+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 30 of 38 FirstFirst ... 20262728293031323334 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 376

Thread: Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

  1. Default

    Incorrect Bowerbird; this may indeed be so for the few very hot countries, for the majority, solar panels are not cost effective at all.

    The reason why many governments offer subsidies is because of the high cost of installation. Offering subsidies was the only way to get householders and companies to install them. Solar panels have been demonstrated to be one of the least cost effective methods of combating climate change.

    I see; as long as he's turning it into a guest house it's fine; you completely fail to see what I'm referring to here. Stop making ridiculous excuses to justify the fact that those who dictate to the rest of us how we must change our lifestyles and behaviours have absolutely no intention of making the same sacrifices themselves. The argument being used in this respect is pathetic.

    Do your own research. Are you seriously implying that the HadCRUT3 data set has not crucially underpinned the IPCC assessment reports and other crucial scientific studies?

    Ok, lets debate the 'science'. Demonstrate to me inequivicably that modern Climate Change is anthrpogenic in nature, using only science.

    Beats me how exactly you are going to do this. If you are indeed projecting your unshakable insistance upon others based on scientific data alone, you should agree that scientific method relies on repeatable observational data?

    The thread asks a question regarding observational data; in that the scientists who are responsible for seriously influencing much of the policy making in place today, have grudgingly admitted that since approx: 1996/7 there has been no discernable warming.

    If you; and other anthropogenic CC advocates genuinely believe in the wisdom of scientific method, you would also agree that solar activity has to be fully investigated before any scientific body can state that anything is fact, rather than belief. You already stated that "yes, man is responsible" and yet you are wholly unable to demonstrate it; that's ridiculous.

    There is a huge elephant in the room, the elephant being that observational data has demonstrated that whilst the Earth was warming so were other planets, this trend cannot continue to be ignored.

    Now that here on Earth we have seen a cooling effect over the last one and a half decades, observational data trends of other planets and whether they are also cooling is imperative.

    By the way; at no point during our conversations have you so much as attempted to debate the science; sorry but your brightly coloured pictorial just doesn't do it for me.

    As for skeptic sites being full of lies and cherry picking; I wouldn't know I don't visit them. Regarding links; what do you want me to do, put up worthless pictorials like yourself, because they look impressive but tell you nothing, or perhaps give you links to sites you have already deemed full of lies and cherry pickers?

    You might want to start with the Danish Meteorological Institute; and maybe some of the work carried out by Friis Christensen and Lassen.
    Last edited by NotAmused; Feb 19 2012 at 07:04 AM.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater View Post
    Not in and of itself. But anthropogenic attribution isn't based on just that alone. It's also based on Conservation of Energy, and on observations of downwelling IR, and on observations of upwelling IR, and on observations of stratospheric cooling, and on observations of oceanic heat content, and on observations of earth's orbit, and on observations of declining solar activity, and on observations of atmospheric clarity, and on observations of oceanic acidity, and on historical records of fossil fuel production.

    Is there any part of that list that is not part of settled science, in your view? If so, what?
    observations of what? a small section of a vast planet? for how long? a hundred years? two hundred? and the planet is millions of years old? and fossil fuel production has been going on for a infintismal amount of time geologically.

    this is where I have a real problem with the egos of the climate change fools...they really think that they can look at data from yesterday to predict what's going to happen a hundred years from now. They really think they can control the world. Remove all risks, 'Save the Planet'...from itself..they think they are bigger and better and smarter than Mother Nature herself..they think their computers have all the answers when all the computers have is what THEY put into them. GIGO: anyone remember that phrase? You put garbage in, you get garbage out.

    Oh, and I noticed your celebrated enviroceleb there was wearing clothes with man made fibers...
    http://retreat.smfforfree.com/index.php

    my forum: a home for gay conservatives and my friends.

  3. #293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowerbird View Post
    But without those "shell games" how can we convince people to do what is right?

    I am not saying shell games occur but just read through this thread and you will see fervent opposition to fixing an environmental (and societal) problem. Scientists have been trying to warn the public for decades now that there is a real looming problem and it will impact our civilisation

    Never in the history of man have so many ignored and derided so few for so long
    Why not simply promote and provide for the general welfare and common defense of the United States? Discovering more perfect knowledge of structures can actually solve most of our problems in modern times, instead of just transferring resources without actually solving the problem.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by injest View Post
    observations of what? a small section of a vast planet? for how long? a hundred years? two hundred? and the planet is millions of years old? and fossil fuel production has been going on for a infintismal amount of time geologically.

    this is where I have a real problem with the egos of the climate change fools...they really think that they can look at data from yesterday to predict what's going to happen a hundred years from now. They really think they can control the world. Remove all risks, 'Save the Planet'...from itself..they think they are bigger and better and smarter than Mother Nature herself..they think their computers have all the answers when all the computers have is what THEY put into them. GIGO: anyone remember that phrase? You put garbage in, you get garbage out.

    Oh, and I noticed your celebrated enviroceleb there was wearing clothes with man made fibers...
    Wow a whole field of strawmen.
    Climatologists make projections; they do not predict. Learn the difference

    "Climate change fools" do not want to control the world; we want to limit the amount of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.

    "Climate change fools" do not want to remove all risks; we want a policy with the least amount of risk

    "Climate change fools" do not want to 'Save the Planet' from itself; we do not think the planet is in any danger.

    "Climate change fools" do not think they are bigger and better and smarter than Mother Nature; we do not want to (*)(*)(*)(*) off Mother Nature.

    "Climate change fools" do not think computers have all the answers; we think that computers are a tool to help us understand the math and physics involved in climate change.

    Climatologists understand GIGO; only confirmed data, no speculation ('it might be an unknown causing warming') is ever used.
    1. The Scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.--Luntz Research

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RPA1 View Post
    The problem with that statement is that there is no 'equation' in the first place because no one has actually experimented with the global climate successfully.



    The subject was mercury.



    It is well known that the livers of polar bears, seals, walruses and the Husky contain extraordinarily high levels of Vitamin A which can be toxic to humans. The Inuits have long known this.



    As is anyone who eats predatory marine life mostly due to natural mercury.



    Agreed



    I do know that storm drains are a big cause of ocean pollution. Where I live there is a major water-way running right through the City and I know for a fact that the runoff is not all sent to a treatment facility. The City has permanent plaques on every storm drain that warn of dumping pollutants and there are constant local radio PA spots that warn folks not to dump pollutants down drains, gutters, etc.
    Good that we agree on POP's .. that is fantastic. This is the number on problem that needs to be addressed (IMO) .. and the opinion of every scientist I have ever talked to that has knowledge on the subject matter.

    This includes mercury. The murcury levels in the Ocean are increasing. A fisheries spokesperson in this article claims that mercury levels in fish have not risen in 30 years (study tests the water but not the fish) .. but then the article goes on to talk about how tuna have high man made mercury levels.

    http://www.environmentalhealthnews.o...ury-increasing

    Some articles do falsly claim that mercury levels in Tuna are rising.

    http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...rcury-47050102

    My stance is that we should stop putting mercury into the oceans !

  6. #296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MannieD View Post
    Wow a whole field of strawmen.
    Climatologists make projections; they do not predict. Learn the difference

    "Climate change fools" do not want to control the world; we want to limit the amount of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.

    "Climate change fools" do not want to remove all risks; we want a policy with the least amount of risk

    "Climate change fools" do not want to 'Save the Planet' from itself; we do not think the planet is in any danger.

    "Climate change fools" do not think they are bigger and better and smarter than Mother Nature; we do not want to (*)(*)(*)(*) off Mother Nature.

    "Climate change fools" do not think computers have all the answers; we think that computers are a tool to help us understand the math and physics involved in climate change.

    Climatologists understand GIGO; only confirmed data, no speculation ('it might be an unknown causing warming') is ever used.
    In my opinion, supply side economic should be supplying us with better governance at lower prices.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    Incorrect Bowerbird; this may indeed be so for the few very hot countries, for the majority, solar panels are not cost effective at all.
    no they are cost effective, it's just hat fossil fuel are less expensive so more attractive alternative.


    The reason why many governments offer subsidies is because of the high cost of installation. Offering subsidies was the only way to get householders and companies to install them. Solar panels have been demonstrated to be one of the least cost effective methods of combating climate change.
    take the choice factor way and it becomes the norm...just as governments regulated the auto industry demanding better fuel economy and less emissions, prices went up, we adjusted and paid them because there was no other choice given. Auto performance suffered but once forced to improve the auto industry re-engineered and as a result we have better vehicles than we ever did in the past. The green energy industry will be the same, technological advances will produce a viable power source.

    Ok, lets debate the 'science'. Demonstrate to me inequivicably that modern Climate Change is anthrpogenic in nature, using only science.
    it's been done over and over you choose to ignore it, 97% of the planets scientists have seen enough to convince them but you apparently know more even though you have never looked at the evidence.


    Beats me how exactly you are going to do this. If you are indeed projecting your unshakable insistance upon others based on scientific data alone, you should agree that scientific method relies on repeatable observational data?
    that's the nice thing about math/data it doesn't lie...physicists are able to predict events and the unknown purely on the math, observable testable data comes much later verifying their models....computer models for climate change projections work the same way, projections for change have been very accurate if anything too conservative.


    The thread asks a question regarding observational data; in that the scientists who are responsible for seriously influencing much of the policy making in place today, have grudgingly admitted that since approx: 1996/7 there has been no discernable warming.
    another lie there is no doubt there is still warming but it's deliberate dishonesty on your part and that of other deniers to cherry pick data and spin that data...including the freakishly warm el Nino year, by starting the data from (96/97) is a deliberate spin to to give the impression the warming has stalled(it hasn't) and it certainly hasn't cooled...then the totally dishonest cherry picking of short term data to determine a long term event, dishonest or completely lacking knowledge in the application of data.

    If you; and other anthropogenic CC advocates genuinely believe in the wisdom of scientific method, you would also agree that solar activity has to be fully investigated before any scientific body can state that anything is fact, rather than belief. You already stated that "yes, man is responsible" and yet you are wholly unable to demonstrate it; that's ridiculous.
    solar activity has been fully investigated and ABSOLUTELY ruled out, this not even debatable, solar activity is the lowest it's been in a hundred years and yet average temps continue to rise. When all other known sources have been eliminated the only thing left is man made emissions.

    There is a huge elephant in the room, the elephant being that observational data has demonstrated that whilst the Earth was warming so were other planets, this trend cannot continue to be ignored.
    the elephant in the room is ignorance, some planets are cooling, by what magical solar process do some planets heat while others cool?

    Now that here on Earth we have seen a cooling effect over the last one and a half decades, observational data trends of other planets and whether they are also cooling is imperative.
    there has been no cooling of the earth over the last 15years, you're making s*** up.

    By the way; at no point during our conversations have you so much as attempted to debate the science; sorry but your brightly coloured pictorial just doesn't do it for me.
    your lack of scientific knowledge is very apparent, even a minimal of effort on your part would have answered your questions. You have your belief and look for no evidence that may upset that belief.

    As for skeptic sites being full of lies and cherry picking; I wouldn't know I don't visit them. Regarding links; what do you want me to do, put up worthless pictorials like yourself, because they look impressive but tell you nothing, or perhaps give you links to sites you have already deemed full of lies and cherry pickers?
    everything you claim is right from the pages of skeptic sites...cooling planets, data cherry picking, deliberate obscuring of data and process.

    You might want to start with the Danish Meteorological Institute; and maybe some of the work carried out by Friis Christensen and Lassen.
    ya good idea go have look at what Friis-Christensen has to say about solar activity...that although solar activity is linked with global temp(obviously), recent temperature increases are not the result of solar activity...but then if you were scientifically objective and would've known
    “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”-John Stuart Mill

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    So; Amory Lovins showers with solar-heated water.

    The advances that allowed him to create this home with a tiny carbon footprint came with an incredibly high upfront cost. The reality is, the majority cannot ever afford to do this and citing one individual; is not a valid rebuttal.
    A lot of things that save money in the long run come with a high upfront cost. Any house comes with a high upfront cost. So you're saying it is a waste of money to save money? That makes no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    I could also cite a single individual who just happens to be the UK Climate Minister; who also happens to have purchased a 16 bathroom Castle and a massive carbon footprint.
    So we agree that people should have smaller carbon footprints. Chalk up one for the good guys.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    One poster is also being disegenuous when stating that the peer review system is not tightly controlled. How do you explain scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia's clear statements that whenever they were presented with data that did not concur with their own belief systems, they redefined what peer-review literature is?
    What people gripe about in private email, and what they actually do, are two different things. If in fact these guys were trying to break the peer-review system, how do you explain the fact that the two papers Phil Jones was complaining about in his e-mail were actually cited and referenced in the IPCC report? Do you have the slightest shred of evidence that any actual suppression of anything really occurred, anywhere?

