics of climate change.

I can go along with that, but I think you still confuse science with the activities of scientists. More detail to follow.

I have installed a 96% efficiency furnace which cut my natural gas usage by about 30%. I keep my thermostat at 64F when we are not home and 68F when we are home. I plan to continue to improve the energy efficiency of my house. Although our situation is such that we must have 2 cars, both of our cars are as small as we can get away with.

I have only a couple incandescent bulbs left in my house (because they can't be replace with CFLs), and I am slowly converting those to LEDs (which are still quite expensive). I recycle everything I can, including composting. I plan to install rain barrels this summer to reduce my usage of municipal water.

I know that's not a whole heck of a lot, but its what I can do at this time.

I think the U.S. government is already well on the way to mandating most of that stuff. The mandates will continue, hopefully they won't come so fast that you WON'T be able to do them. Would you like to see all methane releasing landfills be taken over and run by government? Will you be able to pay THAT bill? Have you ever sat in line in a auto emissions testing lane?

These projections suggest that January temperatures will rise 11oC in some areas (the Arctic mostly) by 2050. That's huge!!!

Projections are not testable, falsifiable science. Aren't you glad no decisions were made concerning the projections that entire polar icecaps would be melted by 2013, etc.?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by herebedragons, posted 02-09-2015 10:08 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by frako, posted 02-11-2015 6:11 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 42 of 824 (749985)
02-10-2015 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by herebedragons
02-09-2015 10:18 PM


Oh how I hate it when people get their science from Facebook.

What Daniels wrote was not science, and not intended to be taken as science. Let's run through it all;

quote:
When Al Gore released his “An Inconvenient Truth” movie a few years ago he opened up a can of worms that crawl the earth to this day.

Let me preface this column by first of all admitting that I don't believe in man made global warming, that the temperature of this and every other planet is controlled by the hand of the Creator and that it is arrogant for man to think he could assume that role for either bad or good purposes.

I do not deny that the earth warms and cools but that is a natural occurrence that has taken place since the earth was created and will continue as long as the world exists.

My source, The Holy Bible "As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." – Genesis 8:22.

Thus has it been and thus shall it ever be as long as earth endures and though man can certainly contribute to making the earth a better place to live he will never be able to bring the global temperature up or down by as much as one degree, greenhouse gases and other factors notwithstanding.


Scientists beliefs, from a naturalist perspective, about what they can do, isn't science. It's a naturalistic worldview.

quote:
Now the name of the “problem” has been changed from “global warming” to “climate change,” an innocuous title that can be stretched in either direction to accommodate a record snowfall or a record heat wave and any of the numerous natural geological anomalies can be incorporated into the catch all "climate change".
For over one hundred years the global warming, global cooling, climate change crowd have vacillated several times between global heat that would melt the polar ice caps and global freezing which would bring on a new ice age.

That's not science, and not intended to be taken as science. It's an opinion on what the scientific community has done, a very logical questioning of what its motives might be.

quote:
Please don't take my word for this or any of the rest of the information I use in this column, as it is easily accessible, just do some research on your own.

You disregard this as some kind of uninformed science? Try this experiment for me - type "climategate" into a google search. It's been kept as quiet as possible in the news media, but you've probably heard of it. It involved, among other things, intercepted emails exposing FRAUD in the scientific community. Now I realize that you'll find lots of links on the first google page, most of them downplaying it as no big deal. In many of those links, you'll find the word "STOLEN" as a way to somehow nullify what those emails showed. Now type the words "Wedge Document" into a search. It was STOLEN in exactly the same way as those emails. But you don't find the word "stolen" do you? "Leaked" is the word you'll most likely find. It's not science, when people notice the double standards, the hypocrisy

quote:
First of all, global warming, climate change or whatever the nom du jour, has little to do with the weather on Planet Earth and almost everything to do with scaring the heck out of the population so they will be willing to allow global bureaucracies and enforcement agencies to be created to deal with it, all at our expense naturally.

It's not science to realize that the temperature in the midwest U.S., where I live, varies by about 110 degrees F. in any one year. (extremes of about 10 below, to 100 above.) Claims about the catastrophes that will happen in a degree or two of temperature change aren't considered science, when it's taken into consideration that the scientific community has falsified some data, as has been proven.

quote:
So who do they come after? Why the most ecologically compliant nations who just happen to be the most prosperous nations on earth, all but ignoring the real offenders of China, Russia, India, practically all of the oil rich Middle East, the destitute nations of Africa, where almost continual war has created deforestation causing dust bowls, and unmanageable refugee problems.

They show you heart-tugging pictures of struggling polar bears floating around on little ice Islands, never telling you that this is normal behavior for polar bears which are capable of swimming 75 to 100 miles and go wherever the food is, never stymied by open water.

They tell you that it's "settled science" knowing full well that two out of the three imminent, world class scientists at the recent Mombasa conference disputed the "settled science".


It's not science, and not intended to be taken as science, to question the motives of the scientific community.

quote:
They don't tell you that the Global Historical Climate Network, a U.S. Government entity, has been adjusting the temperature findings to reflect a warming trend. Proven by Paul Homewood, who recorded the actual temperatures in several locations and found them to reflect different numbers than the ones reported by the GHCN.

A very recent article with more detail of that is here.

quote:
They tell you that it's "settled science" knowing full well that two out of the three imminent, world class scientists at the recent Mombasa conference disputed the "settled science".

They want you to forget about the leaked emails from the UK’s University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit which show that these climate researchers were conspiring to “adjust” temperatures up and down in their findings to support the claims of man made warming.

In a perfect world and an administration that was motivated by truly serving the American public rather than trying to gain more power would have exposed this and punished the guilty parties.

And folks, that's what this whole thing is about, globalization, income redistribution and centralization of power, control over every aspect of public and personal life, a scare tactic, predicated on a lie and promoted by the same people who assured you that "there's not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS", that "you can keep your own doctor period", that ISIS was a “JV team".

The theory so soundly endorsed by Al Gore and his ilk is falling apart and you aren't likely to read about it in the New York Times or see a CBS special on the subject, so if you want the truth just start digging around for yourself.

Check the history of the movement, check all of the latest findings and consider what the politicians pushing this hoax have to gain and what you and your kids and grandkids have to lose.


Why would you think he was attempting to be a scientist, by warning about actions of the scientific community?

quote:
that the temperature of this and every other planet is controlled by the hand of the Creator and that it is arrogant for man to think he could assume that role for either bad or good purposes.

This is the height of ignorance. Let me put this in a different light. Would it be okay for me to pour dry-cleaning fluid (perchlorate) on the ground behind my business? Would it be okay to pour my used cutting oils from my manufacturing facility into the local river? Would it be okay for me to dump mine tailings from my coal mine in your residential area?

NO?

No! There is a world of difference in local pollution versus controlling the temperature of the planet!

But I think that the health of this planet is controlled by the hand of the Creator and it is arrogant of man to think that he is powerful enough to pollute God's green earth.

Was that supposed to be a quote of what he said? HE DIDN'T SAY THAT.

quote:
I don't believe in man made global warming, that the temperature of this and every other planet is controlled by the hand of the Creator and that it is arrogant for man to think he could assume that role for either bad or good purposes.

and;

quote:
though man can certainly contribute to making the earth a better place to live he will never be able to bring the global temperature up or down by as much as one degree, greenhouse gases and other factors notwithstanding.

How would that go over??

Depends if someone dishonestly misquotes him.

This FB post is the poster child of climate change ignorance. How can you possibly think that this writer made a case against global warming??

All one has to do is follow his suggestions for research, and it becomes clearer and clearer that the global warming hoax has already been BUSTED more than the Piltdown man hoax.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by herebedragons, posted 02-09-2015 10:18 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by glowby, posted 02-12-2015 8:46 PM marc9000 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021