THeBlueCashew

Quote from: "SPECTRE"Over to you...

Quote from: "Keeper"

Quote from: "SPECTRE"Over to you...

The man is delusinal holy shit balls  :crazy:

Quote from: "SPECTRE"Over to you...

Quote from: "RW"Last time I checked they didn't hand out Nobel prizes for Climate or Environmental sciences - only chemistry and physics in the sciences.  Has something changed?

Quote from: "RW"Last time I checked they didn't hand out Nobel prizes for Climate or Environmental sciences - only chemistry and physics in the sciences.  Has something changed?

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "RW"Last time I checked they didn't hand out Nobel prizes for Climate or Environmental sciences - only chemistry and physics in the sciences.  Has something changed?

Ah, right...



So "climatologists" are NOT bound by the laws of physics? Or chemistry? Or logic? Or reason?



Address his facts, not his sanity or scientific capability.

Quote from: "Keeper"

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "RW"Last time I checked they didn't hand out Nobel prizes for Climate or Environmental sciences - only chemistry and physics in the sciences.  Has something changed?

Ah, right...



So "climatologists" are NOT bound by the laws of physics? Or chemistry? Or logic? Or reason?



Address his facts, not his sanity or scientific capability.

Not to but in!!!



But there are also facts supporting both sides of the fence. Like he said at the beginning of the video, This is like talking about religion :oeudC: ...

Quote from: "SPECTRE"Over to you...

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"Climate change proponents still can't make their minds up on what's happening, if anything. They've oscillated between ice ages and catastrophic warming over the last 45-50 years. When global warming predictions don't eventuate in their 15 year study durations, it becomes climate change while still being referred to as global warming and the statistics are omitted from official statements, even as evidence mounts that polar ice is actually growing over some of our more recent years and that tree rings and soil striations indicate a relatively smooth cycling through the centuries and millenniums.



It's become the Church of Latter Day Chicken Little's.

QuoteThe first half of 2015 was the warmest first six months on record for the globe, according to a pair independent analyses from government scientists released Monday.



Global temperatures from January through June 2015 exceeded 2010 as the warmest first half of any year, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.



This follows a record warm 2014 for the planet. The NOAA analysis found that Earth set a record warm June for the second year in a row.



A third, separate analysis from the Japanese Meteorological Agency also found June 2015 to be the globe's hottest June, topping June 2014 in records dating to 1891.



Nine of the 10 warmest years in NASA's 134-year database have occurred this century, with the exception of 1998, which featured the tail end of one of the strongest El Ninos on record.



The last year in NASA's dataset globally cooler than average was 1976.



The last cooler-than-average month in NASA's dataset was September 1992, more than 22 years ago. In the 462 months from January 1977 through June 2015, only seven months have been cooler than average, according to NASA.



//http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/earth-record-warmest-january-june-2015

Quote from: "Romero"

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"Climate change proponents still can't make their minds up on what's happening, if anything. They've oscillated between ice ages and catastrophic warming over the last 45-50 years. When global warming predictions don't eventuate in their 15 year study durations, it becomes climate change while still being referred to as global warming and the statistics are omitted from official statements, even as evidence mounts that polar ice is actually growing over some of our more recent years and that tree rings and soil striations indicate a relatively smooth cycling through the centuries and millenniums.



It's become the Church of Latter Day Chicken Little's.

Climate change proponents and the scientific consensus have always said the globe is warming. It's the deniers who still can't make up their minds. "It's warming, it's cooling, the Sun is hotter, it snowed somewhere, I hate Al Gore"...



The terms "global warming" and "climate change" have both been used for decades. Because global warming = climate change. Cause and effect. It's what they've been explaining all along.



"They said it was cloudy, but now they say it's raining. That makes no sense! How can it be cloudy and raining at the same time?"

Quote from: "reel"Here's what I have yet to see a denier address, despite it being the core of the problem:



The sun shines on the earth, delivering radiative heat energy to the surface.  

Some is reflected away by the atmosphere, some radiates back off the surface.

CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the amount of heat radiating back off the surface, thus increasing the amount of retained heat on the planet.  The more CO2, the more is retained.

The added retained heat energy is dumped into the climatic system and disperses.



How that energy manifests itself is not really what's important.  Obviously it will manifest itself in some way given that it can't be created or destroyed and has no other way off the planet than radiating back into space, which it can't do due to the CO2.  So it stays.  It does stuff because energy by nature does stuff.



To deny global warming / climate change, you would have to prove one of two things:  Either that CO2 does not cause heat to be retained - hint: you can't prove this because the opposite is abundantly clear, proven and demonstrable.  Or that the amount of heat retained will not have a significant impact.  This is simply a matter of timing.  Eventually it will.  I've never seen a denier attempt to quantify and then desubstantiate the level of retained energy (mostly because none seem to even understand the importance).



I welcome you to try.

Quote from: "reel"It's important to make the distinction between consensus on whether it is happening and what is happening.



There is consensus that it is happening.  There is not consensus on what precisely is happening.  A lot of people are taking advantage of the latter to obfuscate the fact that it is happening and cherry pick arguments that have nothing to do with whether or not it is happening.



Anthropogenic global warming can't really be denied because the physics are pretty simple and they can be modeled, demonstrated in a lab, etc.  For me that is enough to think we should change.  The precise effects it will have on the planet is much more difficult to determine.  Those can't realistically be modeled and they are difficult to measure.  Did the heat go to melting ice?  Heating the atmosphere?  Heating the ocean?  Shifting a current?  Higher wind speeds?  Higher humidity?  Larger storms?  All of the above in minor amounts?  Who knows?  It's a dynamic system. But why does it matter?  The fact that it is happening should be worrying enough.  Perhaps us not knowing should cause us even more consternation?



Is it an existential threat to humanity?  Probably not.  But it might be.  Will it have wide reaching economic impacts?  Possibly.  Will it do something that impacts humanity?  Almost certainly.

Quote from: "seoulbro"

Quote from: "reel"It's important to make the distinction between consensus on whether it is happening and what is happening.



There is consensus that it is happening.  There is not consensus on what precisely is happening.  A lot of people are taking advantage of the latter to obfuscate the fact that it is happening and cherry pick arguments that have nothing to do with whether or not it is happening.



Anthropogenic global warming can't really be denied because the physics are pretty simple and they can be modeled, demonstrated in a lab, etc.  For me that is enough to think we should change.  The precise effects it will have on the planet is much more difficult to determine.  Those can't realistically be modeled and they are difficult to measure.  Did the heat go to melting ice?  Heating the atmosphere?  Heating the ocean?  Shifting a current?  Higher wind speeds?  Higher humidity?  Larger storms?  All of the above in minor amounts?  Who knows?  It's a dynamic system. But why does it matter?  The fact that it is happening should be worrying enough.  Perhaps us not knowing should cause us even more consternation?



Is it an existential threat to humanity?  Probably not.  But it might be.  Will it have wide reaching economic impacts?  Possibly.  Will it do something that impacts humanity?  Almost certainly.

There also appears to be a consensus that global warming has entered a pause stage. Depends on who you ask?

Quote from: "RW"Is it the biggest issue humanity is facing?



Should we throw buckets of money at it?



I thought those were valid questions.

Quote from: "seoulbro"
There also appears to be a consensus that global warming has entered a pause stage. Depends on who you ask?

Quote from: "seoulbro"
Denier and alarmist are loaded words. The burning of fossil fuels is just one part of what's known as the earth's carbon cycle, in which processes like photosynthesis, decomposition, and many more determine where the stores of the planet's carbon lie, and how they shift around. If there are more plants performing photosynthesis, then more carbon will be pulled out of the atmosphere. So it follows that if humans tear down trees, they are worsening climate change, just as they are when they burn fossil fuels.



The disappearing Amazon and Indonesian rain forests are the second largest sources of man's contribution to climate change surpassed only by the burning of coal in power plants.

Quote from: "RW"reel, what should we be doing about it?  Is it as much of a catastrophe as its being touted as?

Quote from: "RW"So don't throw away money in bullshit carbon offsets?

Quote from: "reel"He is relatively typical in his response.  Most people deniers or alarmists alike, don't really understand this issue because they don't understand the basic thermodynamics of the planet and worse, they don't understand the difference between heat and temperature.  IF you don't know the difference between those two, you really shouldn't be presenting papers on climate change.

Quote from: "reel"

Quote from: "RW"So don't throw away money in bullshit carbon offsets?

No.  Those have never made sense to me.  It's an industry that serves no purpose.  Like high-paid efficiency consultants that cost more than they save.



I deal quite a bit with industrial import/export offsets, which are quite similar in nature, and in most cases it's a total scam.



The answer is to simplify, stabilise, make things more efficient, not make them more complex.

Quote from: "reel"
How that energy manifests itself is not really what's important.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "reel"He is relatively typical in his response.  Most people deniers or alarmists alike, don't really understand this issue because they don't understand the basic thermodynamics of the planet and worse, they don't understand the difference between heat and temperature.  IF you don't know the difference between those two, you really shouldn't be presenting papers on climate change.

You make a good point.



Would you please identify your qualifications and credentials to the audience.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "reel"
How that energy manifests itself is not really what's important.

Then why are we concerned with it?

Quote from: "SPECTRE"I see you alarmists are ignoring the former leader of Greenpeace, and his take on global warming.



It seems that you want to focus on the trees, but ignore the forest.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"I see you alarmists are ignoring the former leader of Greenpeace, and his take on global warming.



It seems that you want to focus on the trees, but ignore the forest.

Quote from: "reel"

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "reel"He is relatively typical in his response.  Most people deniers or alarmists alike, don't really understand this issue because they don't understand the basic thermodynamics of the planet and worse, they don't understand the difference between heat and temperature.  IF you don't know the difference between those two, you really shouldn't be presenting papers on climate change.

You make a good point.



Would you please identify your qualifications and credentials to the audience.

Absolutely!



I understand the difference between heat and temperature as well as the basic thermodynamics of the planet to the extent that I can comprehend that more heat in and less heat out means more energy in the system.  



You can probably qualify for those same credentials if you've graduated high school and have a basic level of reading comprehension.

Quote from: "reel"

Quote from: "SPECTRE"I see you alarmists are ignoring the former leader of Greenpeace, and his take on global warming.



It seems that you want to focus on the trees, but ignore the forest.

I didn't watch that one.  Does HE address the energy equation?  I don't want to waste another half hour listening to a bunch more ridiculous crap that doesn't even bother to address the key concern.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"You make a good point.



Would you please identify your qualifications and credentials to the audience.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"I see you alarmists are ignoring the former leader of Greenpeace, and his take on global warming.



It seems that you want to focus on the trees, but ignore the forest.

Quote from: "reel"

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "reel"
How that energy manifests itself is not really what's important.

Then why are we concerned with it?

Because it will manifest itself and will likely do so in a way that is not favourable to our economy and food production.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"


Put another way, you do not have any scientific credentials, yet you feel justified in using your high school level knowledge to rebut the views and opinions of a Nobel Laureate. A renown physicist.



How about the former Greenpeace leader? You are silent on his dissertation.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "reel"

Quote from: "SPECTRE"I see you alarmists are ignoring the former leader of Greenpeace, and his take on global warming.



It seems that you want to focus on the trees, but ignore the forest.

I didn't watch that one.  Does HE address the energy equation?  I don't want to waste another half hour listening to a bunch more ridiculous crap that doesn't even bother to address the key concern.

Put another way, you will follow the dogma of alarmists, because the evidence they present is "incontrovertible".

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "reel"

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "reel"
How that energy manifests itself is not really what's important.

Then why are we concerned with it?

Because it will manifest itself and will likely do so in a way that is not favourable to our economy and food production.

You ommitted an important phrase. "In your opinion".



There's that word "likely" again. Where have I seen that before?

Quote from: "RW"Your Nobel laureate has written no papers on the issue - nothing published or peer reviewed.  Reel picked his arguments apart noting the same issues with what you seem to think is a scientific argument.

Quote from: "reel"

Quote from: "SPECTRE"


Put another way, you do not have any scientific credentials, yet you feel justified in using your high school level knowledge to rebut the views and opinions of a Nobel Laureate. A renown physicist.



How about the former Greenpeace leader? You are silent on his dissertation.

Put another way, I don't need scientific credentials to understand the basic premise of the energy equation.



Can you refute it?

Quote from: "reel"


No.  It's not my opinion.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "RW"Your Nobel laureate has written no papers on the issue - nothing published or peer reviewed.  Reel picked his arguments apart noting the same issues with what you seem to think is a scientific argument.

*sigh*...



He gave a PRESENTATION to his peers. Recorded for distribution. He was speaking to a room full of Nobel Laureates!!!



And that's NOT "peer review"? You are being pedantic. You are simply following alarmist protocol "THE FACT IS INCONTROVERTIBLE". You do not WANT to accept a contradictory viewpoint. That is the point and issue here. I am not a scientist. I cannot review his conclusions, but you alarmists go straight into DENIAL when any rebuttal is raised. See the problem here?



In order for Reel to pick his arguments, he must be a peer. So far, the best I have is he studied the physics of thermodynamics in high school.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "reel"

Quote from: "SPECTRE"


Put another way, you do not have any scientific credentials, yet you feel justified in using your high school level knowledge to rebut the views and opinions of a Nobel Laureate. A renown physicist.



How about the former Greenpeace leader? You are silent on his dissertation.

Put another way, I don't need scientific credentials to understand the basic premise of the energy equation.



Can you refute it?

I don't have to. Ivar Giaever did.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "reel"


No.  It's not my opinion.

Then kindly cite the references upon which you base that statement.

Quote from: "reel"Here it is again.



The sun shines on the earth, delivering radiative heat energy to the surface.

Some is reflected away by the atmosphere, some radiates back off the surface.

CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the amount of heat radiating back off the surface, thus increasing the amount of retained heat on the planet. The more CO2, the more is retained.

The added retained heat energy is dumped into the climatic system and disperses.



Show me how any statement in this succession is wrong.



And don't talk to me about Nobel Laureates, qualifications, or credentials.  Don't give me "he said" or "she said".  Use your head.  I don't need to see a goddamn puppet show.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"Spare me your dogma. Show me your credentials. Show me your supporting data. Thats what Giaever did. Someone who you call a puppet declined to be part of the mantra chanters and took an alternative view.

Quote from: "Romero"

Quote from: "SPECTRE"Spare me your dogma. Show me your credentials. Show me your supporting data. Thats what Giaever did. Someone who you call a puppet declined to be part of the mantra chanters and took an alternative view.

Just admit defeat, reel. Your lack of credentials are no match for Spec's YouTube video of some guy saying stuff.

Quote from: "seoulbro"

Quote from: "RW"Is it the biggest issue humanity is facing?



Should we throw buckets of money at it?



I thought those were valid questions.

An equivocal no to spending more trillions on "fighting" global warming.

Quote from: "Azhya Aryola"Maybe I'll comment when there is interest. At the moment, too many long posts and bedtime is looming. Global warming, global cooling, whatever. When earth disintegrates or freezes over, I hope by then I've enjoyed my retirement. Tra la la.

Quote from: "reel"

Quote from: "seoulbro"
There also appears to be a consensus that global warming has entered a pause stage. Depends on who you ask?

Has there been a stabilization in the amount of atmospheric CO2 or a marked decrease in solar radiation?  If not, then the answer is no.  Again, people confuse temperature as a measure of heat gain. We can continue to gain head, but experience a drop in temperature.

Quote from: "Fashionista"
Good night Azhya.

 :smiley-face-night:

Quote from: "Azhya Aryola"Maybe I'll comment when there is interest. At the moment, too many long posts and bedtime is looming. Global warming, global cooling, whatever. When earth disintegrates or freezes over, I hope by then I've enjoyed my retirement. Tra la la.

Quote from: "seoulbro"
There have been many reasons given why the projected increases in temperature did not occur. One study found that the lack of warming is due to heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic. Most of the same climate modelers have doubled down and are predicting even greater climatic swings in the future.

Quote from: "reel"It's important to make the distinction between consensus on whether it is happening and what is happening.



There is consensus that it is happening.  There is not consensus on what precisely is happening.  A lot of people are taking advantage of the latter to obfuscate the fact that it is happening and cherry pick arguments that have nothing to do with whether or not it is happening.



Anthropogenic global warming can't really be denied because the physics are pretty simple and they can be modeled, demonstrated in a lab, etc.  For me that is enough to think we should change.  The precise effects it will have on the planet is much more difficult to determine.  Those can't realistically be modeled and they are difficult to measure.  Did the heat go to melting ice?  Heating the atmosphere?  Heating the ocean?  Shifting a current?  Higher wind speeds?  Higher humidity?  Larger storms?  All of the above in minor amounts?  Who knows?  It's a dynamic system. But why does it matter?  The fact that it is happening should be worrying enough.  Perhaps us not knowing should cause us even more consternation?



Is it an existential threat to humanity?  Probably not.  But it might be.  Will it have wide reaching economic impacts?  Possibly.  Will it do something that impacts humanity?  Almost certainly.

Quote from: "reel"

Quote from: "seoulbro"
There have been many reasons given why the projected increases in temperature did not occur. One study found that the lack of warming is due to heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic. Most of the same climate modelers have doubled down and are predicting even greater climatic swings in the future.

Melting ice is another reason.  The latent heat required to melt ice is huge, but does not affect temperature at all, but similar to ocean heating, it will accelerate the temperature increase later on.

Quote from: "reel"

Quote from: "Romero"

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"Climate change proponents still can't make their minds up on what's happening, if anything. They've oscillated between ice ages and catastrophic warming over the last 45-50 years. When global warming predictions don't eventuate in their 15 year study durations, it becomes climate change while still being referred to as global warming and the statistics are omitted from official statements, even as evidence mounts that polar ice is actually growing over some of our more recent years and that tree rings and soil striations indicate a relatively smooth cycling through the centuries and millenniums.



It's become the Church of Latter Day Chicken Little's.

Climate change proponents and the scientific consensus have always said the globe is warming. It's the deniers who still can't make up their minds. "It's warming, it's cooling, the Sun is hotter, it snowed somewhere, I hate Al Gore"...



The terms "global warming" and "climate change" have both been used for decades. Because global warming = climate change. Cause and effect. It's what they've been explaining all along.



"They said it was cloudy, but now they say it's raining. That makes no sense! How can it be cloudy and raining at the same time?"

A lot of the issue comes from people not understanding the term "global warming".  This does not mean that the temperature on a Tuesday in Albany is slightly higher.  It doesn't even mean that the average temperature is higher.  It means that more heat is being retained.  Retained heat may manifest as an increase in temperature, or it may manifest as a decrease in pack ice, an increase in wind speed, more cloud formation, higher humidity etc.  It doesn't really matter.  What does matter is that it means more energy in the system and that is not good for us who rely on stable predictable weather patterns for agriculture and various other economic activities.  



Warming means that there is more heat energy and that heat energy will do something.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"


So, by that logic, we are doomed...because the heat will eventually build up to unsurvivable limits.



Has the heat of the planet been warmer than it is now?



If so, what were the consequences?



If so, what happened to that heat that, by your statement, could not escape?



What will happen if we can magically eradicate CO2 from the atmosphere?



Spare me your dogma. Show me your credentials. Show me your supporting data. Thats what Giaever did. Someone who you call a puppet declined to be part of the mantra chanters and took an alternative view.



Don't argue with me. Argue with his historic data.

Quote from: "reel"All science contradicts itself regularly.  That's part of the process and precisely what makes it NOT faith based.  There's observation-hypothesis-experiment-theory. Climate is complex and the effects of adding more energy are neither obvious nor clear.  However, as I've explained multiple times, that we are adding energy is both obvious and clear.



Perhaps you'd like to have a go at my argument or make one of your own since your countryman has so soundly failed?





*edit - I should add that the short term effects of adding energy are not clear.  The long term effects of adding energy are always the same.

Quote from: "reel"

Quote from: "seoulbro"
There have been many reasons given why the projected increases in temperature did not occur. One study found that the lack of warming is due to heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic. Most of the same climate modelers have doubled down and are predicting even greater climatic swings in the future.

Melting ice is another reason.  The latent heat required to melt ice is huge, but does not affect temperature at all, but similar to ocean heating, it will accelerate the temperature increase later on.

Quote from: "Wulf"


Is it? Not really in the grand scheme of things.



It takes 143 BTUs to melt one pound of ice and 286,000 BTUs to melt one ton of ice. Now granted, God knows how many tons of ice disappeared in the past 30 years but spread the required energy out over time and you will see that it doesn't take much of a temperature rise to cause the kind of polar ice melting we are seeing today. A one or two degree rise in global ocean temps is all it really takes to set things out of whack.

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"Look at all the religious climate change talk which has transpired in this thread already.  ac_smile

Quote from: "RW"Look what the media has turned it into.

Quote from: "reel"
Shame about the kids though.

Quote from: "Azhya Aryola"

Quote from: "reel"
Shame about the kids though.

Yes, it is. I'll strive not to worry about it. Instead, I'll make the most of the time we have together. We could be debating all this and then an asteroid hits earth and life as we know it is kaput.

Quote from: "Herman"Don't worry, the biggest crisis your kids will face is how will they pay for all this sky is falling extortion.

Quote from: "Azhya Aryola"

Quote from: "Herman"Don't worry, the biggest crisis your kids will face is how will they pay for all this sky is falling extortion.

Like I said, I am not worried about it.

Quote from: "Herman"

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"Look at all the religious climate change talk which has transpired in this thread already.  ac_smile

But the science is settled, the world is near the tipping point, and it's all your fault. Now repent of your sins and hand it all over. :laugh3:

Quote from: "Reel"It could actually be very serious. It could mean 6 days longer before Arctic freeze up and thus 6 days sooner for Arctic break up. A 12 day shift might not seem like a lot, but that could make a huge ecological difference as well as reduce that heat sink, further accelerating the process. At any rate, it's good reason for scientists to study the effects and for the rest of us to take pause and re-examine what we are doing, don't you think?

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"Look at all the religious climate change talk which has transpired in this thread already.  ac_smile

Quote from: "cc la femme"

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"Look at all the religious climate change talk which has transpired in this thread already.  ac_smile

Bingo Dinky. "Religious" is an appropriate description of the climate cooling .. damn .. I meant warming flock

Quote from: "RW"Last time I checked they didn't hand out Nobel prizes for Climate or Environmental sciences - only chemistry and physics in the sciences.  Has something changed?

Quote from: "RW"

Quote from: "cc la femme"

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"Look at all the religious climate change talk which has transpired in this thread already.  ac_smile

Bingo Dinky. "Religious" is an appropriate description of the climate cooling .. damn .. I meant warming flock

I used to think science relied on faith but it relies on reproducible results.  Religion - not so much.

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"

Quote from: "Herman"

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"Look at all the religious climate change talk which has transpired in this thread already.  ac_smile

But the science is settled, the world is near the tipping point, and it's all your fault. Now repent of your sins and hand it all over. :laugh3:

 ac_biggrin



If they had faith in that point instead of pussyfooting around the logical conclusion of a contrived problem, they'd be prepared to kill themselves for the planet as a salvation.



Climate change religion nutters want others to die but never themselves or their own.

Quote from: "cc la femme"

Quote from: "RW"

Quote from: "cc la femme"

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"Look at all the religious climate change talk which has transpired in this thread already.  ac_smile

Bingo Dinky. "Religious" is an appropriate description of the climate cooling .. damn .. I meant warming flock

I used to think science relied on faith but it relies on reproducible results.  Religion - not so much.

I was  describing  the flock as religious-like, not the science. I stand behind that

Quote from: "RW"
These are people actually doing the experiements

Quote from: "SPECTRE"Gee...here's a peer reviewed example.



"The greenhouse effect that is supposed to warm the world does not even exist as Ferenc Miskolczi has shown. He studied the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere using NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948. He discovered that the absorption had been constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time went up by 21.6 percent. This substantial addition of carbon dioxide had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. In science a theory that gives wrong predictions is thrown into the trash basket of history. That is where the greenhouse theory of warming belongs, right next to phlogiston, another wrong theory of heat. Miskpolczi's is an empirical observation, not derived from any theory, and it overrides any predictions from theory that do not agree with it. Quite specifically it overrides all those pseudo-scientists who try to tell us that CO2 is warming the world. It also invalidates all climate models using the greenhouse theory to predict warming. And it also agrees well with predictions he made before he made the observations. For technical details, read Energy & Environment, volume 21, issue 4, pages 243-262 (2010). That is a peer reviewed article the climatists hate."

Quote from: "reel"


There you go.  I may not have a shiny title or flashy credentials, but I have a brain and I know how to use it.  I highly recommend it!  Don't be distracted by the flash and the rhetoric.  Listen to what the man is actually saying.  In the end, it's really not very much.

Quote from: "RW"One thing climate change has really brought to light is how fucked up our priorities are as humans.

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"

Quote from: "RW"One thing climate change has really brought to light is how fucked up our priorities are as humans.

I agree although from a completely different point of view. Climate change is a ruse and it demonstrates that people are easily duped into ignoring real problems in their lives so they can feel like they're part of a global movement which ironically seeks to add more real problems to their lives.

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"

Quote from: "RW"One thing climate change has really brought to light is how fucked up our priorities are as humans.

I agree although from a completely different point of view. Climate change is a ruse and it demonstrates that people are easily duped into ignoring real problems in their lives so they can feel like they're part of a global movement which ironically seeks to add more real problems to their lives.

Quote from: "RW"Did you seriously just post some woman's opinion column as a rebuttal?



*facepalm*

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "RW"Did you seriously just post some woman's opinion column as a rebuttal?



*facepalm*

 I also added a link to his findings...



Hmmm... ac_umm

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"

Quote from: "RW"One thing climate change has really brought to light is how fucked up our priorities are as humans.

I agree although from a completely different point of view. Climate change is a ruse and it demonstrates that people are easily duped into ignoring real problems in their lives so they can feel like they're part of a global movement which ironically seeks to add more real problems to their lives.

Its called "socialism".



They lost their previous cause when "the worker's paradise" collapsed.



Equal rights for the environment was the next best option.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"http://www.examiner.com/article/former-nasa-scientist-defends-theory-refuting-global-warming-doctrine



An interview with him.



He has proved, using data, that the Earth's atmosphere is self regulating and that Reel's "greenhouse effect" does not, in fact exist. What I find amazing is the rabid and shrill denying of his PUBLISHED research by alarmists, to the extent that they have embarked on a strident and demented program of public spite to destroy his credibility.



That, I contend, is the real issue of global warming; the mindless adherence to theory and the utter rejection of alternative views. The myth of the "10,000 scientists can't be wrong". The myth that the earth is getting warmer. The myth that our climate will become more violent and unpredictable.



In fact...can anyone point to ONE of their predictions that has yet to come true?

Quote from: "SPECTRE"I am going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you are not a scientist.



Thus, will you please cite the source of your opinion?



No-one is denying the earth is getting warmer. In the middle ages, no-one would argue the earth was getting cooler. What's your point?



Is there a time in history where the earth experienced, say, 200 years of stable temperature?



Anyhoo...unless you are a recognised authority, please cite your source.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"The alarmists think otherwise.



Even the American President has been duped.



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33753067



"I'm convinced no challenge provides a greater threat to the future of the planet," Mr Obama said. "There is such a thing as being too late."



Convinced by whom?

Quote from: "SPECTRE"And there is just plain politics.



Who can argue with a cleaner planet?



Its just the rationale that is awry.

Quote from: "Herman"

Quote from: "SPECTRE"And there is just plain politics.



Who can argue with a cleaner planet?



Its just the rationale that is awry.

The first step is telling people they are in grave danger. The second is convincing them you can save them. The last step is to give them a bill in perpetuity.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"No-one is denying the earth is getting warmer.

Quote from: "SPECTRE"The myth that the earth is getting warmer.

Quote from: "reel"You don't need scientific credentials to understand the theory.  

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "reel"You don't need scientific credentials to understand the theory.  

Yes.



You do.



As in your case, you're applying a layman's understanding of thermodynamics to a living, operational planet.



You have rebutted the view of scientists, yet you do not have the commensurate qualifications to do so with authority. Therein lies the problem. You will AUTOMATICALLY come in with the intent of negating the contradiction to your own, LIMITED, understanding, and enhance the perception that man made global warming is a slam dunk.



Reel, with respect, you can analyse and assess Miskcolczi's published findings all you like, but your conclusions are worthless unless you are a scientific peer.



You are not.



I am not.



I am merely highlighting that man made global warming is not a PROVEN and INCONTROVERTIBLE fact, and efforts to stop climate change will be fruitless and wasteful.

Quote from: "reel"

Quote from: "SPECTRE"

Quote from: "reel"You don't need scientific credentials to understand the theory.  

Yes.



You do.



As in your case, you're applying a layman's understanding of thermodynamics to a living, operational planet.



You have rebutted the view of scientists, yet you do not have the commensurate qualifications to do so with authority. Therein lies the problem. You will AUTOMATICALLY come in with the intent of negating the contradiction to your own, LIMITED, understanding, and enhance the perception that man made global warming is a slam dunk.



Reel, with respect, you can analyse and assess Miskcolczi's published findings all you like, but your conclusions are worthless unless you are a scientific peer.



You are not.



I am not.



I am merely highlighting that man made global warming is not a PROVEN and INCONTROVERTIBLE fact, and efforts to stop climate change will be fruitless and wasteful.

No you don't.  Because based on the accepted theory, the layman's understanding of thermodynamics is sufficient to understand the accepted scientific consensus.  I would need credentials to prove it wrong.  I would need credentials to elaborate on it or attempt to further prove it right.  But I don't need credentials to understand it because it's simply not that complicated.





I've rebutted the view of A scientist (the one in the OP) because he did not actually address the question he purported to address.  I don't need credentials to see that.  You are right that I can't rebut Miskcolczi's published findings.  I can read them, I can do my best to understand them, but I can't question them because I'm not qualified to do so and he actually addressed the question.  I found his findings very interesting and hopefully more work will be done to either prove or disprove them.



I disagree that efforts to stop climate change will be fruitless and wasteful.  That's you saying without a doubt that it's NOT happening.  I agree that they might be fruitless and wasteful.  Thus, we should adopt the ones that do no harm or have other benefits.  Your suggestions a page or two back were way more harsh than I would have suggested...

Quote from: "RW"No man is an island.  I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that we don't effect our environment.  



DERP.

Quote from: "RW"I agree seoul and I'm not sure we can really "combat" it at this point.  Being better to the environment isn't a bad thing though l.  We just have to be smarter about it.

Quote from: Herman post_id=421498 time=1632716260 user_id=1689
New Yorker magazine platformed a Swedish climate change activist who advocates blowing up pipelines in the name of climate justice on a recent episode of its "New Yorker Radio Hour" podcast.



Andreas Malm is an associate professor at Sweden's Lund University, and the author of the book "How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire." Malm's book does not only have an eye-catching title; he actually advocates destroying any and all fossil fuel infrastructure.



Malm appeared on the New Yorker podcast last week, where he literally championed destroying pipelines.

https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status/1441994117647568897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1441994117647568897%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fnews%2Fnew-yorker-climate-activist-pipelines-destroy