    As usual, when asked for evidence, you will provide none.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    You also demonstrate quite clearly that your knowledge also consists only of verbally repeating the data you yourselves have read and digested; and of whose source conclusions you accept; yet the skeptics are worthy of scorn for doing the same thing, even when their sources may also be respected.
    What sources? You have yet to provide any sources to support your arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    You also make silly, emotion based assumptions; just because I personally have doubts does not mean I have not read much of the same data you have. It's available to everyone you know.
    So you've read it and rejected it, and you still won't tell us why. Do you understand why your argument is unconvincing?

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    But; I suppose unless I have the same mindset and the same belief systems you have, I cannot possibly have read the 'right' data, yes?

    Do you realise just how ridiculous that sounds?
    From your posts, there is no evidence that you have read and understood any data. Because you refuse to cite any data, or address the data in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    Those very incontrovertible facts along with the very impressive pictorials provided in one post; still does not demonstrate that man is responsible; it still remains an unproven theory, a leap of faith, no matter how much you may scream, shout and ridicule.
    In other words, no amount of data supporting the consensus will convince you; while zero data from the skeptical side is totally convincing to you. How illogical is that?

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    What you are doing here on this thread is very similar to what scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia have been systematically doing; trying to censor differing opinions.
    I'm not trying to censor your opinions. I'm trying to find out what your opinions are based on. And so far, the answer seems to be: smoke and mirrors.

    The Top 5 Tactics of climate denial:
    1. Cherry Picking 2. Fake Experts 3. Impossible Expectations 4. Misrepresenting the Science & Logical Fallacies 5. Conspiracy Theories
    Diethelm & Mckee 2009

    Honesty is not on the list.



  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by injest View Post
    observations of what? a small section of a vast planet? for how long? a hundred years? two hundred? and the planet is millions of years old? and fossil fuel production has been going on for a infintismal amount of time geologically.

    this is where I have a real problem with the egos of the climate change fools...they really think that they can look at data from yesterday to predict what's going to happen a hundred years from now.
    So, you don't believe that Earth's orbit can be predicted a hundred years into the future? How do scientists accomplish that impossible trick? Just tell me how, so I know what in science works, and what doesn't.

    Or, more precisely, how you decide what part of science fits with your worldview, and what parts of science your brain demands must be rejected.

    Quote Originally Posted by injest View Post
    They really think they can control the world. Remove all risks, 'Save the Planet'...from itself..they think they are bigger and better and smarter than Mother Nature herself..
    Nothing can remove all risk. But the risk here is (a) huge; and (b) mostly avoidable, if we act rapidly. What's wrong with avoiding avoidable risk?

    Quote Originally Posted by injest View Post
    they think their computers have all the answers when all the computers have is what THEY put into them. GIGO: anyone remember that phrase? You put garbage in, you get garbage out.
    Every law of science is a model. If you don't like models, you don't like science.

    Quote Originally Posted by injest View Post
    Oh, and I noticed your celebrated enviroceleb there was wearing clothes with man made fibers...
    1. You could tell that from a Youtube? How, pray tell?
    2. So what? We don't have to give up modernity, we just need to change our energy consumption habits.

    The Top 5 Tactics of climate denial:
    1. Cherry Picking 2. Fake Experts 3. Impossible Expectations 4. Misrepresenting the Science & Logical Fallacies 5. Conspiracy Theories
    Diethelm & Mckee 2009

    Honesty is not on the list.



  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    Do your own research. Are you seriously implying that the HadCRUT3 data set has not crucially underpinned the IPCC assessment reports and other crucial scientific studies?
    I am. HADCRUT3 is only one of three global surface temperature datasets, and of those three it is the one with the fewest number of source stations. In particular, HADCRUT3 is seriously deficient in Arctic stations, a region that is the fastest-warming region on Earth. So where HADCRUT3 disagrees with GISS and NCDC, I'd put my money on the other two.

    Beyond that, the only thing surface temperature records show is that the planet is warming, and there are dozens of other indicators that also show that the earth is warming. Glaciers are melting, Greenland is losing ice mass, Antarctica is losing ice mass, sea level is rising, animals are migrating upward and poleward, Arctic sea ice is melting.

    But most importantly, oceanic heat content is continuing to rise, and that's where the vast majority of global warming actually goes.



