P
pixelsmith
Guest
Now if you can just find some warming....lol!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
How Silly is Climate Change Denial?
- Thread starter Angel of Ioren
- Start date
P
pixelsmith
Guest
No warming, no melted poles, no increased storms or hurricanes, no increased drought, no melting glaciers , no rising sea levels etc etc. But you have greened pockets of the elite. Good job Tyger.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
boomerang
Paranormal Adept
A (probably in vain) attempt at clarification: The central question is not whether climate patterns worldwide are changing. They have always been in flux and few scientists on either side of the debate would disagree on this.
The question is more complex: What is the role of human population and industry in the progression and direction of earth's climate cycles? How to best adapt to whatever changes are going to occur despite the number of global conferences held, while humans continue to proliferate and industrialize?
Today's science represents a teeny time slice of the planet's history. We needn't reach far back in history to find recorded evidence of very anomalous weather:
Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an issue related but not equivalent to global human overpopulation, mass destruction of natural habitat, and so many more of the smart monkey's not-so-smart ideas. Not saying I have the answers and we have certainly left a big mess behind us.
I will now yell "incoming" and hit the deck.
The question is more complex: What is the role of human population and industry in the progression and direction of earth's climate cycles? How to best adapt to whatever changes are going to occur despite the number of global conferences held, while humans continue to proliferate and industrialize?
Today's science represents a teeny time slice of the planet's history. We needn't reach far back in history to find recorded evidence of very anomalous weather:
Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an issue related but not equivalent to global human overpopulation, mass destruction of natural habitat, and so many more of the smart monkey's not-so-smart ideas. Not saying I have the answers and we have certainly left a big mess behind us.
I will now yell "incoming" and hit the deck.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Watch the debate to the last seconds. Hopefully some of you will learn something.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
You have posted the above as a sterling representation of your views? Of a dialog of the science? I am in disbelief!
If one learns anything 'in the last seconds' it is how desperate the coal and nuclear industries are peddling to save themselves, their bottom lines. Did you notice 'in the last seconds' how quickly the show hosts roll over Erwin Jackson's point that the coal industry is subsidized and its true cost is hidden as a consequence? You do know that Patrick Moore is on the payroll of the energy industry? Even Wikipedia knows that.
If this is what you are listening to, it's a great insight into why you believe the way you do. Your ability to discern the subtleties of the arguments is in question, I think. Your ability to recognize science is in question. Now I get it.
This Patrick Moore is quite a spin-doctor. I listened to the end and it is clear he is bought and paid for. In the course of the 25 minutes - he and the two show hosts spend more time repeating catch phrases (CO2 is not a pollutant, plants like CO2, a warmer planet is better for us, etc) like a blizzard. Clear indoctrination is afoot - as well as whipping up the anger of the audience. Bogus from start to finish. Erwin Jackson does a good job as far as he was allowed but let's not kid ourselves that this 25 minute show was anything like a genuine dialog. It wasn't.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
No just a rare debate with a "warmist." They rarely debate cuz actual science and their own models prove them wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Erwin cited IPCC and many other sources but he cited them WRONG. He is a complete idiot who can't even get his own sources right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Only really stupid people would believe CO2 is a pollutant in the low concentrations we have now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Please indicate what parts were bogus of that debate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This as a reply to the video debate, is weak, infact its shameful, get a grip ffs tyger lad.
What all in the debate agreed upon, IS 97% OF ALL CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS NATURALLY OCCURING, human activity only contributes 3% off the total, you warmers really REALLY should get a grip on reality.
Last edited:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Tyger PLEASE tell us what is not factual in the video debate... or are you one of the st#p!d people that believe CO2 is a pollutant at 400 ppm?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
We have had goofy people like Tyger try to defend themselves in the past here. They end up leaving the forum because they can't.
maybe he was watching a different debate, the warmer did nothing more than appeal to authority of the long discredited 90% of scientist's agree routine, he was bereft of answers, the man had zero substance, and consequently ends up looking like the clueless talking head he is.
As for the main plank of his argument that over 90% of scientists cannot be wrong, i doubt even 90% of their own in-house trained climate scientists agree with the ipcc forcasts and conclusions.
As for the main plank of his argument that over 90% of scientists cannot be wrong, i doubt even 90% of their own in-house trained climate scientists agree with the ipcc forcasts and conclusions.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Tyger and several others here still cling to the lies and silly computer models instead of actual observed data. Sad really.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
I suppose it must be obvious to any casual reader of this thread that going to page 1 of this thread and reading forward is probably the best bet. Scads of informative posts peppered through the thread - not by me but by others.
To respond to the baiting going on here is to risk just repeating all that has gone before with little effect for the primary provocateurs, because that's all it is.
I would recommend entering the dialog via certain links, understanding that this is not a this-or-that situation. The 'warmer' (as he was described here) in the video linked above was being dead-on straight about public policy and how the science informs it.
As for the SPM of the IPCC report (2013) - and it's problems/constraints - start one's reading here -
LINK: RealClimate: A failure in communicating the impact of new findings
If you are interested in some rejoinders to the catch-phrases repeated in the above linked video, you can start here -
LINK: Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
Some examples -
- Models are unreliable: Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
LINK: How reliable are climate models?
- "CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused": Many lines of evidence, including simple accounting, demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human fossil fuel burning.
LINK: What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?
- "CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician": The sun was much cooler during the Ordovician.
LINK: CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
- "They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'":
'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades'.
LINK: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
- "It hasn't warmed since 1998": For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.
LINK: What has global warming done since 1998?
TEXT: "No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.
"Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends -- and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables -- like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking single points.
"There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heatstoring capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon (Figure 1). More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the surface air temperature."
- "Global warming stopped in1998,1995, 2002, 2007,2010, ????":
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.
LINK: Did global warming stop in <strike>1998</strike>, <strike>1995</strike>, <strike>2002</strike>, <strike>2007</strike>, 2010?
- "CO2 is plant food":
The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors
LINK: CO2 is plant food
- "Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2emissions": The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
LINK: How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
- "CO2 is not a pollutant":
Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant
LINK: Is CO2 a pollutant?
For context: "We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure. A vivid example is sulphur dioxide, a by-product of industrial activity. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on health and the environment. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occuring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants need it to survive. The CO2 greenhouse effect keeps our climate from freezing over. How can CO2 be considered a pollutant?
"A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to anecosystem. Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in theatmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures."
To respond to the baiting going on here is to risk just repeating all that has gone before with little effect for the primary provocateurs, because that's all it is.
I would recommend entering the dialog via certain links, understanding that this is not a this-or-that situation. The 'warmer' (as he was described here) in the video linked above was being dead-on straight about public policy and how the science informs it.
As for the SPM of the IPCC report (2013) - and it's problems/constraints - start one's reading here -
LINK: RealClimate: A failure in communicating the impact of new findings
If you are interested in some rejoinders to the catch-phrases repeated in the above linked video, you can start here -
LINK: Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
Some examples -
- Models are unreliable: Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
LINK: How reliable are climate models?
- "CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused": Many lines of evidence, including simple accounting, demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human fossil fuel burning.
LINK: What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?
- "CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician": The sun was much cooler during the Ordovician.
LINK: CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
- "They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'":
'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades'.
LINK: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
- "It hasn't warmed since 1998": For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.
LINK: What has global warming done since 1998?
TEXT: "No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.
"Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends -- and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables -- like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking single points.
"There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heatstoring capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon (Figure 1). More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the surface air temperature."
- "Global warming stopped in
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.
LINK: Did global warming stop in <strike>1998</strike>, <strike>1995</strike>, <strike>2002</strike>, <strike>2007</strike>, 2010?
- "CO2 is plant food":
The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors
LINK: CO2 is plant food
- "Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2emissions": The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
LINK: How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
- "CO2 is not a pollutant":
Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant
LINK: Is CO2 a pollutant?
For context: "We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure. A vivid example is sulphur dioxide, a by-product of industrial activity. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on health and the environment. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occuring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants need it to survive. The CO2 greenhouse effect keeps our climate from freezing over. How can CO2 be considered a pollutant?
"A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to anecosystem. Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in theatmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures."
Last edited:
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
To quote myself from post#480, page# 24: Posting links is not my usual preference but this is a complicated issue - made more so because the casual debater who insists on black/white thinking and politicizing what is actually very subtle and reasonable scientific lines of thinking, degrades the whole lively conversation. There's a lot to discuss, but it's impossible with made-up minds. "The time to make up your mind is never."
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Inflating post count? Who gives a ratzazz about a post count? Often times I barely have time to post one line.
Posting lots of bullshit doesn't make it true... Like CO2 being a pollutant. Lol
Did it ever dawn on you that the first three people on this forum were Gene, David then myself? Lol. That would tend to give me a few posts. That really does help me understand you better tho.
If you are so concerned about carbon and CO2 then do the right thing and stop your toxic emissions for just 20 minutes to help save the planet because according to recent studies from your "camp" you are a carbon based CO2 emitting useless eater.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posting lots of bullshit doesn't make it true... Like CO2 being a pollutant. Lol
Did it ever dawn on you that the first three people on this forum were Gene, David then myself? Lol. That would tend to give me a few posts. That really does help me understand you better tho.
If you are so concerned about carbon and CO2 then do the right thing and stop your toxic emissions for just 20 minutes to help save the planet because according to recent studies from your "camp" you are a carbon based CO2 emitting useless eater.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by a moderator: