| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
..
8 |
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4167
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
wow - why do we even practice medicine?
Nothing man can do.
Let's change the subject from water to fire. Let's say predictions are, there will be fire.
According to David, you'll adapt when it happens
wow again
why do you even sell sprinklers?
you can't change nature, you said yourself
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4167
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
David is a kind generous man!
He means well.
he functions differently than some of us do
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by David K  | | Quote: Originally posted by caj13 | | Quote: Originally posted by David K | | The palm tree is just ABOVE the high tide line... and is in all the photos. 1936 to 2017+. Stop deflecting the obvious that if the sea level had risen
just a foot in the past 80 years then the palm would be in the water at high tide and that big flat behind it would be a lagoon. Same thing at
Alfonsina's: the runway would be underwater daily and not just during lunar high tides. Nothing has changed because of sea level. Erosion eats away at
the coast but the ocean is not higher. |
There is NOTHING man can do to alter the NATURAL change. You just have to adapt when change happens. One day, that palm will be in the water... It
just hasn't gotten any closer since the 1930s. You would think with all the industrial pollution and automotive smog and nuclear explosions above
ground that would have really accelerated the sea level rise.. BUT NO, it didn't change with our dirty ways. We are cleaner now, and no more bomb
tests, either. So, what can we do for sea level if all the mess of the 1940's to the 2000's couldn't?
   |
which high tide line david?
and man can alter natural change - thats exactly what we are argueing about. The issue is time frames David. You look at yesterday, and think
about next week - see no sea level rise - so it's all good.
Me, I look at data driven models. they make predictions David - and i know you think they are bunk, because data and science have no place in your
personal beliefs? .
changes are happening , but the difference here is time scale. natural changes happen across tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of
years.
Thats what causes scientists to raise the alarm. The RATE of change has been greatly accelerated by Co2 emissions. That causes the average
temperature of the earth to raise, and also with more "energy" in the system also drives bigger events, storms droughts etc.
The biggest issue is it is now in a feedback loop, the problem is accelerating. ice melt is increasing at a higher rate now, and the rate will
continue to increase. I would post the research on arctic, antarctic and greenland ice melt rates and feedback loops - and what those mean to sea
levels going forward, but you just ignore science, so whats the point?
Changes that naturally would have been occurring over 100,00 years, are happening now in 100 years.
I'm not concerned i will be drowning in a year david, im concerned the world will be struggling mightily to deal with the effects in 100 years. My
concern personally is for my kids and grand kids and great grand kids - they matter to me.
so lets turn now to this conspiracy theory about it being a hoax by the government to gain more control over individuals?
how is that David? what exactly is the government doing to try and extend control over you!
as for the costs / economy. You may have a valid point there David. after all that hoax has driven the development of solar and wind technologies,
electric cars etc. All of those have been huge drains on the economy right david? the 10s of thousands of jobs created - all of them tax paying
citizens - the inovation, new companies, new technologies, all of that is part of the cost?
30% of Californias power is coming from renewable/ sustainable sources David - wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal! So thats a bad thing -
right?
all of those economic benefits driven by this global warming hoax - I can see why its so revolting to you David - those jobs, technologies, new
businesses - disgusting!
one final thing David: please get a dictionary and look up the meaning of populist. It appears as if you may be misunderstanding what that term
means. And since you are choosing to use it as an insult - wouldn't it be better if you know what that word actually means.
and one more thing David - If your Orange overlord really wants to change the world by building a big beautiful wall, he could do the country a
huge favor by building a seawall to protect new york, los angeles, florida etc. |
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64492
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc |
wow - why do we even practice medicine?
Nothing man can do.
Let's change the subject from water to fire. Let's say predictions are, there will be fire.
According to David, you'll adapt when it happens
wow again
why do you even sell sprinklers?
you can't change nature, you said yourself |
My reply was on the topic of climate change, nothing else. Did I seriously need to explain that?
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by David K | | Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc |
wow - why do we even practice medicine?
Nothing man can do.
Let's change the subject from water to fire. Let's say predictions are, there will be fire.
According to David, you'll adapt when it happens
wow again
why do you even sell sprinklers?
you can't change nature, you said yourself |
My reply was on the topic of climate change, nothing else. Did I seriously need to explain that? |
Ok but that statement has already been proven wrong - so what now?
|
|
|
Archie
Nomad
Posts: 163
Registered: 4-23-2012
Member Is Offline
|
|
I think other than the very precise road condition reports, this posts are what i like the most on bajanomads forum.
This is like when my drunk uncles start throwing chairs at my nana´s xmas party, fighting over the ranchito back in the sierra that nobody has worked
at for the last 20 years, but everybody wants a part of it.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
The topic of what drives environment, temperature, weather and climate is likely complex, thousands of inter-related components, chemicals, forcings,
tectonic plate movement, currents, wind, solar, volcanic activity both above and below the sea level surface, ice, glaciers, plant and animal life
etc. With increased knowledge the topic is only becoming more and more complex. Previous IPCC reports have had errors as any data set might have and
the conclusions have demonstrably been led by motivations outside of a academics, namely money, control, etc. leading to conclusions and predictions
that have been demonstrated to be totally wrong. That's normal for early progress in any research field.
Today, USA and Europe have reduced pollutions yr/yr and improved energy production to increase the use of a broad range of renewable energy sources,
some of which may be demonstrated to be less than economically or environmentally beneficial such as wind, though all energy sources have their place.
It is also true that oil is no longer considered a fossil fuel but is biotic and abiotic. Poorer, less developed countries have higher rates of
pollution, so economic development seems to be a factor in improving reduction in pollution.
Ice melt is a hugely complex topic in itself, ice shelves move quickly and are affected by global currents and temperatures driven by complex earth
models. Antarctic is a region that is extremely dynamic, with more than 200 underwater volcanoes and very little terra firma above sea level.
Underwater lakes of warm water create dynamic ecosystems that drive melting of ice sheets. Each year the ice melts rapidly in Summer and returns in
Winter in a rapid, dynamic manner.
In addition, as time passes, we learn more, we report more, remember more, and there is a perception of increasing weather events, or increasing
reporting doomsday climate claims, while it's not actually demonstrated that extreme weather events are increasing.
Those of us from the USA with memories of our childhood, we can recall the horrible pollution of the 60-70s and we can see a huge improvement in
managing pollution and water quality.
With the complexity of earth models and so much new information, it is an exciting time, though it does not appear that we are on the verge of
catastrophe, nor that human created CO2 is a significant factor to drive the atmosphere or climate, more likely it is the opposite, that is
atmospheric temperatures drive CO2.
Sea level rise globally is relatively consistent for more than a hundred years, and there is no current increase in the rise. Yet it can vary from
location to location.
So, as we improve our data collection and learn more about climate, we also better understand the data and the error bars. Temperatures were recorded
by farmers traditionally who reported to aggregators of data, now increasingly temperature collection tools are placed in urban areas, airports etc.
with an increase in relative temperature caused by urban heat, [cement increases temperature while natural landscapes do not] and placement near ducts
or other machinery affect the relative temperature. We are just beginning to factor in temperature corrections for urban heat and measuring locations
following published papers on the topic of urban heat affect on global temperature readings.
It makes little sense to attack anyone here for their observations and photo evidence, without providing a thorough analysis of known local factors as
well as global to substantiate a contrasting opinion.
You can make a difference in the products you use, how you manage your input and output and your behavior, but there are many factors you can not
control, for example, the past which is a complex factor driving our current environment, or any of the global and galactic factors that are the most
powerful of the environmental forcings.
In Baja, there are many opportunities to do clean up, improve waste management, improve water quality and manage the distribution of water to reduce
leaks and run off, provide education about waste management, plastics, recycling, composting etc. With so many opportunities to get involved and help
and so much new information available for those interested, there is no excuse for not becoming educated and involved, if you are so inclined.
Humans do contribute to factors that drive climate, but the contribution is quite minor in comparison to 1000s of other factors that we can not
control. Humans contribute .04% to the total .04% CO2 in the atmosphere measured today at about ~400ppm. If we did everything proposed to radically
change our way of life and reduce our use of oil based energy, it would not have a noticeable affect on the CO2, temperature or climate.
Many people overlook the fact that alternative energy sources require oil to create, and energy to store and transport, manage and deliver, while they
are often unreliable, costly and fail to prove economically viable over time for the masses. Though certainly they are beneficial for those who can
justify the use where no other option is available.
If you want to blame one primary factor for the climate, blame the Sun, it is 1.3 millions times larger than the earth and is the largest driver of
temperature, environment and climate.
It makes little sense to make personal attacks here in order to score eco points to look good.
And if you don't like the weather, move.
[Edited on 7-17-2019 by gnukid]
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
That's a nice post Gunkid, it's too bad it's mostly wrong.
It's almost too funny hearing Gunkid, blaming motivations of outside of academics, namely money, control, etc.......Yeah, right, but that's a drop in
the bucket compared, to what a deep pocket company like Exxon, pays to confuse to issue, so they won't be liable for lawsuit for polluting to planet
and causing man-made global warming with fellow corporate polluters.
One of Gunkid's favorite argument is volcanic activity both above and below the sea level surface, are the main causes of CO2 emissions and one of
the main contributors to global warming.
But it turns out humans CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic emissions.
___________________________
First, let's look at the argument that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit
between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Morner 2002). However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava.
Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial
meaning "under the air", refering to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Morner 2002).
In contrast, humans are currently emiting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). In other words, human CO2 emissions are over 100 times
greater than volcanic emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic
eruptions such as Pinatubo (which emitted around 42 million tonnes of CO2) had little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of
CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a large volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.
https://skepticalscience.com/Two-attempts-to-blame-global-wa...
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Straw man fallacy
I never said Volcanoes ARE the number one contributor to CO2, JJJ said that and attributed it to me as a straw man fallacy to be knocked down, which
is a common logical fallacy he uses.
A volcanic eruption could be a significant contribution to green house gasses far exceeding human contribution. Volcanoes are intermittent
contributors to green house gasses, it depends on current volcanic activity as well as other factors, I suppose.
|
|
|
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4167
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
finally, someone got it right
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
GnuKid:
I believe there are numerous erronous statements in your treatise: please help me understand. can you provide sources that can document the
following statements?
1. Previous IPCC reports have had errors as any data set might have and the conclusions have demonstrably been led by motivations outside of a
academics, namely money, control, etc. leading to conclusions and predictions that have been demonstrated to be totally wrong. That's normal for early
progress in any research field.
(i'm particularly interested in these conclusions and predictions that have been demonstrated to be totally wrong, I see that stated alot around
here, I repeatedly ask for a source for that info - so far - nothing!)
2. some of which may be demonstrated to be less than economically or environmentally beneficial such as wind, though all energy sources have their
place. It is also true that oil is no longer considered a fossil fuel but is biotic and abiotic. Poorer, less developed countries have higher rates of
pollution, (on this one Gnu - I'm particularly interested in the "less economically beneficial..."
and you need to understand "rate" doesn't mean much in this context - its total amount that matters. increasing the drip rate in a faucet from 1
drip to 2 drips a minute doubles the rate. But compared to decreasing the the amount of water going over niagra falls by a gallon a minute - that
"rate increase means nothing .
3.Humans do contribute to factors that drive climate, but the contribution is quite minor in comparison to 1000s of other factors that we can not
control. Humans contribute .04% to the total .04% CO2 in the atmosphere measured today at about ~400ppm. If we did everything proposed to radically
change our way of life and reduce our use of oil based energy, it would not have a noticeable affect on the CO2, temperature or climate.
(where did these numbers come from gnu?)
4.If you want to blame one primary factor for the climate, blame the Sun, it is 1.3 millions times larger than the earth and is the largest driver of
temperature, environment and climate.
(so are you saying the current warming trend is because the sun is now closer? or are you referring to sunspot activity? certainly the sun is the
largest climate driver - so is the sun changing? )
5. And if you don't like the weather, move.
do you not understand the difference between climate and weather?
certainly with such a well written treatise stating numerous numbers and facts, you ought to easily be able to provide sources for those numbers and
declarations!
thank you
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Over simplifying earth models with a simple summary its all man made is a silly argument, not to mention that you have provided not one shred of
evidence for or against your point.
The more likely scenario, as is now being adopted even with the IPCC is that while man does contribute to the atmosphere the contribution is not
particularly significant and we are not under any catastrophic climate threat that we can modify.
Still, you can improve your eco footprint efficiency by managing your personal economic choices etc...
If you want to point to villains you could point to ecological hypocrites such as Al Gore and Bernie Sanders who are gross polluters through over
consumption.
It would be helpful if you would do some research and present a point for or against to support your "point"?
You lose credibility by making claims that DK and I must be racist because we point out observed contradictions to the falsified theory of man made
catastrophic climate change. After 40 years of hearing the world will end soon and continents will be under water unless you give up all control and
pay carbon tax, you would think you would tire of being misled, yet you embrace it with unbridled, blind, hysterical, and hypocritical passion.
[Edited on 7-18-2019 by gnukid]
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid | Over simplifying earth models with a simple summary its all man made is a silly argument, not to mention that you have provided not one shred of
evidence for or against your point.
The more likely scenario, as is now being adopted even with the IPCC is that while man does contribute to the atmosphere the contribution is not
particularly significant and we are not under any catastrophic climate threat that we can modify.
Still, you can improve your eco footprint efficiency by managing your personal economic choices etc...
If you want to point to villains you could point to ecological hypocrites such as Al Gore and Bernie Sanders who are gross polluters through over
consumption.
It would be helpful if you would do some research and present a point for or against to support your "point"?
You lose credibility by making claims that DK and I must be racist because we point out observed contradictions to the falsified theory of man made
catastrophic climate change.you would think you would tire of being misled, yet you embrace it with unbridled, blind, hysterical, and hypocritical
passion.
[Edited on 7-18-2019 by gnukid] |
an absolutely perfect example of the Pot calling the kettle Black. gnu kid provides no documentation, no facts that can be checked - just makes
broad statements hewn from climate deniers talking points. But when politely asked to provide evidence, his response is classic
You need to provide evidence - you can't just say that!
uh - you first my friend!
here's the easy place to start: you want to provide citations of predictions that led to you stating:
After 40 years of hearing the world will end soon and continents will be under water unless you give up all control and pay carbon tax,
where can I find those predictions and statements?
[Edited on 7-18-2019 by caj13]
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
The real Climate Change threat is the failure of peer reviewed research to reduce errors and allow group think of a small group to promote simplified
unsubstantiated catastrophic climate theory.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/14/scientists-mistakes-globa...
Edward Wegman in his report to the Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee identified how climate research went wrong.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
Moreover, the conclusion is that the climate is complex, more so than previously considered. Certainly the Sun is the center of our universe and the
largest driver of temperature, climate and our solar system, but even the Sun is not well understood. http://wp.me/P7y4l-8nz
Proliferation of radio VHF/UHF/FM/WIFI waves affecting the atmosphere is being studied.
Here is an interesting article pointing to water vapor as the lead driver of temperature https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/15/how-the-earth-became-...
We are learning more very day and it is an exciting time.
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
Exactly Caj13, Gnukid, is an interesting character and a good writer, but it never occured to him that some of us would ask him for his sources and
when Gnukid actually provides those sources it turns out he is linking some lunatic with no scientific work experience on the climate or its some
hired gun who is on Exxon's payroll or works for some corporate think tanks with ties to the oil industry and who is hired to confuse the issue.
Science is not on the 'deniers' side because about 96% of scientists who study the climate say global warming is overwhelming causes by mankind. The
other 4% of scientists work for Exxon' or other corporate polluters.
I wish Gnukid stuck to his conspiracy theories about Mexico, because there is at least some small truth to those stories, compared to almost no truth
to those crackpot articles that deny global warming.
Update I didn't see Gnukid's post and links until after I wrote the above post.
I haven't looked closely yet but without a doubt eveyone one those links is highly skeptical if you look closely. Daily Caller is some extreme
right-wing site that usually spends time on right wing politics, and what's up with that I reported on before, its not the number one site for climate
scientist and the owner of the site has no real experience in the climate field unless you count being a TV weatherman as expert knowledge and he has
ties to the Heritage foundation that has also claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer, and their money came from the tobacco industy and oil companies.
[Edited on 7-18-2019 by JoeJustJoe]
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Once again, you provide no facts, no references and fail to speak to the topic, which can only lead the reader to accept you have no facts to present.
Over time, it does appear there is a pattern of behavior by a few Nomads to create confusion through negative attacks, which is also a well known
logical fallacy to disuade others from reading or participating, basically, if you contribute to the discussion with facts you will be attacked
personally with unsubstantiated claims, extreme anger, and the topic is flooded by negativity that discourages well meaning people from participating
and learning.
It's sad, that these few angry Nomads are so totally committed to harming the dialogue and the community by creating an extremely negative and
hyperbolic environment.
This pattern begs the question, what is the motivation of JJJ (Caj13), and Goat if not to harm the group with divisive antagonist claims to discourage
critical thinking discussion, and why would they be so committed to logical fallacy in discussion?
Do they feel guilty for failing to actually take action to improve the environment? Do they feel obligated to support the failures of the past in some
sort of cognitive dissonance with the future? Is it really hard for people to accept they were misled, openly, and they feel would feel foolish to
admit their mistakes?
Well it is clear, it is difficult to accept that many things we believed are no longer valid, sad that this personal problem is mirrored or parroted
as anger and insults toward others, but that does explain why seniors are often alone in their retirement. Consider the joy of learning, reading,
exploration, ideas, science and enjoy the process of demystifying the past climate catastrophe claims. And enjoy participating in real world
activities in Baja, arroyo and beach cleanup, improved thoughtful waste management, recycle, reuse, repurpose, and embrace the synergystic plant
<-> animal relationship where CO2 is the lifeblood of the earth and the center of our healthy ecosystem.
[Edited on 7-18-2019 by gnukid]
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
If you look at one of Gnukid's links called the "Wegmen report, it has been discredited years ago, and you can find the links all over the internet
how a few GOP climate denying politicians, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), hired a statistician Edward Wegman, to refute basic
science about Global Warming.
But it turns out the Wegman, report did not subject his work to peer review, but instead sent it right to the GOP politicians, who then put it out to
the world to deny the findings of climate scientists..
The kicker was when other researchers notice a large part of the Wegman report was shocking plagiarism, and pure BS, which got Wegman and the two GOP
politicians in hot water.
In politics you can often get away with pure BS, but in Science, it's not that easy and with a little research you can usually expose the
pseudo-scientists who deny Global warming.
_________________________
Frpm Think Progress, who got much of this information from Wikipedia, where Wegman has been exposed.
--
Climate science is a solid edifice built around the work of thousands of scientists, vast amounts of data, and countless peer-reviewed publications.
As the National Academy of Sciences report put it, “Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes
and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and
have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation.”
Climate denial is a house of cards, built around the sleight of hand of a few disinformers, deniers, and pseudo-scientists — who keep repeating
the same falsehoods no matter how many times they have been debunked. One of the most important, yet flimsiest, cards holding up the house is the
attack on the so-called Hockey Stick research — multiple, independent lines of data and analysis that demonstrate recent global warming is
unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause (see “Two more independent studies back the Hockey Stick and below). Indeed, as WAG notes, within a
few decades, nobody is going to be talking about hockey sticks, they will be talking about right angles or hockey skates (see chart above).
A cornerstone of the disinformer’s ultimately self-destructive attack on climate science is a 2006 report, commissioned by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX)
and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), and led by George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, who is now himself under investigation by GMU (see
Experts find “shocking” plagiarism in 2006 climate report). You can find all the details you could want about the shoddy analysis of the report at
Deep Climate “” including his “methodical demolishing of any hint of statistics” in the report, as John Mashey puts it in the comments.
https://thinkprogress.org/wegman-scandal-rocks-cornerstone-o...
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ok so lets take these "references" provided by Gnu kid (thank you) one at a time:
"The real Climate Change threat is the failure of peer reviewed research to reduce errors and allow group think of a small group to promote simplified
unsubstantiated catastrophic climate theory.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/14/scientists-mistakes-globa...
3 issues here
1. gnu kids introductory summary is wrong and does not represent the story presented at all - its almost like the kid didn't actually read the story.
2. The story itself is actually a good review of how science is done. The research came out in a peer reviewed journal, other independant scientists
did their job - reviewed it, and questioned their methodology and results. original authors take look - agree that they made a mistake, and
correct it - thats science working!
3. The Daily Caller is a well known right wing opinion website founded by Tucker Carleson. In this particulalr case - the headlines in no way match
up to the story - AS THEY REPORTED IT. The errors were small, and when corrected , did not make any material difference in their conclusions!
So - source #1 - completely busted - strike one gnuey!
lets try #2:
Edward Wegman in his report to the Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee identified how climate research went wrong.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
Wegman and his claims are well known crap spewed by a non qualified person who was paid by right wingers to try and find a way to discredit the
science - JJJ does a good job of blowing up wegman and his so called research!
so source #2 - well known fraud already discredited multiple times
so that would be strike 2 gnuey!
how about #3, surely gnuey must stumble on some valid research somewhere right?
3.Moreover, the conclusion is that the climate is complex, more so than previously considered. Certainly the Sun is the center of our universe and the
largest driver of temperature, climate and our solar system, but even the Sun is not well understood. http://wp.me/P7y4l-8nz
Thats a great website Gnuey - Trouble is some of the graphs and data clearly show the sun blamers to be wrong!
so a couple of issues here, I'm sure it must be a typo - right gnuey? you surely don't think the sun is the center of our universe - right?
This seems to be coming from the serial attempts by undereducated individuals to lay the blame of current changes on the sun. The first hilarous
attempt was some goons claiming the earth was now closer to the sun - when it was pointed out how obviously false that was - they switched gears -
got alot more sophisticated, and desided to blame the increase in sunspots. turns out they got that one exactly backwards - it couldn't have been
more wrong, in fact current sunspot activity should be driving cooler temps - oops - !
so now its "very complicated" and yes it is - but guess what, science is pretty good at figuring out "very complicated" stuff. start with the
Milankovitch cycles Gnuey, once you get a handle on that - then come back and explain to us how that is affecting climate change! (spoiler alert -
it's supposed to be getting cooler, not hotter, based on those cycles! )
strike 3 gnuey! anything else you want to add?
oh yeah, one more : and this one is exactly right - but unfortunately it appears as if gnuey isn't able to make the connections!
Here is an interesting article pointing to water vapor as the lead driver of temperature https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/15/how-the-earth-became-...
so stay with me gnuey - please remember your middle school science here
1. hot air rises - and as it rises it cools
2. cool air falls, and as it falls it heats up
3. HOT AIR CAN HOLD ALOT MORE WATER VAPOR THAN COLD AIR
So co2 acts as a green house to heat the earth, that means alot more water vapor can be evaporated into the atmosphere - which also leads to heating
- see how that works gnuey! its not the water, its the CO2 changing the temperature, that leads to the water vapor increasing
so I guess I'm still waiting for a citation of any actual research - you know, peer reviewed science stuff - not right wing blogs and agenda driven
propaganda!
[Edited on 7-19-2019 by caj13]
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid | Once again, you provide no facts, no references and fail to speak to the topic, which can only lead the reader to accept you have no facts to present.
Over time, it does appear there is a pattern of behavior by a few Nomads to create confusion through negative attacks, which is also a well known
logical fallacy to disuade others from reading or participating, basically, if you contribute to the discussion with facts you will be attacked
personally with unsubstantiated claims, extreme anger, and the topic is flooded by negativity that discourages well meaning people from participating
and learning.
It's sad, that these few angry Nomads are so totally committed to harming the dialogue and the community by creating an extremely negative and
hyperbolic environment.
This pattern begs the question, what is the motivation of JJJ (Caj13), and Goat if not to harm the group with divisive antagonist claims to discourage
critical thinking discussion, and why would they be so committed to logical fallacy in discussion?
Do they feel guilty for failing to actually take action to improve the environment? Do they feel obligated to support the failures of the past in some
sort of cognitive dissonance with the future? Is it really hard for people to accept they were misled, openly, and they feel would feel foolish to
admit their mistakes?
Well it is clear, it is difficult to accept that many things we believed are no longer valid, sad that this personal problem is mirrored or parroted
as anger and insults toward others, but that does explain why seniors are often alone in their retirement. Consider the joy of learning, reading,
exploration, ideas, science and enjoy the process of demystifying the past climate catastrophe claims. And enjoy participating in real world
activities in Baja, arroyo and beach cleanup, improved thoughtful waste management, recycle, reuse, repurpose, and embrace the synergystic plant
<-> animal relationship where CO2 is the lifeblood of the earth and the center of our healthy ecosystem.
[Edited on 7-18-2019 by gnukid] |
actually gnukid, i and several others here have provided numerous citations of actual science. Unfortunately it's pretty obvious most here don't
actually take the time to investigate. Providing those links to real science, peer reviewed stuff that is something you david and others of your
ilk have refused to do. so don't try and deflect - the balls in you court in terms of providing facts figures - you know - real science - unlike
the rightwing blather you have attempted to pass of as science in the past here.
and for the record - just because individuals disagree with you - that does not mean they are trying to discourage critical thinking discussions -
in fact - AND YOU KNOW THIS - just the opposite - by providing actual evidence, they in fact are providing the material needed to engage in a real
critical thinking discussion - all we need is some sort of real evidence of your beliefs and agenda, of real science that we can look at! right
wing blogs do not rise to that level - and you know it!
so by "harming the dialog" - thats code right - what you want Nomads to be is an echo chamber of like minded right wing evangelicals endlessly
spouting fox news talking points and agreeing with each other - without any evidence of critical thinking or examining evidence - right!
and a passive aggressive attack! Nice - how 13 year old girl of you!
sorry, I'm not going away , and because you claim you want this site to be a place of critical thinking i will treat it exactly as that. I have
no problem with people disagreeing and having different viewpoints. But i'm kind of anal about holding people accountable - if you post something
and declare it as fact - i will look at that critically, and if it doesn't seem right, I will ask for where that came from - support your
statement - provide a logic based scaffold for that statement.
Good day sir
|
|
|
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4167
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
here is a good visual about all the factors involved in the warming of planet earth
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
..
8 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
