| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8 |
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Super Nomad
Posts: 1302
Registered: 3-2-2010
Location: SW Four Corners / Bahia Asuncion BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ready for some salt water with my Tecate
|
|
Technically at the third post.
Has anyone here actually snorkeled any of these sites ?
Lionel 
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
| 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
Super Nomad
Posts: 1001
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Super Nomad
Posts: 1001
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Super Nomad
Posts: 1001
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6965
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6965
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64561
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
I was born in the 50s, so we learned "Better dead than Red" and "A Pinko is a stinko"! 
Have a nice day SFandH!
PS, What does that handle stand for?
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1001
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64561
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| 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
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Super Nomad
Posts: 1001
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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
Senior Nomad
Posts: 999
Registered: 6-4-2015
Location: Goodbye Cali and Hello San Felipe
Member Is Offline
Mood: More Relaxed Everyday
|
|
| 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.
Believing is religion - Knowing is science
Harald Pietschmann
"Get off the beaten path and memories, friends and new techniques are developed"
Bajazly, August 2019
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1001
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
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]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