    That little pink wedge is surface temperature. Total global warming is the blue part.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    Ok, lets debate the 'science'. Demonstrate to me inequivicably that modern Climate Change is anthrpogenic in nature, using only science.
    I can't demonstrate unequivocally that the Earth revolves around the Sun. If that's your bar, you have set it too high. If you want certainty, go to church. Nothing in science is ever proven. There is always room for new data. That's why skeptical scientists are always allowed to publish.

    What I can do is show that anthropogenic causes are a far better explanation than any other hypothesis to explain the observed climate data.

    What I can do is show that all other hypotheses have huge holes that do not fit with observations, while the greenhouse hypothesis does not.

    Will that be good enough for you?

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    Beats me how exactly you are going to do this. If you are indeed projecting your unshakable insistance upon others based on scientific data alone, you should agree that scientific method relies on repeatable observational data?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    The thread asks a question regarding observational data; in that the scientists who are responsible for seriously influencing much of the policy making in place today, have grudgingly admitted that since approx: 1996/7 there has been no discernable warming.
    Which scientists are those? Relying on what data?

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    If you; and other anthropogenic CC advocates genuinely believe in the wisdom of scientific method, you would also agree that solar activity has to be fully investigated before any scientific body can state that anything is fact, rather than belief.
    Solar activity must be, and has been, investigated, and found not responsible for the current warming. For direct effects, see Foster & Rahmstorf 2011, and Lean & Rind 2008. For indirect effects (UV) see Shindall et. al. 1999. For cosmic ray effects, see Kazil et. al. 2006, Sloan & Wolfendale 2008, Kristjansson et. al. 2008. For Dansgaard-Oscher events, see Bond et. al. 1999, Rahmstorf 2003, and Braun et. al. 2005.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    There is a huge elephant in the room, the elephant being that observational data has demonstrated that whilst the Earth was warming so were other planets, this trend cannot continue to be ignored.
    If the Sun were responsible, then all solar system bodies should be warming. If other factors are responsible, then half of all solar system bodies should be warming and half should be cooling (and a large number should be impossible to judge either way).

    So let's look at the data:

    MARS: After weather effects are removed, there is no evidence that Mars is warming at all. See Swast 2006 and Richardson 2007.

    JUPITER: No warming observed. Climate models predict warming at the equator and cooling at the poles. But (a) that's not global; and (b) you don't believe the models on Earth, so why are you going to believe them on Jupiter?

    SATURN: No observed change.

    TITAN: No observed change.

    URANUS: Cooling in the stratosphere, but may be due to seasonal effects. See Young et. al. 2001.

    NEPTUNE: Getting brighter, which may or may not indicate warming. May just be a seasonal effect.

    PLUTO: Warming, but consistent with seasonal effects. See Sromovsky 2003.

    The elephant in the room turns out to be a churchmouse.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    Now that here on Earth we have seen a cooling effect over the last one and a half decades,
    Why are you basing your belief on one dataset, which shows no cooling in spite of your claims to the contrary, while (a) ignoring GISS, which shows warming; (b) ignoring NCDC, which shows warming; (c) ignoring UAH, which shows warming; (d) ignoring RSS, which shows warming; (e) ignoring Levitus, which shows warming?

    It's because you're cherry picking the data: picking the least reliable dataset because it supports your pre-existing views.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAmused View Post
    You might want to start with the Danish Meteorological Institute; and maybe some of the work carried out by Friis Christensen and Lassen.
    In that case, I'm sure you're familiar with Lassen 1999, in which he states that, contrary to his earlier work (Friis-Christensen & Lassen 1991), "since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature".

    In other words, it was a good try twenty years ago, but it is clearly no longer a good hypothesis. It is almost like something else is interfering with the normal solar cooling that we should expect to see. Hmmm. I wonder what that could be?

    The Top 5 Tactics of climate denial:
    1. Cherry Picking 2. Fake Experts 3. Impossible Expectations 4. Misrepresenting the Science & Logical Fallacies 5. Conspiracy Theories
    Diethelm & Mckee 2009

    Honesty is not on the list.



+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 30 of 38 FirstFirst ... 20262728293031323334 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. I agree with Global Warming SCIENCE, but not Global Warmign POLICY, they are not same
    By SiliconMagician in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Aug 03 2014, 06:18 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct 23 2011, 09:45 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks