BajaNomad - snorkeling in La Paz

snorkeling in La Paz

Pages: 1 2

bajafam - 7-24-2019 at 11:34 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Finchaser2020

And to think that I was just interested in reading about some cool baja snorkeling........

This site has gone way off the deep end, rising water levels or not!

sigh.......

That's kind of the way it's always been. It delineates to the personal sandbox of some members often.

StuckSucks - 7-24-2019 at 12:00 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Finchaser2020

And to think that I was just interested in reading about some cool baja snorkeling........

This site has gone way off the deep end, rising water levels or not!

sigh.......

Users here work fast -- the thread left the rails at the second post.

bajafam - 7-24-2019 at 12:15 PM

My favorite is Barry calling me evil for questioning his logic and blind faith in the Palm Tree Whisperer. Niiiice.

[Edited on 7-24-2019 by bajafam]

gnukid - 7-24-2019 at 02:04 PM

Barry A. - 7-24-2019 at 02:27 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bajafam

My favorite is Barry calling me evil for questioning his logic and blind faith in the Palm Tree Whisperer. Niiiice.

[Edited on 7-24-2019 by bajafam]

No, Fam! I called you that for your appalling personal insults concerning David K.------his motives, his writing, and most everything else there at the end. You can only speculate on what is in his mind, and I honestly see his comments entirely differently than you--------same comments, different interpretation. It was your interpretation and your gleefulness at insulting him on a public forum that was/is so appalling in the end.

[Edited on 7-24-2019 by Barry A.]

JoeJustJoe - 7-24-2019 at 03:00 PM

Who wants to look into the background, of Patrick Moore, the so-called sensible environmentalist?

I can guarantee you that Mr Moore, figured out he could make a lot more money denying or downplaying global warming then he could make working in the field.

The question is the fossil fuel industry and no doubt hired guns like Mr Moore, deny global warning because of big money.

The question to ask why do some of you deny man made global warming. What do you get out of it, or are you just being duped?

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

bajafam - 7-24-2019 at 03:00 PM

Speculate on what is in his mind? He puts it all out in the comments. I don't need to speculate when it's all spelled out perfectly clear.

And calling someone evil isn't a personal insult? LOL.

The very worst thing I said is that he is a crappy writer, and his book sucks. I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are. I've read the book, I've read endless comments and rehashed trip reports and my opinion stands. You don't have to agree with it, but that doesn't make me EVIL. Did I derive pleasure from the banter, sure. Still not "profoundly immoral and wicked." Not by a long shot.

Good Lord. Is he beyond rebuke and criticism? I think not.

gnukid - 7-24-2019 at 03:02 PM

You see there are a few people here who are only capable of attacking others, insulting, making up lies, and they have no ability to have or allow dialogue of thoughtful discussion, no references to facts, data, to support their view.

Either there is a concerted effort to discourage critical thinking dialogue by JJJ/caj13 here which goes against the forum rules and common decorum or this is a byproduct of cognitive dissonance and bias that creates a panic attack in them when their worldview is challenged which is expressed in outburst of anger and blathering personal attack.

If anyone is interested it is not hard to see that at no point in time is there a correlation showing rising CO2 tied to a forcing of rising temperatures. Perhaps the opposite may be shown, that is rising temperature causes changes in CO2.

There are 100s or 1000s of factors that are inlfuencing our environment.

CO2 is the lifeblood of the planet, it drives diversity of life, and is the key to our synergistic relation between plants and animals. Though plants would prefer 1000-1600 ppm CO2 which is why grow houses must inject CO2 for optimum growth.

There is no evidence that CO2 is a poison or bad, or is the driver of catastrophic climate change. Never in time has a correlation been demonstrated and the models that make this representation in predictions end being shown to be all wrong, like Michale Mann and the grand lie of the hockey stick theory that was fabricated through collision of peer review and after FOIA requests reveal the communications and data show it was an attempt to hide the decline" and conflate hand picked data to promote a catastrophic emergency that did not exist, in fact there are no 100% accurate climate model predictions, because they are predictions based on a partial data set, one that is incomplete and does not represent the factors on earth or in our atmosphere accurately.

There is no such thing as settled science that is an absurd notion. There are always error bars, expected error rate, ad adjustments with corrections, so if you hear the term "settled science" it's not science, it's fraud to discourage you from looking further.

Ask yourself why would anyone let alone a poster on Baja Nomad be rabidly committed to a theory that has been disproven over and over and instead deny their observation, even while knowing that there is for profit motivation clearly demonstrated in promotion of catastrophic climate change.

The don't need Government run carbon credit schemes, nor subsidized wind/solar, we have the most efficient solar power in the form of oil, natural gas and coal and plenty of it as a natural earth process.

Do some research, look at 7 different points of view, think critically, engage in dialogue, be respectful and pursue the truth.

[Edited on 7-24-2019 by gnukid]

4x4abc - 7-24-2019 at 03:43 PM

a research paper just published in Switzerland should end most discussions
yes, temp and Co2 have been going up and down for a long time
but never at the same rate at various places on this planet
the often talked about midieval warm time and the little ice age were a European exclusive

what is so significantly different about the new warming trend is that it is almost 100% the same all over the planet
of course you can still say "we didn't do it"
and you may say "it's not really that bad"
heck, we have religious freedom

SFandH - 7-24-2019 at 03:55 PM

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

think critically, engage in dialogue, be respectful and pursue the truth.

Why is it that scientists around the world, and scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, all agree that climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels is underway.

Are they all mistaken?

David K - 7-24-2019 at 04:16 PM

It isn't ALL of them... just the ones who think that, which you like to read.

If it is true, what do you want to do about it or what can we all do about it?
Really, the question is, can we do anything?

If it is a natural change as reported by all the scientists you don't read, then there is (for sure) nothing man can do or any reason to.

I know that the underlying goal of believing that this is (for the first time in a billion years) being caused by man is to punish capitalism and make everyone equally poor (well except for the socialist political leaders).

Haven't the United States (and perhaps other Western Democracies) made great strides in cleaning the once dirty polluters of the pre-1980s? Is this our reward for being the cleanest industrial giant on earth, to be taxed into oblivion while China and India get a pass?

Have some faith folks... we are being really good about pollution the past generation and will continue to move ahead on clean and green.

Now, what if these climate changes (if they are changing) and sea level rises (if they are, that much) are all caused by the sun, and other natural factors? Isn't that when you have to learn to adapt to Nature instead of kicking yourself to death?

SFandH - 7-24-2019 at 04:27 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

I know that the underlying goal of believing that this is (for the first time in a billion years) being caused by man is to punish capitalism and make everyone equally poor (well except for the socialist political leaders).

Could you expand upon that please.

gnukid - 7-24-2019 at 04:29 PM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

think critically, engage in dialogue, be respectful and pursue the truth.

The statement that all scientists agree is completely false.

The whole 97% of scientists agree was a statistical survey summary by John Cook. "When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed."

Yes there is an increase in temperature about .07 degree Celsius over a century, in the recent history.

Yes humans are here on earth and contribute to the environment.

No, there is no catastrophic climate change cause by human contribution of CO2.

Questions

What solutions are you offering to improve the environment?

What are doing personally?

Can you show data to back up your point?

Here is a peer reviewed study showing no rise in average temperatures over the last 400+ yrs in some areas of Asia.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.6...

Consider long term variable temperature charts for reference:

6a010536b58035970c0128776c5688970c.png - 163kB

[Edited on 7-24-2019 by gnukid]

SFandH - 7-24-2019 at 04:36 PM

GNU

I didn't say they all agree. I didn't use the 97% figure. I said "scientists around the world"

My question is: In your opinion, are the scientists who say there is global warming due to the burning of fossil fuel mistaken? Perhaps untruthful? What do you think?

David K - 7-24-2019 at 04:46 PM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH

Quote: Originally posted by David K

Could you expand upon that, please?

I think it is self-explanatory.
I will say that I began to be interested in global politics when my dad and I went to Australia together and lived there for six months (in 1970). I learned to appreciate America even more than I did when we traveled in Mexico for several years before. I also got a lesson in how socialism is out to destroy capitalism and yet capitalism pays for socialism... that is until you run out of other people's money!

Lee - 7-24-2019 at 04:52 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote: Originally posted by bajafam

My favorite is Barry calling me evil for questioning his logic and blind faith in the Palm Tree Whisperer. Niiiice.

[Edited on 7-24-2019 by bajafam]

Barry calling it like he sees it. Recent post on a different thread (all political bullshlt), he says ''pee on them (literally),'' referring to those who don't share his POV and think we few don't give the conservative nomads much respect. Then states he ''appreciates'' those people committing moral suicide. Sure looks like personal insults to me. Just hypocrites, really.

There isn't one argument made that doesn't stink like conservative faux Republican bullshlt. These bootlickers regurgitate what President Pu$$ygrabber says daily on Fox News. That's just who they are.

Moralists and flag wavers thinking a woman has no right to reproductive care of her own body. They rally around a draft dodger who had a chance to serve in any branch but took chickenshlt deferments instead. Patriotism? You guys have no f'ing clue about that word.

gnukid - 7-24-2019 at 05:00 PM

Ok, I think that in academic environments, there is often group think pressure, that is students must present papers that are supported by their advisors, who must support papers that get funding for the university, this leads to consolidation of ideas, groups review group opinions, and it reduces experimentation in theoretical approaches to papers.

Here are a large number of articles on how and why academic fraud exists in climate science, and how the whole scientific consensus supporting the fraudulent hockey stick theory occurred. https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=fraud

When more money is targeted to a designated scientific outcome e.g Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, you will see more papers published on the topic because more money exists to fund the research work. If you reduce arbitrary funding for predetermined topics you reduce group think, academic fraud, and perhaps increase academic exploration and academic strides more quickly.

Here is a book written about how consensus is enforced resulting in academic fraud. http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Wars-How-Consensus-Enforced-eb...

Today, AMLO reduced funding of science students just as USA has done recently in order to reduce replication of errors, academic group think and academic fraud.

Perhaps you are familiar with the case of Michael Mann's hockey stick theory, that supported CAGW? https://wattsupwiththat.com/page/2/?s=fraud+Michael+mann

"In testimony before the United States Congress, Professor John Christy summarized the critical view by stating that “evidence nowindicates . . . that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.”

Here is chart of temp and CO2 over the long period - there is no correlation of CO2 to drive temperature.

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by gnukid]

6a010536b58035970c017c37fa9895970b.jpg - 95kB

JoeJustJoe - 7-24-2019 at 05:10 PM

Here is some information on Gnukid's link, Patrick Moore, the so-called sensible environmentalist, who never actually published any scientific paper on global warming.

What Patrick Moore, really is a corporate prostitute (paid representative) of corporate polluting industries all over the world.

Of course Gnukid, will accuse me of attacking Patrick Moore, but I call it exposing the corporate weasel, who has sold his soul to the devil( the polluting industry) many years ago, and besides Patrick Moore, is not a member of "Baja Nomad. "

If you want to read about Moore's links to the polluting industry, see the link below.

If you want to see something funny, watch the video below, where Patrick Moore, refused to drink an active ingredient in a pesticide that he said, "won't hurt you." It's no surprised Moore, represented Monsanto, to say their herbicide is safe.

After the World Health Organization released a study concluding that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, is “probably carcinogenic,” Pat Moore told a French filmmaker that glyphosate is safe to drink. [50], [51] Upon being offered some glyphosate to try, Moore refused to take up his own suggestion, ending the interview and telling the filmmaker, “I'm not an idiot.” Video below. [52]

Moore is often incorrectly referred to as a founder of Greenpeace. According to a statement by Greenpeace, “Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace.” [49], [4] While Moore worked with Greenpeace Canada, and worked with Greenpeace International between 1981 and 1986, he broke away from Greenpeace after he concluded that “the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” According to Greenpeace, “what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.” [

Moore has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry, and in defense of biotechnology. Greenpeace issued a 2010 statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he “exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.” [5] Moore has been criticized for his relations with “polluters and clear-cutters” through his consultancy. His primary income since the early 1990s has been consulting and publicly speaking for a variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute

https://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-moore

gnukid - 7-24-2019 at 05:16 PM

You see, JJJ presents another logical fallacy, if one refers to a persons work, then he attributes all work and thoughts of that person to the poster to try to discredit them, which is absurd, people change, people have different ideas. JJJ uses logical fallacy consistently, and is teaching us the art well, to confuse and conflate issues, as opposed to making his own point, supported by data or by contrasting the original point.

JJJ either reverts to logical fallacy this as part of his social civil communications training to disrupt community dialogue that conflicts with his paid position, or he is naturally unable to make logical arguments. Either way what a sad life to live and quite harmful.

https://www.logicalfallacies.info

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by gnukid]

SFandH - 7-24-2019 at 05:16 PM

gnu,

Thanks, I'll consider your idea and follow the links.

You frequently use the word "catastrophic" to describe global warming. e.g "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming". Why the hyperbole?

gotta go, it's Mueller time (news)

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by SFandH]

gnukid - 7-24-2019 at 05:26 PM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH

gnu,

Thanks, I'll consider your idea and follow the links.

You frequently use the word "catastrophic" to describe global warming. e.g "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming". Why the hyperbole?

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by SFandH]

This is the whole point, is there an existential catastrophic anthropogenic global warming threat that is man made that we can reverse? No, the climate has always changed based on many factors that are outside our control, however we can reduce pollution and improve our methods of production, energy efficiency, ecology, recycling, and composting. We must reduce the cost, pollution and waste of the Military Industrial Complex and size of Government (that fund shills like JJJ/caj13).

The good news is that over the last 40 years the earth is greening due to the slight increase in CO2 ppm from about 300 to 400 ppm,

There is an argument to be made that we are in a solar minimum that could be part of a coming cooling period (TBD) and we have a deficiency of CO2.

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by gnukid]

BajaRat - 7-24-2019 at 05:39 PM

Quote: Originally posted by StuckSucks

Quote: Originally posted by Finchaser2020

And to think that I was just interested in reading about some cool baja snorkeling........

This site has gone way off the deep end, rising water levels or not!

sigh.......

Users here work fast -- the thread left the rails at the second post.

Technically at the third post.
Has anyone here actually snorkeled any of these sites ?
Lionel :cool:

JoeJustJoe - 7-24-2019 at 05:43 PM

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

You see, JJJ presents another logical fallacy, if one refers to a persons work, then he attributes all work and thoughts of that person to the poster to try to discredit them, which is absurd, people change, people have different ideas. JJJ uses logical fallacy consistently, and is teaching us the art well, to confuse and conflate issues, as opposed to making his own point, supported by data or by contrasting the original point.

JJJ either reverts to logical fallacy this as part of his social civil communications training to disrupt community dialogue that conflicts with his paid position, or he is naturally unable to make logical arguments. Either way what a sad life to live and quite harmful.

https://www.logicalfallacies.info

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by gnukid]

Gnukid, I learned a long time ago, that global warming deniers, such as yourself, rarely post links to support your position that global warming is not real, and if you do believe in global warming, you just say, it's part of Mother Nature, and mankind plays no role, or mankind leaves very small footprints.

And when you and your ilk, do post links, it's usually full of crackpots, or actual scientists in a related field, who sold their souls to the corporate polluters, and only a superficial search is needed on Google, to expose these crackpots or show the links to the deep pockets of corporate polluters.

Gnukid, do yourself a favor, and check your links before you post them, because I surely will be looking.

Science is not on your side Gnukid, because 96% of climate scientist agree with me, that global warming is real, and it's mostly caused by mankind, and the other 4% agree with you Gnukid, because the corporate polluters, pay them big buck to confuse the issue.

caj13 - 7-24-2019 at 06:04 PM

Uh oh - More real hard facts, excellent study of climate change over the past 2000, years, using pollen , tree rings, ice cores, sediment deposits etc. Puts a dagger in the "well whut about da little ice age " defence by some deniers!
and spoiler alert - its the rate of change and the extenf of it that makes now so much more dangerous than previous variatiions - of course you alrerady knew that, I told you that 4 pages ago, and 8 pages ago!

Once again - sourced info

for those of you willing to educate yourself, this is a great piece. for those looking for some way to discredit massive amounts of science - well it just got harder!
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49086783

caj13 - 7-24-2019 at 06:08 PM

Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc

a research paper just published in Switzerland should end most discussions
yes, temp and Co2 have been going up and down for a long time
but never at the same rate at various places on this planet
the often talked about midieval warm time and the little ice age were a European exclusive

what is so significantly different about the new warming trend is that it is almost 100% the same all over the planet
of course you can still say "we didn't do it"
and you may say "it's not really that bad"
heck, we have religious freedom

Thnks Harald, I provided a link to a nice article from the Liberal rag ther BBC, with citations to the science etc. up above.
Thsnks Har

gnukid - 7-24-2019 at 06:09 PM

La Paz has many snorkel spots especially around the top of the peninsula and all the way down the coast to Cabo Pulmo. The region is also the home of a high number of marine science research investigators, one of the highest populations per capita of marine scientists. In addition to finding excellent examples of sea life of all sorts from octopus, dolphins, whales, seals and varieties of fish, you can also engage in discussion and provide support for amazing people doing biological research in the field who have a wide range of of experience in studying the Marine environment.

Outside of Pichlenngue bay is excellent to the right is a reef, outside of Balandra all the way out to the right or left, on the east (right) side of Tecolote, and of course, all around the left side of the islands is excellent.

Further east to Coyote, Las Cruces, Muertos and the whole area is awesome with wide varieties of fish and sea life. All the way down the coast from Las Cruces to Punta Pescadero to Cabo Pulmo, where you find rocks, knooks and hide outs you find great snorkeling and great people to meet.

It's great by boat on day trips if you can organize it.

Balandra low tide

Pichelingue

Punta Pescardero

Tecolote

Punta Pescadero looking South (see the pyramid shaped rock formation forming a canyon)

Boca Del Alamo / El Cardonal

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by gnukid]

caj13 - 7-24-2019 at 06:15 PM

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

[r[/rquote]

The statement that all scientists agree is completely false.

The whole 97% of scientists agree was a statistical survey summary by John Cook. "When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed."

Yes there is an increase in temperature about .07 degree Celsius over a century, in the recent history.

Yes humans are here on earth and contribute to the environment.

No, there is no catastrophic climate change cause by human contribution of CO2.

Questions

What solutions are you offering to improve the environment?

What are doing personally?

Can you show data to back up your point?

Here is a peer reviewed study showing no rise in average temperatures over the last 400+ yrs in some areas of Asia.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.6...

Consider long term variable temperature charts for reference:

[Edited on 7-24-2019 by gnukid]

Not sure if your graph copied in the reply with quotes, but would you mind posting the continuation oif that graph - up until current times? That graph stopped in 6800 BC, so you seem to be missing a few thousand years of the data, you know - the current stuff!

gnukid - 7-24-2019 at 06:37 PM

Hey caj13

Since you are apparently invested in your theory to a degree that you are steadfast in your religious belief in pantheistic global climate catastrophe, that man made pollution is a significant cause of castrophic global warming and we know that the grossest polluter is the USA Military and it's 800 global bases, rogue military contractors, as well as gross waste and corruption of the Government which accounts for the majority of economic harm, waste and pollution, what is your solution?

What is your position on the gross toxic waste and pollution of the Military Industrial Complex and gross waste by Government as a lead cause of toxic waste poisoning earth and the atmosphere and causing measurable harm in the form of depleted uranium from munitions, not to mention collateral damage of the loss of life and harm to future generations?

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by gnukid]

gnukid - 7-24-2019 at 07:03 PM

Here is a peer reviewed paper (from Mexico) stating that CO2 could not be a driver of atmospheric temperature.

By Nasif S. Nahle
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by gnukid]

SFandH - 7-25-2019 at 02:09 AM

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Here is a peer reviewed paper (from Mexico) stating that CO2 could not be a driver of atmospheric temperature.

By Nasif S. Nahle
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by gnukid]

What peer reviewed scientific journal was this published in?

He says CO2 cools the atmosphere:

Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the
Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total
emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.

I'd put that claim in the "BS" category.

He does have some fancy arithmetic though. Perhaps he has a +/- sign wrong somewhere.

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by SFandH]

SFandH - 7-25-2019 at 02:43 AM

A rebuttal by a Lawrence Livermore scientist.

Nasif Nahle’s Shaky Math

http://hannahlab.org/climate-skeptics-nasif-nahles-shaky-mat...

I still haven't bought your idea that the majority of scientists around the world that attribute global warming to the burning of fossil fuels have fallen prey to an incorrect "groupthink" idea. However, it's a better denier explanation than DK's communist plot idea.

David K - 7-25-2019 at 07:09 AM

I was born in the 50s, so we learned "Better dead than Red" and "A Pinko is a stinko"! :lol:

Have a nice day SFandH!
PS, What does that handle stand for?

caj13 - 7-25-2019 at 08:16 AM

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

Nice, now where was this published? Peer reviewed research is published either on line or in a journal. Also, typically, a peer reviewed paper - in the publication identifies when it was submitted, and when it was accepted for publication (the difference between those times is the time needed for peer review).

I'm not sure you understand that process of peer review - perhaps you do, but this paper has no indication that it was peer reviewed and as a result accepted for publication.
This paper is obviously a good candidate for peer review, given the technicality and the complex mathmatics involved. I am not qualified to pick through his equations - it's outside my areas of expertise, so I need to depend on the peer reviewers expertise!
UPDATE: So I tracked down where this paper was "published". It appears to be a non profit org called BioCab. Website looks like it was done as a 5th grade art project, no way to determine the editors, controling members etc. and certainly NOT a peer reviewed journal - in any way shape or form!

and as you can see, the work has already been publically reviewed By Dr. Hannah - at Lawrence Livermore lab. - and there are clearly issues with this "paper"
sorry Gnu - now, what else do you have?

BTW, if you would like me to, I can set up a meeting with Dr. Hannah, we could go up there, talk with him, look at his lab, you could get a first hand look at how the buffoons calling themselves climate modellers actulally work - collect and analyze data, build and test models - etc> let me know - I'll set it up!

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by caj13]

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by caj13]

David K - 7-25-2019 at 08:43 AM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666

The climate change deniers (dk and gnukid) are equivalent to flat earthers, the prosecutors of galileo for heresy, holocaust deniers, the deniers of plate tectonics, the conspiracy theorists that believe the moon landings were faked, the sand hook deniers, anti-vaccine proponents, and fundamentalist islamics that prevent girls from being educated.
Dk and gnukid and other deniers are delusional proponents of quackery and dangerous to humanity.

Wow, talk about not reading what we actually type here!
We do NOT deny change. However, that it is caused by man (this time) or that man can reverse a natural event is what we question plus the motives of your insistence that we must grow government because of that theory. The sea rising a few inches over 100 years when the tide rises it 10 feet twice a day is not something to panic over.

JoeJustJoe - 7-25-2019 at 09:29 AM

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

I see SFandH, already has exposed this global warming denier fraud, Nasif S. Nahle.

So lets drop the other shoe on this crackpot from Mexico, Nasif Nahle.

You will notice that when the "deniers" see that others are on to them and their bogus sources and links, they will often turn to International sources to push their agenda because foreign sources are harder to trace down and expose, but as they say, " I will not leave no stone unturned," to expose these frauds.
_______________________________

Here is some other information and highlights about the loon Nasif S. Nahle:

Before I went away, I stumbled on a paper by a one Professor Nasif Nahle, which claims to contradict the general accepted theory that Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas. Naturally the deniers lapped it up, like a fish swallows a worm without even thinking (then again, thinking or reading has never exactly being they’re strongest point).

However it actually exposes how the dishonest nature of the denial machine works, the very limited technical knowledge of most deniers and how they are increasingly become a cargo cult, trapped in an echo chamber of anti-intellectual delusion.

First thing that tripped me off was a lack of any reference to his alleged “peer reviewed” paper on Science direct.com. This is a clearing house for scientific papers online, often the first port of call for genuine academics like myself. A lack of mention on science direct does imply this paper has not been subject to proper peer review.

Further a profile of the author Nasif Nahle on Wikipedia (apparently self penned) reveals his principle expertise to be in the field of herbal medicine….not climate physics! Furthermore he appears to be a (self-appointed) “Professor” of a small back alley lab (view their own profile here), one without any official backing, i.e. not a university, etc. Another blogger did a similar review of the author and also found Mr Nahle lacking in credibility…to say the least! So we have a paper that is going out of its way to try to appear to be from a reputable source, when in fact it is nothing of the sort.

That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is not controversial, except among deniers. And I mean the lunatic fringe of the denier movement. Those climate skeptics with any vaguely creditable qualifications (such as John Christy or Richard Lindzen) know enough to not dispute this fact, as they understand that’s about the scientific equivalent of supporting “intelligent falling”. But of course the loony “lord” Monkton brigade of the denier camp will not hear any of it. Unwilling to concede any ground, they insist on the fact that carbon isn’t a greenhouse gas, even though they are ignoring basic chemistry by doing so.

https://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/an-exercis...

[Edited on 7-25-2019 by JoeJustJoe]

gnukid - 7-25-2019 at 04:43 PM

It's great to see some of you are broadening your reading list. Stil, relying on ad hominem (personal) attacks is a logical fallacy that belies your lack of sincerity. If you had a point you would offer it, but you don't, you can't provide any evidence to support your religious belief in CAGW nor tie it to human contribution of CO2 which is just .04% to the total .04% in the atmosphere, meaning human contribution is practically insignificant and has never been shown to a forcing of temperature. While we both accept that CO2 is an important lifeblood of the earth that our plant life uses to create Oxygen.

The Sun is the greatest influence on the earth and atmosphere temperature along with many other factors. We are in a solar minimum which will have an affect that we have yet to see, though quite likely the result will be cooling.

Since you fail to act in a respectful and logical manner, I am done tryng to have a discussion with you,.

caj13 - 7-25-2019 at 05:15 PM

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

It's g.... If you had a point you would offer it, but you don't, you can't provide any evidence to support your religious belief in CAGW nor tie it to human contribution of CO2 which is just .04% to the total .04% in the atmosphere, meaning human contribution is practically insignificant and has never been shown to a forcing of temperature. While we both accept that CO2 is an important lifeblood of the earth that our plant life uses to create Oxygen.

The Sun is the greatest influence on the earth and atmosphere temperature along with many other factors. We are in a solar minimum which will have an affect that we have yet to see, though quite likely the result will be cooling.

Since you fail to act in a respectful and logical manner, I am done tryng to have a discussion with you,.

Nice, now - as I politely asked last timer you posted this. Can you give me the reference for your "data" about thre % of human caused co2 in the atmosphere. we already talked about the sun as well didnt we Gnuey, and it appears you have ignored those responses as well.

Of course you say you are done with this conversation, I completely understand, everything you post has been logically destroyed, proven wrong, factually incorrect. Its really tough to win an arguement when everything you say is proven false by numerous credible sources.

the upside is you now will have the time to read a small % of the well written scientifically accurate peer reviewed papers - see if you can get some actual education on the subject you seem so enamored with!

Bajazly - 7-25-2019 at 08:17 PM

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid

We are in a solar minimum which will have an affect that we have yet to see, though quite likely the result will be cooling.

Wouldn't that be nice, the SOC side is way hot in summer and 10 or so degrees cooling would make it so much nicer to live there, however, the higher highs most everywhere every year make me doubtful on cooling anytime in the foreseeable future.

caj13 - 7-27-2019 at 10:03 AM

Before this thread goes away, i think it prudent that we reflect on a few of gnukids "statements" and his tactics.

gnuey says:
" You see there are a few people here who are only capable of attacking others, insulting, making up lies, and they have no ability to have or allow dialogue of thoughtful discussion, no references to facts, data, to support their view. "
and
"Either there is a concerted effort to discourage critical thinking dialogue by JJJ/caj13 here which goes against the forum rules and common decorum or this is a byproduct of cognitive dissonance and bias that creates a panic attack in them when their worldview is challenged which is expressed in outburst of anger and blathering personal attack."

so according to this - posting data links and science information is discouraging critical thinking? really? So thats why gnuey has pointedly refused to post any background or support for several completely wrong "facts" upon which he bases his ideology?

As for personal attacks/ ad hominem that I am accused of? so go back and look through the threads, no less than 5 times does gnuey engage in personal attacks and name calling - but on the other hand - if he is questioned about his posts - he views those as personal attacks?
Gnuey - Where is your self respect? you choose to behave in exactly the same way you view as being despicable behaviors by others?

why is that gnuey? why are you not holding yourself accountable for the very same actions you publically villify in others? Why do you not hold yourself to the same behavioral standards as you hold others too?

It is interesting that one of your favorite tricks is accusing others of logical fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

A quick review of thisd thread shows you committing an astounding 17 of 24 catagorized logical fallacies - that MUST be a world record - you ought to call Guiness on that one.
included in that impressive list: Strawman, special pleading, false cause, ad hominem, loaded questions, appeal to authority, Bandwagon, appeal to nature, anticdotal, burden of proof, tu quoque, Texas sharpshooter, no true scotsman, appeal to emotion, Fallacy fallacy, personal incredulity, and lastly - genetic.

By the way, that link I posted has a great poster on logical fallacy, all of my college students are directed to that site, and I use it reatedly in teaching about scientific literacy, and I thank you gney, this coming semester, your discussion here will be example #1 of science vrs pseudoscience (along with Davids magic palm tree) . You are welcome to attend that lecture and present your counter arguement - but beware - those students have the poster, and they know fact from fiction!

Gnuey - Its all about accountability. You have every right to post whatever you believe. But you own those posts, and that religious dogma. And you are held accountable for those posts. Questioning your beliefs is not unamerican , it is required by TRUE patriots to look for actual truth!

[Edited on 7-27-2019 by caj13]

JoeJustJoe - 7-28-2019 at 07:37 AM

I wouldn't give Gnukid's meltdown a second thought if he wants to pick up his marbles and go home, because he thought we were not being nice to him, and Gnukid, also didn't think some of us were being nice to some of pseudo scientists, he linked to challenge the consensus thinking on global warming.

Gnukid, operated from the framework, that we were the crazy ones, and he was the rational one along with his pseudo scientists, who often after your scratched the surface found out were crackpots, or turned to the dark side years ago, and worked for the fossil fuel industry for big bucks to confuse the issue to protect the profits of companies like Exxon to keep them out of class action lawsuits.

I have been accused of ad hominem attacks before, but I'm usually pretty mellow in the main area of "Baja Nomad" and let my opinions speak for themselves, which many people have trouble with some of my opinions, but never in my life have I been accused of ad hominem, attacks because I exposed the links to the fossil fuel industry, or lack of legitimate credentials of the people members put like Gnukid, put in their links to support their position!

I'm sorry, if you put up a link to support your position, it's fair game. The last link Gnukid, put up from a professor in Mexico, it's doubtful he was a professor, or that he had any real peer reviews, and the guy was talking pure nonsense about C02 that no real scientist would agree with, and that would include the scientist working for Exxon, because what he was saying was out in La la land, or but he put out complicated math formulas as a smoke screen, because math like that is beyond 99% of all of us, but my guess is the math formulas had nothing to do with global warming.

The kicker, it's Gnukid, who is really engaged in the ad hominem attacks with conspiracy theories on our motivations for being on this forum to challenge Gnukid. ( yeah I'm being paid by universities to say global warming is real)

Here is one of my links, and feel free to attack the source, and prove the information wrong all you want, I won't care, but I doubt anyone could challenge a well documented source like the one below.
________________

There’s no doubt left’ about scientific consensus on global warming anymore

The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99 percent, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.

https://grist.org/article/theres-no-doubt-left-about-scienti...

[Edited on 7-28-2019 by JoeJustJoe]

Cliffy - 8-12-2019 at 10:44 PM

Has anyone seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViY2J3LPgN4

SFandH - 8-13-2019 at 04:56 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy

Has anyone seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViY2J3LPgN4

About the scientist cited in this video, Nils-Axel Mörner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2011/12/a-question-of-faith/

caj13 - 8-13-2019 at 07:38 AM

All Right - David's hero and co-conspirator. Good Old Nils found a tree growing on the shore in the Maldives, and used Davids same "methodology" to build his case for no sea level rise, which was news to the people of the Maldives, because they see the ocean levels rising to the point they are rebuilding villages to cope with it. And he also reported fishermen were sailing their boats over parts of a reef ! Nice, interestingly enough, he never included any date times or tidal data - sound familiar David?

fired from his job because he continued to spout all sorts of retoric with no scientific data, and when presented with data showing he was wrong, he simply ignores it.

can't get a scientific paper published, because his methodology and "data" are all wrong, and he continues to ignore statelite measurement and other data!

starts his own journal to get his stuff published, and they wont even publish his drivel!

He also believes in dousing BTW - and was offered 1 million dollars to demonstate he could find water in a controlled environment by the Randi Foundation - he refused, so obviously even he does not believe his own bluster and woo woo!

and this - is the "Global scientific superstar " the deniers are hanging their hat on!
read that very brief article in the specator link above! pretty telling!

[Edited on 8-13-2019 by caj13]

[Edited on 8-13-2019 by caj13]

Pages: 1 2