HAB Theory and getting Conservatives to take climate change seriously.

One author wrote about 171 major movements in the polls over the last five million years or so.

I don't know enough about that topic to know if he is correct or not but I just read an interesting statistic on the growth of ice in Antarctica.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/climate.discussion/permalink/534340666734097/

 

If mass extinctions were that frequent migration would have been significantly stunted.... What people don't understand is that migration was a process, a progressive process and took thousands of years...

 

Magnetic shifts have regularly occurred on Earth but do not coincide with extinction events.

 

Interesting!

You mean worldwide extinction events not localized though don't you?

I assume that the thousands of Woolly Mammoths and Sabre Tooth Tigers and other creatures found frozen in Siberia and the Arctic might have been the victims of a polar shift event????

 

It's not exactly like they were attacked by ice....

Humans killed them off, the climate didn't kill them... They're called Woolly Mammoths for a reason...

On an interesting note - If it matters, when people found a Woolly Mammoth exposed in the glaciers after Thousands of years, some would eat it... I suppose that will make you think the ground beef in the back of your freezer from last summer would be good to eat lol..

 

Yes.... I had read about some people eating long frozen meat from Woolly Mammoth's.

 

Yea, well, I think "AGW nuts" need to understand that the climate changes and accept it, and accept the fact that humans have nothing to do with it, or play an extremely minor role in our climate.

Do people realize how big the Earth is? do they understand how little space we occupy on Earth?

Humans cant cause climate change...

If we could cause climate change then we would be able to manipulate the climate for the better...

AGW is nothing more than a political tool...

Furthermore who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) if the climate is allegedly getting warmer - that is better for everyone on the planet.

If it matters melting ice won't raise the sea levels.... You want proof? put ice in a cup and let it melt.

 

Perhaps our negative role could be minor......
but if we decided to deliberately finance large scale desalination of ocean water for agriculture and
reforestation of desert areas.....
our positive impact on the climate could be astounding?

 

Wow.... it is wonderful to have AA back on the forum!

A very simple and easy to understand explanation of why climate change is REAL.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-of-why-climate-change-is-real.503883/page-15

 

Best way to get someone to take abstract theories seriously, quit with the hysterics and name calling. The more it's hyped as the end of the world, the less people actually care.

 

Good point.......
I am actually kind of hopeful that the possible threat of rising ocean levels will lead to a boom in our Canadian economy........... increased cooperation between the nations of Jordan and Israel......... the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Third Temple, (surely by 2070 but perhaps even by 2030).............. and the deliberate turning of deserts green along the line of what was predicted by Isaiah in chapter 35.........


http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/jamie-baillie-nova-scotia-israel-and-jordan.506627/

 

"according to the HAB Theory, is that periodically - at intervals ranging from 3,000 to 7000 years but averaging around 5,500 years apart - great global cataclysms have occurred which destroyed virtually all of whatever life forms or civilizations had developed on the Earth to that point."

How would you then explain civilization that have unbroken timelines far exceeding this time line and a fossil/geological record that debunks it completely?

 

Actually.... I did read Immanuel Velikovsky's book and what he stated was that a major magnetic polar shift had occurred 171 times in earth's history.

Have you ever thrown one of those cheap balls that seems to be weighted slightly in one area. They wobble in the air........ that seems like a logical thing to perhaps happen if Antarctica becomes weighted due to the growth of the ice there.


http://biblefacts.org/pdf/worlds-collision.pdf

 

OR....Gravity interacts with mass.....weird huh?

 

Indeed!

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...rael-and-jordan.506627/page-2#post-1067853498

 

Somewhere a chicken is clucking which adds to science as much as this article.

 

But...... what is needed at this time may not be so much advancement in science.......
but in economics.

And in win - win - win - win -win diplomacy!

 

The reason that so many people don't take climate change seriously is because they lied so often with hyperbolic doomsday scenarios and predictions. From Hansen's 1 meter rises in ocean level to almost two decades of flat temp despite having more CO2 pumped out than ever before. And no we didn't have two of the hottest years on record recently because the increase in temp was .01 degrees Celsius and the margin of error was .1 degrees. No other scientific field considers a change in variance that is 1/10 the margin of error considered measurable.

I actually believe in AGW although I don't subscribe to the hell on earth scenarios that some people do. My biggest beef and its a huge one with the AGW community is they are constantly putting forth predictive models as "evidence" and proof. What the **** is wrong with the scientific education in today's world. No other field uses models of evidence as proof of their theories. Even in physics and astronomy using the example of dark matter and dark energy which they have modeled they acknowledge that they are just theories and that neither has actually been observed yet and those fields are far more precise and rigorous than climate change.

When I was growing up in the 90s all I heard was how the CO2 from the US alone was to much for the world to handle and we had to do something about it now. Today China pumps out more CO2 than the US and the EU combined and they will continue to do so till 2030 when the so called Paris accords will save us......oh wait ......they just agreed to come up with a plan to reduce the rate of increase and they don't even have to actually do that since there is no enforcement mechanism.

Bottom line is that based on their past behavior climatologists act like snake oil salesmen and not actual scientists. Its a shame because we have serious problems coming down the road and they shot themselves in the foot by crying wolf far to often.

 

Little doubt humans are adding to the carbon footprint with rising CO2 levels and glaciers melting (not all but enough). The question is how much is not man made and what are we going to do about it that doesn't cripple nation states ability to be secure and take care of their population without destroying the economy.

When people talk about the problem without all the hyperbole and shaming yada then we can work for solutions that are sensible.

I'm not certain why environmentalists aren't talking about fusion. There is no reason the world can't spend more money a collaborate more there.

 

You are confusing the problem with various attempts to address the problem.

And, you are forgetting that science has progressed in the last 25 years.

Making decisions today while limiting scientific input to what was known 25 years ago is exactly how anyone in business would go about suicide.

Why in God's name would anyone use THAT as an excuse for ignoring science of TODAY???

Your argument leaves me wondering how the US is going to compete in a world where other nations just are not that STUPID.

 

Uh no those arguments were just used in the last two years. They claimed that they had the two hottest years on record but the difference was .01 and the margin of error was .1 degrees celsius. No real scientist would ever include a measurement that was within the margin of error. Have you ever taken a single science class ever in your life? This is first year stuff, if you don't even know that then you have no business even commenting on this stuff.

Secondly, they claimed back then that what they said was fact and do the same now. Computer models ARE NOT EVIDENCE, they are models and tools used to predict outcomes but as we have seen with the unexpected lull in temp increases they are still flawed. Yet what are climatologists doing, they are still putting forth climate models as evidence. Once again absolutely no other scientific field does this, its only climate scientists who are in no way shape or form actual scientists. At this point in time the only people I find credible are actual scientists like physicists, chemists and so on. The problem is that any material they contribute to the debate is immediately drowned out by *******s like Hansen and Mann who have literally never had a single one of their predictions come to fruition. People like you and them seriously need to go the **** away and leave it to the grownups to convince the rest of the world that something needs to be done about AGW. You ****ed it up for the rest of us.

You cried wolf way to many times declaring the end of civilization and the world was going to burn in hell far to often and now no one believes you. Even if they pay lip service climate change is always at the bottom of the list of issues that people vote on. The failure is entirely on people like you who went around screaming insane hyperbole and thus making it very difficult for rational global warming advocates such as myself to convince other people.

 

No, the models were shown to accurately indicate the heat Earth is collecting.

The fact that more of the heat went into the oceans for a while is not some sort of indication that warming has stopped.


And, your hyperbole on what you accuse ME of saying is not just wrong - it's the worst sort of argument imaginable. You couldn't make it more stupid even if you were right, which you are obviously not!

 

No that is not true. Hansen even wrote a paper on the subject about how the models were wrong in their predictions and how local weather patterns like El Nino should be taken into consideration. I will ask again why have absolutely none of the predictions from the 90s come to fruition and yet they were treated as fact and why is it that despite the fact that China has pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 15 years than the US has since the 1970s no longer a big deal. Back then we couldn't move fast enough and now people like you are applauding a crappy toothless treaty that doesn't even take effect for another 13 years and even then no one is actually obligated to do anything. Either CO2 emissions are a big deal and something needs to be done now or its not really a big deal and we can afford to wait another couple of decades. Which argument is it because you cannot have both of them.

The only papers that claim they found missing heat are from Mann who has been discredited a long time ago. Google missing heat and even the papers that claim that missing heat was foundin the ocean say that it doesnt account for all of it. Not to mention that those papers once again........use ****ing models as evidence which do not match up with the real world measurements. There is no heat trapped in the deep ocean period.

Is US CO2 any different than Chinese or Indian CO2? Why is it OK to go on for another 13 years of massive emissions and almost the entire AGW alarmist crowd applauds such an idiotic treaty.

 

Oh, good lord. This is just plain ridiculous.

The bottom line is that it is hard to even identify a lull.

As for your last paragraph, why are you switching sides all of a sudden???

Yes, people are applauding the treaty. Yes, it doesn't have the teeth that Trump and other idiots claim we should fear. And, yes it is as good as could be expected at the time from the world's nations - including the US (with the highest per capita emissions) and China (with the highest total emissions).


AND, even oil companies are pushing for a tax on carbon emissions.

You're so far on the fringe you can't even find your way to those who have a direct financial stake in the most basic moves toward solution.

 

I didn't switch. I am consistent. Once again I will ask. Do we need to start doing something about CO2 emmissions now or is it not as bad as the alarmists have claimed and we can afford to wait decades? You cannot argue both sides and yet that is precisely what the AGW alarmists are doing.

To reiterate, I believe in AGW. I believe it is a problem that needs to be dealt with what is pissing me off is that apparently many people that claim to want to make changes really don't actually care about making the changes they are more concerned about appearing to care. The Paris Treaty is the textbook definition of a feel good policy that everyone supports because it affects virtually no one. The reason that countries opposed the Kyoto and Copenhagen treaties was precisely because they did have some teeth at least. The fact that virtually every country supported the Paris accords is a huge red flag that it is entirely meaningless.

Anytime I get into a debate with someone about AGW they keep throwing the lull in heat temp increases and the fact that ice caps are still there and oceans haven't swallowed up whole cities despite Hansen and Mann's predictions and there is no response to that. If the AGW crowd was actually honest for a change and didn't constantly lie like they did the last two years it would make my job a hell of a lot easier. BUt they keep lying all the time.