Originally posted by gnukid
It's quite an offense to call people with differing yet valid thoughts deniers. This tactic is among many faulty methods used by promoters of
anthropogenic warming. One should not rely on name calling as a method to theorize, in fact skepticism is a trait of science, to discount skepticism
is to discount science.
Keep in mind, throughout this topic, the great proponents, Gore, Mann, etc... have profited greatly while embellishing.
Over 17 years now the global temperature is stable, yet that is hardly the point.
Focus on the great polluter=military industrial war machine.
Scientists using science are overwhelmingly stating that man made climate change is occurring. What does Al Gore have to do with the facts
I have no intent of using the term 'denier' as a tactic, and I sincerely apologize to anyone that I have offended that has differing valid thoughts
and genuinely founded altruistic skepticism that is based on science.
But, I do make a distinction between skepticism and refusal to acknowledge fact because of a preference to adopt dogmatic approach to what is clearly
a physical science objective issue.
Also, cherry picking certain facts and ignoring or not taking into account all relevant facts and not taking into account both qualitative and
quantitative information relating to the facts does not constitute true skepticism, but, instead, is mere denial.
FWIW, I haven't accused anybody of anything.
I don't think I or anyone else can know whether or not there is or is not anthropogenic global warming/climate change without knowing what happened to
the heat.
But, I am still waiting for a response to my simple question posed directly to those that deny that there is any anthropogenic warming of any
consequence : What has happened to the heat? Valid question.
The answer to the question must make sense in BOTH a qualitative and quantitative way, otherwise the answer is incomplete and therefore not valid.
....the short answer is that the energy we encounter and use everyday has always been with us since the beginning of the universe and always will be
with us. It just changes form all around us. Hint: The Big Bang Theory. That is called 'the law of conservation of energy'. This morning I
exercised that law and used just enough energy to put a nice fat goose on the dining room table, which will equate an equal amount for my body's
chemical energy.
Later, I will expel that energy in the form of a fart, which will escape into space...so we hope. I should add that the fart energy is transferred
into a form of electromagnetic energy called 'far infared radiation'. As it reaches space it is known as 'background radiation constant.' The
background radiation constant is average amount of radiation that the universe holds. This means that all radiation released eventually becomes part
of the background warmth of the universe.
My lab tells me that you cannot hear a fart in outer space...so that's the place to do it.
He also tells me that I've not had so much fun since being in my sophomore debate class.
Originally posted by gnukid
It's quite an offense to call people with differing yet valid thoughts deniers.
but not offensive for you deniers to call scientists "liars?"
and i dont agree with your supposition that deniers have "valid" thoughts. nothing valid in debating science by labeling anyone that disagrees with
your dogma "liars."
Originally posted by MitchMan
BajaGringo, glad to see that you brought your avatar back. Love that photo. Don't know if that is you or not, but the photo reflects the fun
Baja/Jimmy Buffet-type spirit to me.
A really key and pivotal point was made by Pompano:
“When trying to understand the world, we should consider theories. Really, it's the facts that matter; and if the facts change, our theories should
too.”
With that in mind, I have to ask the deniers a question or two.
But first, you all know about the basics of thermodynamics that all of us were taught in high school, don't you? You know, matter is neither created
nor destroyed, etc.? Right? One of the tenets is that there is a direct 1 to 1 relationship between stuff (matter) and energy. It is what Einstein
talked about and is reflected in E=MC2. One of the things it means is that stuff (matter) can be converted to energy and vice versa. And, that there
is only so much stuff and only so much energy because, well, it is neither created nor destroyed.
OK, this is where I am going with this. To you deniers, when petroleum products are converted to heat energy, where does that heat energy go? I
mean, since we humans have been burning fuels that were essentially room temperature before being burned and thereby providing heat that didn't exist
before such burning; where did it go? And, what do you think is the cumulative affect today?
I mean, do you deny that burning a room temperature fuel creates more heat than existed before such burning?
I don't believe its the heat created by burning its the CO2 and NH4 that are set adrift in the atmosphere which creates the greenhouse affect. We
know that in the past few interglacial maximums (similar to this current period) that CO2 levels were equally high. this, before man was on the scene
in any significant way. We also know, however that we are taking all this underground carbon which has been sequestered for millions of years and
throwing into the atmosphere all at once, relatively. And yes its much more than most volcanic activity generally produces. And we know how
volcanoes can alter the climate. So, it seems hard to believe that we aren't having some kind of effect. I guess we'll see what happens.
Good point, Mexitron. The greenhouse effect by combustion of fossil fuels makes the earth more of a closed system. And, the law of conservation is
defined in terms of a closed system.
Which begs the question that no one here who says there is no global warming/climate change caused by us humans can answer: where is the heat that
has been generated by burning fossil fuels in this closed system known as planet earth?
Originally posted by gnukid
It's quite an offense to call people with differing yet valid thoughts deniers. This tactic is among many faulty methods used by promoters of
anthropogenic warming. One should not rely on name calling as a method to theorize, in fact skepticism is a trait of science, to discount skepticism
is to discount science.
Keep in mind, throughout this topic, the great proponents, Gore, Mann, etc... have profited greatly while embellishing.
Over 17 years now the global temperature is stable, yet that is hardly the point.
Focus on the great polluter=military industrial war machine.
Scientists using science are overwhelmingly stating that man made climate change is occurring. What does Al Gore have to do with the facts
Exactly! And what does the UN have to do with the facts. It's just messenger for scientists.
If you're going to cry foul over the usage of 'deniers' than be consistent and not hide behind the veil of al gore and the UN.
Originally posted by motoged
.....So drop the AL Gore, UN, etc references....
And stick to evidence, facts, and potential explanations/hypotheses.
Science is clear about not confusing correlation with causation.
Why drop al gore? He is a good at delivering the message. You all need to move past shooting the messenger and start listening to the message. Give
him credit for bringing the issue to public attention. Your focus on al gores electric bill is ridiculous. You can't see the forest for the trees.
Here are IPCC scientist prediction of global temperature vs actual reported global temperature:
Key facts about global temperature:
The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 215 months from October 1996 to August 2014. That is more than half the 428-month
satellite record.
The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not
our fault.
The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
The fastest measured warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº
per century.
Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below
1.2 Cº per century.
The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction
of 1.7 Cº/century.
The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to below 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then
predicted.
Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº
warming to 2100.
The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since
1950.
The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in
1950.
From 1 April 2001 to 1 July 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.
Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that
atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)
The Preindustrial and/or Industrial Revolution changed everything … with the development of the “internal combustion engine” it was all over .. in
1859
"The first commercially successful internal combustion engine was created by Étienne Lenoir around 1859.[1]”
Scientific American advised in September 1860 the Parisian newspaper Cosmos had pronounced the steam age over,[5]
And what has followed is history. based on the need for natural resources in ever increasing amounts ... The Great Game, WWI, WWII and all the rest
up to and including present day
Don't think there were ever internal combustion engines used by man, prior to the 1859 date "quoted"
The scale of impact, by MAN, is what is missing in the earlier studies and/or findings .. .we didn't have the same degree of impact roughly 200 years
ago
150 years ago, the earths population was estimated to be well under 2 billion ... and none had cars,trucks,busses et al ..
This would make a difference in CO2 production and is proven out by "ice core samples"
Those are factual findings by NOAA and other Scientific Organizations World Wide
Why drop al gore? He is a good at delivering the message. You all need to move past shooting the messenger and start listening to the message. Give
him credit for bringing the issue to public attention. Your focus on al gores electric bill is ridiculous. You can't see the forest for the trees.
Goat,
I agree and did not say it so clearly....the side-show of attacking the messenger is only a distraction...
"If it were lush and rich, one could understand the pull, but it is fierce and hostile and sullen.
The stone mountains pile up to the sky and there is little fresh water. But we know we must go back
if we live, and we don't know why." - Steinbeck, Log from the Sea of Cortez
"People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care." - Theodore Roosevelt
"You can easily judge the character of others by how they treat those who they think can do nothing for them or to them." - Malcolm Forbes
"Let others lead small lives, but not you. Let others argue over small things, but not you. Let others
cry over small hurts, but not you. Let others leave their future in someone else's hands, but not you." - Jim Rohn
"The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." - Cunningham's Law
Thankyou to Baja Bound
Mexico InsuranceServices for your long-term support of the BajaNomad.com Forums site.
Emergency Baja Contacts Include:
Desert Hawks;
El Rosario-based ambulance transport; Emergency #: (616) 103-0262
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
