Global warming denial is irrational.

KillerCroc
KillerCroc's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2011-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Global warming denial is irrational.

Yeah, I'm new here and I thought everyone here was smart as can be (though I won't ask about economics), but after reading the forum on global warming and seeing how irrational you're answers were on the global warming topic. I thought this was "Rational Response Squad". With you're denialist answers on global warming, you'd impress the family research council. Also, I know why you "Global warming skeptics" don't except the evidence for climate change like you would evolution is because you're libertarian politics get in the way, nothing scientific, just willful ignorance. Until this forum can prove to me the pseudoskeptics are outnumbered by skeptics, I can't call this website completely rational.

 

*MOVED FROM TROLLVILLE BECAUSE KILLER CROC RETURNED WITH HUMILITY*

Topic title changed from "The irrationality of RRS" to "Global warming denial is irrational"  - MOD

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Is it possible to set up

Is it possible to set up polar orbits for satellites? And would it make a difference if it could be done? I don't have a fraction of the math I'd need to figure it out. But it would seem like a good idea as long as it can be done.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Well, there are a number

 Well, there are a number of different type of orbits. However, for earth orbits, you have to consider your perspective on the ground and the type of communications equipment used.

 

The ones that are used for internet/television service are in one specific type of orbit. An orbit which is 35,000km above sea level is one where it will take 24 hours for the satellite to go once around. That much does not matter if it is a polar orbit, equatorial or some other intermediate plane.

 

However, an equatorial orbit at that altitude has the rather interesting feature that the satellite tends to sit over one place on the surface all the time. That is why you can point a dish in one direction and it will always be aligned.

 

A polar orbit, on the other hand, would be a problem for a dish antenna as the satellite in constantly in motion relative to the ground. In fact, half the time, it is on the wrong side of the Earth.

 

Actually, the GPS system uses a modified polar orbit. However, for that use, you need a very non-directional antenna that can connect to several satellites at the same time to establish your fairly fixed position on the surface.

 

Another interesting orbit is called the “tundra orbit”. That is what satellite radio uses. Basically, it is at a mean altitude of 35,000 km but it is neither equatorial nor circular. If viewed from outer space, it would be elliptical, just like any other orbit. However, because the mean altitude is what it is, the satellites still take a full day to go once around the planet. So they move around relative to the ground while still managing to stay on one side of the planet at all times (relative to the ground anyway).

 

Sirius/XM each have three satellites in tundra orbits. At any given time, there are at least two of them over North America.

 

Here, I also have to tell you a mildly amusing story relative to line of sight. A friend of mine got a brand new BMW a few years ago. Now at some point in the process of ordering it, someone forgot to check a box on a form indicating that the car was going to be used in North America.

 

Well, since European satellite radio uses the same type of orbit but centered over Europe, she had line of sight to those satellites. And since the car was made in Germany, the default settings for the radio were to get German stations. So she could only get those for a couple of days until she got back to the dealer to have the radio reset for English language stations.

 

 

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Also, don't let Kap fool you on the speed of satellite. Sure, it is not the king of speed but it is not really as slow as he would have you believe. Not that it would matter if you can get cable where you would head but even so, that was just wrong information.

 

The people whom I've played with on MMORPGS that use Satellite say it sucks, so I assume it sucks.

Also, is a geosynchronous polar orbit even possible?

 

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lol.Cool stuff. I'd never

Lol.

Cool stuff. I'd never really thought about them much before. I spent a lot more time paying attention to technology that goes out than technology that orbits.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
To have the satellite stay

To have the satellite stay over one spot, it has to be at geosynchronous altitude over the equator.

A polar orbit at that altitude will stay over the same longitude, but will be below the horizon for half the time - the same time every day.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


KillerCroc
KillerCroc's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2011-05-18
User is offlineOffline
There is malaria, dengue

@Kapkao

There is malaria, dengue fever, and chorlera, but that's only 3 I've mentioned. The reason the diseases will spread ever more is because warmer and wetter conditions, wasn't that obvious?

And you know that nothing terrible came about how? I'm still deciding if you're ignorant, but all I see from you is being apathetic.

Oh well if you don't save the near threatend spotted owl, conservationists will do that for you. Besides, you don't sound like a person who cares about animals (And don't call me an animal rights activist because I prefer animal welfare)


KillerCroc
KillerCroc's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2011-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Also, I heard one person

Also, I heard one person talk about Al Gore's mansion being a heavy CO2 producer. Well lets see what factcheck.org says:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/al-gores-mansion/


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
KillerCroc

KillerCroc wrote:

@Kapkao

There is malaria, dengue fever, and chorlera, but that's only 3 I've mentioned. The reason the diseases will spread ever more is because warmer and wetter conditions, wasn't that obvious?

An increase in average temperature necessarily leads to "warmer and wetter" conditions? What about warmer and drier conditions? Maybe climates that were once wet will become dry, and drier climates will become more moist.

The argument I originally heard was that CC would happen in such a way (as if were all at once) that there would be large clumps of population densely packed in such a disorganized way, as to become breeding grounds for disease. Nevermind the already fantasy-laden specifics he gave, which no other source could offer him support for, the idea that CC would happen so fast (as in, a year or so) as to cause abnormal population buildups is asinine by itself.

Quote:

And you know that nothing terrible came about how? I'm still deciding if you're ignorant, but all I see from you is being apathetic.

It is highly apathetic. If you stay here long enough you might even get to see how snobbish and self absorbed I truly am. I have no reason to think I'm going to be adversely effected and I still don't. Nothing terrible came about... because there has been no detriment to human prosperity and well being from a loss of biodiversity -at least in the developed world. If anything we are all better off as a species than we were in, say, 1850. In poorer countries of subsistence agriculture, where reliance on a single species for nutritional intake is the norm, things may be much worse.

If you have evidence to the contrary, let's hear it.

Quote:
Oh well if you don't save the near threatend spotted owl, conservationists will do that for you. Besides, you don't sound like a person who cares about animals (And don't call me an animal rights activist because I prefer animal welfare)

Well, as long as we both agree we're discussing animal welfare and not human welfare, I have no problems. My current claim is that CC related activism would benefit strongly from a "Love Canal"-type approach. We would be much effective by looking at CC solely on the basis of how it adversely effects human welfare.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Biodiversity

Kapkao wrote:
Biodiversity has been sinking for a longass time now. Humans are the biggest extinction event since the Chicxulub Meteor some 65 million years ago. Mostly within the Industrial Revolution, 20th Century, and present day. (150+ years) Nothing terrible has come about it. How am I being ignorant?

Sorry, I will not "save the spotted owl".

Nothing terrible has come about it? I don't think you get the significance. This time, we are the meteor. The meteor that destroyed all dinosaurs except birds, that's us. We could, in fact, so destabilize biodiversity as to result in at least Gigadeaths of humans, if not quite complete extinction.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:KillerCroc

Kapkao wrote:

KillerCroc wrote:

@Kapkao

There is malaria, dengue fever, and chorlera, but that's only 3 I've mentioned. The reason the diseases will spread ever more is because warmer and wetter conditions, wasn't that obvious?

An increase in average temperature necessarily leads to "warmer and wetter" conditions? What about warmer and drier conditions? Maybe climates that were once wet will become dry, and drier climates will become more moist.

Straw man. He did not argue that all places would become warmer and wetter, he is only inferring, correctly, that some places will. And those places will become more prone to such diseases.

Quote:
The argument I originally heard was that CC would happen in such a way (as if were all at once) that there would be large clumps of population densely packed in such a disorganized way, as to become breeding grounds for disease. Nevermind the already fantasy-laden specifics he gave, which no other source could offer him support for, the idea that CC would happen so fast (as in, a year or so) as to cause abnormal population buildups is asinine by itself.

Red Herring. It is intellectually dishonest to hold up some other guy's lame argument and imply that KillerCroc must defend it. Stick to the points he is arguing.

I bet you're an atheist cuz you're mad at god, cuz I met one atheist and that was HIS reason! /snark

Quote:
Quote:

And you know that nothing terrible came about how? I'm still deciding if you're ignorant, but all I see from you is being apathetic.

It is highly apathetic. If you stay here long enough you might even get to see how snobbish and self absorbed I truly am. I have no reason to think I'm going to be adversely effected and I still don't.

The most obvious changes in the next few decades are going to be increasingly unstable weather causing property damage, loss of life, loss of infrastructure, and the resulting effects on overall economy.

There will be more flooding, more tropical storms, more 'disasters' requiring global response. Don't tell me this doesn't affect you. Even if you yourself are too complacent to offer resources of your own, the fact that people around you in your own locale WILL, will inevitably constrict the economy within which you live and work.

Collapsing of various industries, such as those we see now in fishing and farming in certain areas.

Food shortages, as previous lands which were able to support a certain staple of crops become unable to support them. This leads to famine and starvation. Which may not affect you directly, but...

Political unrest, disruption, war, etc., due to all these extra external pressures on those people most affected, and those least able to adapt to the changing conditions globally. Destabilized global political situations make the entire world more dangerous for everybody. Just as cornered animals tend to fight viciously, so will cornered people lash out in short-sighted desperation. Frankly, this is the most important and salient short-term effect of climate change.

Quote:
Nothing terrible came about... because there has been no detriment to human prosperity and well being from a loss of biodiversity -at least in the developed world. If anything we are all better off as a species than we were in, say, 1850. In poorer countries of subsistence agriculture, where reliance on a single species for nutritional intake is the norm, things may be much worse.

If you have evidence to the contrary, let's hear it.

Yeah, cuz I've never heard of any such things as fishery industry collapse, foreign species invasion destroying crops, droughts leading to uncontrollable fires, formerly fertile land turning to desert, or anything like that. No, no one has been affected by loss of biodiversity, climate change or human over exploitation of the environment. LALALALALA I can't hear you!!!!

 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Not to mention the bee die

Not to mention the bee die off that's been going on the last 10 some years. Those damn critters give us more food than any 10 other species combined.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Struck a nerve, have I?

Struck a nerve, have I?

natural wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

An increase in average temperature necessarily leads to "warmer and wetter" conditions? What about warmer and drier conditions? Maybe climates that were once wet will become dry, and drier climates will become more moist.

Straw man. He did not argue that all places would become warmer and wetter, he is only inferring, correctly, that some places will. And those places will become more prone to such diseases.

Straw man yourself. There is no accurate manner to determine the scale to which he would apply his claims, because he did not specify them.

Quote:
Quote:
The argument I originally heard was that CC would happen in such a way (as if were all at once) that there would be large clumps of population densely packed in such a disorganized way, as to become breeding grounds for disease. Nevermind the already fantasy-laden specifics he gave, which no other source could offer him support for, the idea that CC would happen so fast (as in, a year or so) as to cause abnormal population buildups is asinine by itself.

Red Herring. It is intellectually dishonest to hold up some other guy's lame argument and imply that KillerCroc must defend it. Stick to the points he is arguing.

Except I did nothing of the sort. I simply mentioned it as a reference point, and to let him know that I have discussed this before... with apparently smarter minds than he. (Although Blake is highly intelligent, he is a bit lacking in common sense.)

 

Quote:
Quote:
It is highly apathetic. If you stay here long enough you might even get to see how snobbish and self absorbed I truly am. I have no reason to think I'm going to be adversely effected and I still don't.

The most obvious changes in the next few decades are going to be increasingly unstable weather causing property damage, loss of life, loss of infrastructure, and the resulting effects on overall economy.

There will be more flooding, more tropical storms, more 'disasters' requiring global response. Don't tell me this doesn't affect you. Even if you yourself are too complacent to offer resources of your own, the fact that people around you in your own locale WILL, will inevitably constrict the economy within which you live and work.

Collapsing of various industries, such as those we see now in fishing and farming in certain areas.

Food shortages, as previous lands which were able to support a certain staple of crops become unable to support them. This leads to famine and starvation. Which may not affect you directly, but...

And lands that were previously  inhospitable to agribusiness may equally as likely become fertile. Ever read up on the Medieval Warm Period? It's where most CC skeptic arguments get a lot of their wind from. I suggest if you want better odds

Quote:
Political unrest, disruption, war, etc., due to all these extra external pressures on those people most affected, and those least able to adapt to the changing conditions globally. Destabilized global political situations make the entire world more dangerous for everybody. Just as cornered animals tend to fight viciously, so will cornered people lash out in short-sighted desperation. Frankly, this is the most important and salient short-term effect of climate change.

Salient to whom? Except that this hardly much of a guaranteed outcome of our current situation (where CC is still largely ignored or misunderstood by the masses.) People from developed lands claim to know a great deal about how people from less prosperous and less industrialized locales think and feel. How accurate are they in this supposed knowledge? I don't know, but I don't see anyone actually representing and speaking for many of these cultures here. I wouldn't bother with Peace Corps experience either.

 

Quote:
Yeah, cuz I've never heard of any such things as fishery industry collapse, foreign species invasion destroying crops, droughts leading to uncontrollable fires, formerly fertile land turning to desert, or anything like that. No, no one has been affected by loss of biodiversity, climate change or human over exploitation of the environment.

And I've never heard of agribusiness and aquaculture migrating to newly vitalized, fertile lands, even though it has happened before, and will probably happen again. I'll forgo the childish mockery.

Quote:
fishery industry collapse

So, that means there has been some kind shortage of aquaculture products in the past? A shortage on specific types of aquaculture? Or is this, as I largely suspect, in reference to largely localized economic disasters?

Quote:
foreign species invasion destroying crops

Which happens anyways, presently.

Quote:
droughts leading to uncontrollable fires

Much of the land where I'm from natural infernos every so many decades or so. These fires destroy old, dead rotting tree trunks, remove parasites from the wood, and leave plenty of nutrients behind in the form of ashes and soot. Healthy, 'solid' trees tend to survive the blaze. Yes, they are a threat to public safety, and yes... they destroy rural homes en masse. 10 or 15 years down the line, and most people have recovered from damages to property. People die, too, but all of this happens whether CC is in effect or not.

natural wrote:

Nothing terrible has come about it? I don't think you get the significance. This time, we are the meteor. The meteor that destroyed all dinosaurs except birds, that's us. We could, in fact, so destabilize biodiversity as to result in at least Gigadeaths of humans, if not quite complete extinction.

Yes, that's why I made the comparison. I get the significance. As for destabilizing biodiversity to the cataclysmic proportions you state... if people start feeling the burn, they'll scramble to save their hides. Survival is the strongest instinct in our species. Whether they succeed or not, I believe is an issue well beyond whatever capacity for prescience you or I might pretend to have. It's certainly beyond climate science in its current state, with all the chaos still present in the mathematics.

I still don't understand why I should be concerned...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Not to mention

Vastet wrote:

Not to mention the bee die off that's been going on the last 10 some years. Those damn critters give us more food than any 10 other species combined.

You betcha.

But, see... here's the thing. Colony Collapse Syndrome (or whatever it's called) has been almost conclusively attributed to a mite, that brings with it a lot of nasty diseases for bees. Climate change didn't make the Varroa Destructor mite possible. While I'm confident it is somehow deeply connected to human behavior, what is it that we did that made these mites such a nasty menace for bees? How did we propagate this 'bee blight'?

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Every specialist I've heard

Every specialist I've heard speak about it says there's a lot more than one issue. There's the mite, there's also pesticide use, there's also climate change, and even the way we farm now compared to the way we used to. From what I've been told, none of these alone would do much, it's the impact of all of them together that's causing all the damage.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Every

Vastet wrote:

Every specialist I've heard speak about it says there's a lot more than one issue. There's the mite, there's also pesticide use, there's also climate change, and even the way we farm now compared to the way we used to. From what I've been told, none of these alone would do much, it's the impact of all of them together that's causing all the damage.

Allow me to rephrase; no one currently knows the causative agent behind CCD, merely that Varroa mites were found in a majority of studied cases of CCD... at least in the Ontario area. So there's at least a correlation.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

KillerCroc wrote:
Yeah, I'm new here and I thought everyone here was smart as can be (though I won't ask about economics), but after reading the forum on global warming and seeing how irrational you're answers were on the global warming topic. I thought this was "Rational Response Squad". With you're denialist answers on global warming, you'd impress the family research council. Also, I know why you "Global warming skeptics" don't except the evidence for climate change like you would evolution is because you're libertarian politics get in the way, nothing scientific, just willful ignorance. Until this forum can prove to me the pseudoskeptics are outnumbered by skeptics, I can't call this website completely rational.

*MOVED FROM TROLLVILLE BECAUSE KILLER CROC RETURNED WITH HUMILITY*

Topic title changed from "The irrationality of RRS" to "Global warming denial is irrational"  - MOD

The basic rule is knowledge not belief. Belief for or against global warming is irrational. Only knowledge counts.

The problem is the melters are liars or at best unabashed alarmists lying for a higher purpose.

For example I remember first hearing in 1988 that if we did not turn things around in ten years it would be too late. OK, in 1998 it was too late so everyone buy an SUV and party because there is nothing that can be done about it. That didn't happen.

What did happen is in 1989 the same ten year warning was issued. In fact in nearly every year since 1988 there has been a ten year warning. And  not once any "we got it wrong and the real future date is ..." accompanying the new dire prediction that the end is near. The rational person looks at the ten year prections and sees 18 years of false/failed/lying predictions.
When believers predict the end of the world and it does not come they know they are right and come up with a new date. I have never heard of any religious end of the worlder continuing after so many failed predictions.

But there is a worse problem. They have a political agenda not the interests of the human race governing their positions. They keep predicting hundreds of millions if not billions of deaths.

If the problem is CO2 then we have only one solution and that solution has been around for decades. It is called nuclear power. In a practical sense it would require just the US to bring on line one nuclear reactor per week for twenty years which exceed the "ten year limit to inevitable doom" but it is doable with maybe a five year lead time.

In the worst case every few years a few tens of thousands might die from a nuclear accident. What is that compared to the hundreds of millions the believing melters declare will die without question? Nothing. But they are against nuclear power.

...

Then there is the generic climate change back-tracking. Unless someone it trying to revive the "best of all possible worlds" theological debate from the Dark Ages they had better define the desired climate including the CO2 content to achieve it while defining the features of this desired climate. And by this I mean which year was best, at most which decade.
I have tried this with melters before I find while I cannot put thoughts in their heads I can put words in their mouths in place of their refusal to respond. Given what they claim about CO2 then ANY year prior to 1800 should be completely acceptable because there was no significant fossil fuel usage prior to that -- actually the year is 1890 but that leads to debate so I stick with 1800.

Problem with prior to 1800 is there are indications and at times records of major climate differences in Europe and China which are similar enough in to time to appear "global" as far as major civilizations are concerned. So a lower and constant CO2 level is not a predictor of the climate and in fact tells us the contribution of fossil fuels cannot be separated from other variations because we have no MATH MODEL explaining those variations.

Lets look at post 1800. Fossil fuel usage was on a major upswing by 1890. Was that the last decade of the perfect climate? Define perfect. Were the 1930s the perfect decade? For the US there was the dust bowl, for Europe the climate was fine. Shall the skeptics say warming prevents dust bowls? Do we have to pass through another one as CO2 decreases?

But then does US climate rule? Warmer means longer growing seasons at higher latitudes means Canada and Siberia become the breadbaskets of the world. Melt the Greenland glaciers and Greenland not only gains huge amounts of farmland and access to natural resources but the sea level around it falls by 70 feet because the gravitational attraction of the glaciers is gone. Greenland should be all in favor of global melting as it is a win-win for them.

...

Before I forget I must include my favorite, the poor starving even dying polar bear on an ice flow, the icon of the melters. Algore should put it on his coat of arms.

You can see the polar bear. That means the sun is up. That means it is summer. That means the ice is supposed to melt. I can see pre-gradeschool children not knowing polar ice is supposed to melt in summer. For the rest I do not understand.

Is the bear starving? It is a few hundred yards from a tasty photographer. BTW: she was on land when she took the picture. I understand she is suing for all the unauthorized usage of her photo. A percentage of funds raised is reasonable.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Lyzandra Daria
atheist
Lyzandra Daria's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
 Global warming a hoax for

 

Global warming a hoax for political gain, Larry Bell tells Round Table

http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/global-warming-a-hoax-for-political-gain-larry-1981280.html

 

Presenting the antithesis to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, college professor Larry Bell describes the global warming crisis as something that was manufactured for political gain.

“The climate issue is one of politics, not of science,” Bell said.

Author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax, Bell was the opening speaker Thursday for the Palm Beach Round Table’s 2011-12 season.

The luncheon meeting was held at The Colony. Bell, an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston, has received awards for his work regarding international space development. He also is a weekly columnist with Forbes.com.

 

Bell said people have promoted global warming theories for political gain.

 

“Without fossil fuels, there’s no justification for Cap and Trade legislation,” he said. “Without carbon-free fuel, there’s no basis for subsidizing all of these alternative energy sources — the wind, the solar and the hydrogen and the others — which lack any capacity to make a significant difference in our energy picture.”

 

There needs to be a climate scare in order to justify growth in government, particularly in the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as to appease powerful environmental lobbies, he said.

 

The seed for the book began a number of years ago, when Bell had a conversation with climate scientist Fred Singer. Bell said Singer told him that satellite and balloon data were telling a different story than what they were getting from the surface measurements and climate models.

 

“The atmospheric data was telling a totally different story than we’ve been led to believe about a climate crisis and an Earth warming,” Bell said.

 

It peaked Bell’s curiosity, and he began reading data on climate science. As he began to read more, Bell said, he saw a disconnect between the facts and what he was hearing in the media.

 

“Of course, climate changes,” he said. “It has done so for millions of years. ... But not because of global warming. [It’s] simply because that’s the kind of stuff that happens.”

 

He pointed to events such as El Niño, La Niña, glacial periods, interglacial periods and the little Ice Age as phenomenons that are normal occurrences.

 

“No thanks to smoke stacks and SUVs, the Earth went through these kinds of changes,” he said. “You have to look at things globally and over long periods of time. It would be just as wrong for me to suggest to you that the climate is cooling.”

 

“I wrote the book because we’re being lied to, because the oceans aren’t rising,” Bell said. “The polar bears are doing just great and carbon dioxide is what makes the rain forest grow.”

 

“Truly scientific things need to be proven,” said Richard Kline, who attended the talk. “Some of the things he said were not truly scientific, but were his opinion. But that’s the exception to the rule, because I believe most of what he said, especially the political part. I think there were a lot of things done because of politics.”

 >>>

[bold emphasis is mine]

I want more evidence of 'global warming'.  Although I find it appropriate to reduce consumption of fossil fuels.  We have solar and wind generator to reduce the electric/propane.  We also have a wood burning furnace to heat the house and make hot water.  Not much fossil fuels beings used by us, except when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine.  Eye-wink

"Faith must have adequate evidence else it is mere superstition"...Alexander Hodge (1823-1886)

"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes"...James Feibleman (1904-1987)

Respectfully, Lyz


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
If you believe in Compound

If you believe in Compound Interest, you have to believe in Global Warming.  How that manifests itself where you live is an entirely different thing, but with rising levels of man-made CO2, there's only one possible outcome -- more and more energy being trapped at lower altitudes in the atmosphere.  This is confirmed with rising average surface temperatures and falling temperatures at altitude as heat is trapped closer to the ground.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:If you

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If you believe in Compound Interest, you have to believe in Global Warming.  How that manifests itself where you live is an entirely different thing, but with rising levels of man-made CO2, there's only one possible outcome -- more and more energy being trapped at lower altitudes in the atmosphere.  This is confirmed with rising average surface temperatures and falling temperatures at altitude as heat is trapped closer to the ground.

 

So global warming theory is similar to compound interest theory. Compound interest is real, therefore global warming is real? Really, not a very strong argument at all. There is no reason to believe that the existence or non-existence of global warming has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of compound interest. (Compound interest does not exist in all financial systems)

 

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If you believe in Compound Interest, you have to believe in Global Warming.  How that manifests itself where you live is an entirely different thing, but with rising levels of man-made CO2, there's only one possible outcome -- more and more energy being trapped at lower altitudes in the atmosphere.  This is confirmed with rising average surface temperatures and falling temperatures at altitude as heat is trapped closer to the ground.

Well over a century ago it was conclusively demonstrated that the greenhouse effect is not caused by trapping infrared light.

Which makes me sad because I own the palm tree franchise for all of Canada. Looks like it will never pay off and Canadians cannot look forward to a sub-tropical climate as was promised. Same for the folks who invested in beach front property in Iceland.

Odd that we lived in the best of all possible world climates in the early 19th century before industrialization began.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If you believe in Compound Interest, you have to believe in Global Warming.  How that manifests itself where you live is an entirely different thing, but with rising levels of man-made CO2, there's only one possible outcome -- more and more energy being trapped at lower altitudes in the atmosphere.  This is confirmed with rising average surface temperatures and falling temperatures at altitude as heat is trapped closer to the ground.

So global warming theory is similar to compound interest theory. Compound interest is real, therefore global warming is real? Really, not a very strong argument at all. There is no reason to believe that the existence or non-existence of global warming has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of compound interest. (Compound interest does not exist in all financial systems)

No, that was presented a lay-explanation of why rises in trace greenhouse gases results in larger increases in other greenhouse gases, further raising temperatures.

The problem you, and apparently Nony as well, have is that you think words like "theory" mean "guess".  That rising CO2 levels will result in a more energetic atmosphere, which includes higher average temperatures, is a FACT and the measurements of the atmosphere bear that out.  In Science a "theory" has the same weight as what a lay-person would call a "fact", except that Science doesn't uses that particular jargon to describe things which are factual.

From a scientific perspective, the best explanation is that increases in greenhouse gases result in the conversion of more short wave radiation into long wave radiation.  Because greenhouse gases are transparent in the shorter wavelengths, but opaque in the longer ones, the result is more energy being retained at lower altitudes.  What greenhouse gases "do" is absorb short wave radiation (UV light and so on) and emit long wave radiation (infrared light).  The excess energy -- the difference in energy between those short wave photons (the shorter the wavelength the higher the energy) that are absorbed and the longer wave length photons (which have less energy) that are emitted is converted to kinetic energy.  "Temperature" is simply a measure of the kinetic energy of a particle -- the more kinetic energy the average gas molecule has, the higher it's "temperature".

The proof of all this is in the temperature of the atmosphere at various altitudes.  If more "heat" is being retained at lower levels in the atmosphere, because less heat can escape as long wave IR radiation due to higher concentrations of molecules with absorption bands at those wavelengths (IR wavelength photon is re-absorbed faster because there is a gas molecule closer to it -- see mean free path length), less "heat" will be radiated into the upper atmosphere, resulting in cooler temperatures at altitude.  This is precisely what is seen today -- the lower atmosphere, where we live, is warming, while the upper atmosphere is cooling.  Since the only way to get heat =out= of the planet and back into space is black body radiation (there being no heat loss to conduction or convection into space -- which leaves radiation), the upper atmosphere will have to rise in temperature to reach a new equilibrium, and the only way to do =that= is the for the temperature of the lower atmosphere to rise as well.

(And all of this is proof of G-d's existence Smiling )

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Which

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Which makes me sad because I own the palm tree franchise for all of Canada.

Keep your trees and your heat. I miss winter. I haven't seen a good one in more than a decade. There's water on the ground right now. Disgusting. It should be -20 and snowing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Beyond

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If you believe in Compound Interest, you have to believe in Global Warming.  How that manifests itself where you live is an entirely different thing, but with rising levels of man-made CO2, there's only one possible outcome -- more and more energy being trapped at lower altitudes in the atmosphere.  This is confirmed with rising average surface temperatures and falling temperatures at altitude as heat is trapped closer to the ground.

So global warming theory is similar to compound interest theory. Compound interest is real, therefore global warming is real? Really, not a very strong argument at all. There is no reason to believe that the existence or non-existence of global warming has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of compound interest. (Compound interest does not exist in all financial systems)

No, that was presented a lay-explanation of why rises in trace greenhouse gases results in larger increases in other greenhouse gases, further raising temperatures.

The problem you, and apparently Nony as well, have is that you think words like "theory" mean "guess".  That rising CO2 levels will result in a more energetic atmosphere, which includes higher average temperatures, is a FACT and the measurements of the atmosphere bear that out.  In Science a "theory" has the same weight as what a lay-person would call a "fact", except that Science doesn't uses that particular jargon to describe things which are factual.

From a scientific perspective, the best explanation is that increases in greenhouse gases result in the conversion of more short wave radiation into long wave radiation.  Because greenhouse gases are transparent in the shorter wavelengths, but opaque in the longer ones, the result is more energy being retained at lower altitudes.  What greenhouse gases "do" is absorb short wave radiation (UV light and so on) and emit long wave radiation (infrared light).  The excess energy -- the difference in energy between those short wave photons (the shorter the wavelength the higher the energy) that are absorbed and the longer wave length photons (which have less energy) that are emitted is converted to kinetic energy.  "Temperature" is simply a measure of the kinetic energy of a particle -- the more kinetic energy the average gas molecule has, the higher it's "temperature".

The proof of all this is in the temperature of the atmosphere at various altitudes.  If more "heat" is being retained at lower levels in the atmosphere, because less heat can escape as long wave IR radiation due to higher concentrations of molecules with absorption bands at those wavelengths (IR wavelength photon is re-absorbed faster because there is a gas molecule closer to it -- see mean free path length), less "heat" will be radiated into the upper atmosphere, resulting in cooler temperatures at altitude.  This is precisely what is seen today -- the lower atmosphere, where we live, is warming, while the upper atmosphere is cooling.  Since the only way to get heat =out= of the planet and back into space is black body radiation (there being no heat loss to conduction or convection into space -- which leaves radiation), the upper atmosphere will have to rise in temperature to reach a new equilibrium, and the only way to do =that= is the for the temperature of the lower atmosphere to rise as well.

(And all of this is proof of G-d's existence Smiling )

 

The bulk of my skepticism is not aimed at the science. I am too ignorant of climatology to even pretend to know what I am talking about. What I am skeptical of is the doomsday predictions. And I am also skeptical of the idea that somehow me spending $30k on a Chevy Volt is going to save the planet, that carbon credits are anything other than a scam. I am skeptical that anyone pretends to know what the ideal temperature of the Earth is. We know the climate has changed radically many times before humans existed. The climate changes, so what, we'll deal with it. The "solutions" proposed by the GW doomsayers seem far more aimed at certain political goals and sometimes outright greed rather than an actual attempt to stop green house gasses. I mean really, does anyone think Al Gore's "carbon credit" company is any more legitimate than that e-mail about my long lost billionaire uncle in Nigeria leaving me an inheritance?

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The bulk

Beyond Saving wrote:

The bulk of my skepticism is not aimed at the science. I am too ignorant of climatology to even pretend to know what I am talking about. What I am skeptical of is the doomsday predictions. And I am also skeptical of the idea that somehow me spending $30k on a Chevy Volt is going to save the planet, that carbon credits are anything other than a scam. I am skeptical that anyone pretends to know what the ideal temperature of the Earth is. We know the climate has changed radically many times before humans existed. The climate changes, so what, we'll deal with it. The "solutions" proposed by the GW doomsayers seem far more aimed at certain political goals and sometimes outright greed rather than an actual attempt to stop green house gasses. I mean really, does anyone think Al Gore's "carbon credit" company is any more legitimate than that e-mail about my long lost billionaire uncle in Nigeria leaving me an inheritance?

I don't know where to start, other than to state that the Science is just plain rock-solid.  I used to think that "Peak Oil" would protect us from the more harmful effects of CO2 emissions, but tar sands, shale oil and fracking have proven to me that we really will spend however much money it takes to put every single last bit of CO2 possible into the atmosphere.

Will you, personally and individually, stop Climate Change by buying a Volt?  No, but that's never the case, is it?

Are Carbon Credits a scam?  Only if you think that charging for externalities is a scam.  If you think that you have the right to damage a Commons and not pay for it, you'll think they are a scam.  If you think that monetizing externalities and requiring financial transactions between those who damage the Commons and those who are working to protect or preserve the Commons isn't a scam, well, Carbon Credits aren't a scam.  It depends on how you view externalities and ownership of the Commons.

The "ideal temperature" is actually irrelevant, and any respectable climate scientist should be honest enough to admit that.  What they will say is that dramatic changes in climate is bad, and that's what we're doing.  We have centuries and millenia of experience with some range of "climate" that is normal right now.  We have no experience with the climate we'll wind up with if we don't stop.  Do we know that the "new" climate will be "bad"?  Yes -- how that's known, and what that means, is the topic of another very long response, but the short and sweet is this -- a more energetic atmosphere is one which will have more extremes of weather, and weather extremes are NOT a good thing.

Are there people who are seeking to profit from Climate Change / Global Warming?  Sure.  And I'm sure that some of them are in Nigeria and have $73,000,000 in funds they'd like you to help transfer to their tree hugging relatives in the United States, if you'd just send them your bank information.

By the way -- sustainability is always the only solution in the long term.  A carbon based economy =isn't= sustainable.  The smart money is on the tree huggers, this time around.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It really comes down to

It really comes down to empathy for fellow people. If you don't care that island nations and coastlines will be submerged by rising oceans, or invasive species bringing new diseases with them as they migrate, then there's little hard science to convince anyone of a danger. Damage to the ecology of the globe is all hypothetical. We don't know that evolution won't keep up fast enough to sustain us. And we won't learn which is true until climate change opens new niches in places for evolution to do it's thing, and we can watch how long it takes.
The fossil record is incapable of giving us time frames to work with, as they are extremely limited in providing precision in timing. If you can measure a fossil as being 70 million years old, you can't narrow it down to tens of thousands of years, let alone decades.
And no weather pattern ever observed on Earth was sufficient to cause us more than an inconvenience, temporarily.

So I can certainly see why some people aren't particularly eager to care.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Al G. Funguy
atheist
Posts: 33
Joined: 2012-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Too much politics

Yeah, put me down as a denier.

There is way too much politics, too much money, too many bureaucrats, and too much groupthink for AGW science to be trusted.

I also think there has been academic fraud and cover ups. There is a conspiracy to indoctrinate children into the AGW religion, and a conspiracy to have the government be in charge of controlling the weather 100 years from now. The global warming scam excites peoples' eschatological anxiety and statist feelings. I don't believe it's real science.

A lot of Nobel laureates are disgusted by the situation. Here's an example:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214181/20110915/ivar-giaever-global-warming-climate-change-al-gore-ipcc-hoax-dissent-nobel-prize-winner-physicist-re.htm

"Giaever, an 82-year-old Norwegian, sent an e-mail to APS official Kate Kirby announcing his abrupt resignation. He said he "cannot live with the statement" on global warming, and said that global temperature had been "amazingly stable.""

I think the corruption is similar in mainstream economics. I can go into that if anyone cares.

BTW, here is a study suggesting that we will be seeing colder temperatures. "Chinese 2485 year tree ring study shows shows sun or ocean controls climate, temps will cool til 2068" http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/in-china-there-are-no-hockey-sticks/

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Which makes me sad because I own the palm tree franchise for all of Canada.
Keep your trees and your heat. I miss winter. I haven't seen a good one in more than a decade. There's water on the ground right now. Disgusting. It should be -20 and snowing.

The present day temperature difference between the poles and the equator only began about 3 million years ago. Since then there have been three major ice ages. It is not clear if they are over (least likely) or if we are in one of the respits that occurred inter and intra the ice ages -- more likely. How long this one might last we have no idea but you may find any number of guesses. 

Before the ice ages it was tropical to the poles at least tropical in the sense of Mexico and Florida, enough to make the peat boggs of northern Europe. We have no idea just how warm it should be during a respit much less how warm it should be now.

But if all the changes due to warming are negative then just over a century ago the pre-industrial earth did have the best possible climate. That has to be the working premise to be against any kind of warming from any cause even natural. That naturally implies the "best of all possible worlds" nonsense of the medieval monks.

You may miss winter but more people die from winter cold than summer heat. Feel free to google the news. We evolved in Africa remember? Cold kills us. Sweating keeps us alive in the heat. Just three winters ago people were dying of the cold in the US and Europe. What do you mean by a good winter?

And we still have no explanation for 14 years of "ten years or it is too late" lies. I think we should have a clear explanation of what year the lying stopped before we give the melters a hearing on why we should take their latest "X year or it is too late" prediction seriously.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
I'm always amused when I

I'm always amused when I read some denier say "There's too much money being made on Global Warming!  It must be a hoax!"

Well, there's trillions of dollars being made =causing= Global Warming.  If making money, or spending money, is such a bad thing, =causing= Global Warming must be a bad thing.

The Science, however, is 100% rock solid.  You might not like the money, but ignoring the Science is 100% irrational.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Al G. Funguy
atheist
Posts: 33
Joined: 2012-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Not science

>The Science, however, is 100% rock solid.

I think much of it is not even science.

Scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable in reproducible experiments. But you cannot run experiments on multiple copies of Earth and wait 50 years to see which of the hypothesis are proven to have failed.

Plus, data collected from before 1960's is all crap and it is not much better in 2012. They can't even accurately predict the weather 1 hour from now.

If these scientists think it is possible for human beings to alter the climate then these scientist's predictions aren't even dealing with reality as they aren't taking into account sociology, economics, or in general the human brain as an element of natural science. Their predictions pertain to fantasy worlds with pseudohumans, not the actual world where humans act.

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'm always amused when I read some denier say "There's too much money being made on Global Warming!  It must be a hoax!"

Well, there's trillions of dollars being made =causing= Global Warming.  If making money, or spending money, is such a bad thing, =causing= Global Warming must be a bad thing.

The Science, however, is 100% rock solid.  You might not like the money, but ignoring the Science is 100% irrational.

I find it amusing that people who no nothing about science and therefore unqualified to form an opinion post about the science.

Sad but amusing.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'm always amused when I read some denier say "There's too much money being made on Global Warming!  It must be a hoax!"

Well, there's trillions of dollars being made =causing= Global Warming.  If making money, or spending money, is such a bad thing, =causing= Global Warming must be a bad thing.

The Science, however, is 100% rock solid.  You might not like the money, but ignoring the Science is 100% irrational.

I find it amusing that people who no nothing about science and therefore unqualified to form an opinion post about the science.

Sad but amusing.

 

You mean like hating someone merely because of nationality or faith? I find that sad too. But amusing not in the least.

Furry has much more common sense than you do, even if I do wish she would give up on her own superstition and wanting a "Jewish state".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Brian37 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
I'm always amused when I read some denier say "There's too much money being made on Global Warming!  It must be a hoax!"

Well, there's trillions of dollars being made =causing= Global Warming.  If making money, or spending money, is such a bad thing, =causing= Global Warming must be a bad thing.

The Science, however, is 100% rock solid.  You might not like the money, but ignoring the Science is 100% irrational.

I find it amusing that people who no nothing about science and therefore unqualified to form an opinion post about the science.

Sad but amusing.

You mean like hating someone merely because of nationality or faith? I find that sad too. But amusing not in the least.

There is no hate at all in anything I post. You may hate the truth but the truth cannot be hate. I direct your attention of ZERO posts identifying factual errors in my posts. No factual errors then only the truth has been posted.

Be sure to rationalize ignoring the fact that my posts have all contained true statements before again asserting it can only be "hate".

Quote:
Furry has much more common sense than you do, even if I do wish she would give up on her own superstition and wanting a "Jewish state".

Common sense has nothing to do with science.

As for wanting a Jewish state, do not the Mormon people have an identical right to their own state? Does not every religion and sect thereor have a right to their own state? Was not that nonsense rejected by the Treaty of Westphalia? Is not Zionism an international jewish conspiracy? Will you support the sovereign state of Utah for the Mormons?

The fact is it is no longer science because it was too late to do anything 1998 based upon the 1988 prediction. Anyone saying we can do anything to stop it is lying because it has been too late for 12 years. QED

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I had this post looking at

I had this post looking at me for a very long time! Now, reluctantly, I decided to say something.

You should understand that generaly in this Forum people who agree with you often stay quiet. Only people who disagree with you will attack your ideas.

This is more evident if you have theist in your badge.

Anyway on rationality this website is not the world's forefront. It's not bad though, and the best thing about being here is that there are loads of different opinions. So you can test yours.

I don't go in discussing climate here because that's one of the weaknesses of this forum. There are not many people here that know what they are talking about. You can see that by the lots of posts which are merely opinions or empty comments. There are loads of better places to learn and discuss about climate. For the related problem about fossil fuels, and everything that they impact in society "the oil drum" is the best, it is interely managed by scholars. Their studies are amazing.

My stand on climate is simple. We know these things for facts:

- We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere increasing it's overall concentration.

- The earth already used to be warmer and colder during it's geological ages.

- Global temperature is increasing steadily since measures started little more than 100 years ago.

- A large majority of science academies around the world agrees that humans are changing the climate with unknown and potentially dangerous consequences.

Those who deny these facts should have "bonehard" in their badge... being this a rational forum.

Now we should take into account that; by the time the Earth was warmer the Sun was also shinning with less intensity. The oceans absorb a big ammount of CO2 that we put out, but this has a limit. The temperature changes historically were likely occouring slowly over extended periods of time with the exception of cataclismic events caused by asteroid impacts. Since most of humanity lives in costal areas if there is a significant rise of sea level (as it seems more and more likely to happen) there will be a massive relocation of people with all the human drama that is entailed in it.

Also on one side there seems to be some feedback phenomenons like when the temperature increases in tundra ecosystem methane trapped in the soil gets released enhancing global warming. When the glaciars melt their reflective capacity is lost enhancing again the warming. The clathrate gun hypothesis is another VERY SCARY possibility of a global warming scenario. It's an extinction event and reminding everyone that the Sun irradiates more and more energy as time goes by, an immense increase in the greenhouse gases on Earth could be irreversible and could end all macroscopic life in the process. Making Earth a new Venus.

There are also other factors that seem to reduce the impact of warming. Like, with temperature increase more clouds will be up in the sky blocking sunlight and reflecting it back.

The world changes caused by global warming would be too stressful for the environment and could trigger an extinction event that would destabilize agriculture and we would be forced to take out areas of forest for our food.

This is all an unknown equilibrium and it seems that what we do now will have a tremendous impact in centuries or millenia. Earth doesn't work in human years.

It seems like we are giving a child matches for him to play. A lot of things could happen; he could burn a finger, could burn his leg, could light all the matches and be ok with it... could pick fire to his clothes and burn himself to death. Humans are playing with matches here. 

Being the climate a non linear system, it could go all haywire all of the sudden. What we are experiencing could just be a walk in the park.

I don't see us changing our ways. All it took was a financial metldown for all of us to stop talking about this. We are completely addicted to fossil fuels (energy credit) because we dont have a realistic alternative to them and we don't want to radically change our social-economic lifestyle. Even with the fall of conventional oil we are making a big effort to continue to use oil using more expensive sources like Deep water and Tar sands

It's not just some people here that are irrational, humans in general behave in irrational ways. 

Saying that exponential growth systems are sustainable in the long run is also worthy of a retard badge. By exponential growth systems just pick one of the many human indicators like... I don't know... oil consumption... GDP... population growth, etc.
 

But to end this comment I just want to add that seems obvious to me that the oceans, more than anything else, are the most important thing on Earth in climate matters. More than atmosphere temperature, overall ocean temperature is much more important even when both are related.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


aquariusmediaaamar
Posts: 3
Joined: 2012-08-10
User is offlineOffline
 Hi,Global warming is

 Hi,

Global warming is growing a big problem for us. It is a big issue and we have to take some serious steps on it. I want to suggest that UNO has to discuss on this topic and pass some strict rules in this matter. We have to take it as a serious issue and try to decrease global warming.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Here's how I see it: 1. No

Here's how I see it:

1. No question the earth is experiencing a warming trend. Whether or not you believe this has been going on longer than human industrial activity depends on who's data you want to believe. Some over-zealous attempts to show a strong correlation have been debunked (the "hockey stick").

2. No question that adding carbon to the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

3. No question that human industrial activity adds carbon.

Now the tricky part. How much does the amount of carbon added by humans actually influence the greenhouse effect and the actual temperatures we experience? Answers are all over the place, from doomsday to negligible. And in many cases, the margins of error quoted span those two extremes.

Next question: what can we do about it? This is where things start to get political, because you have people who embrace the very worst doomsday scenarios screaming for action on stuff like recycling. Yet using their own numbers, there is no way we could have any appreciable effect on anything given the supposedly irreparable damage that has already been done. The only solution, according to many environmentalists numbers, would be to shut down all human industry immediately. Not going to happen, not worth discussing. If they are right, prepare for Armageddon.

The really distubing part for me is the willingness I see in many scientists to make very strong statements of certainty when it is quite evident that the specific effects and specific remedies are largely unknown. I'm seeing scientists pretending to know things they do not. And I really don't want to say who that reminds me of.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


vBlueSki
atheist
vBlueSki's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-12-10
User is offlineOffline
I think

I think the denial comes from a strict monotheistic perspective. According to the last chapter in the bible God is going to end this world. How sad and depressing. Well, when you must believe the bible literally you must push out anything that says otherwise. So that's where some of the denial might be coming from. I feel like if there was a God, he should have done a better job at this.

Eternity wouldn't be much of an experience.


Michael A Thompson
Michael A Thompson's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2012-09-15
User is offlineOffline
Where is the science?

My problem with those putting forth the claims of Man Made Global Warming was that, like mythology worship, they didn't make those claims falsifiable.  

Years ago in every post I came across I would ask proponents of global warming how many years of global COOLING would be required before they would considered these claims proven false.  In not ONE of those threads did anyone give me an answer (Even the alleged "Experts" had no response).  

Well it's now many years later and those claims have evolved to something that most Atheists are familiar with.  The claims are now: "Well if the the climate changes AT ALL it's proof of Gods will"... I mean Man Made Climate Change.  Could we at least have the FASADE of science?!?   

I have no doubt what so ever that if the climate stayed EXACTLY THE SAME these people would change their tune and proclaim it to be evidence for "Man Made Climate Stagnation"!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
5 years of average global

5 years of average global cooling would probably be quite sufficient to prove the warming trend had reversed. There, you've got an answer.

It isn't going to happen anytime soon though. The science behind climate change is well documented and has been through more than a decade of peer review. The only people who still deny it are idiots who think that ice forming on the South pole during summer in the Northern hemisphere (when it is winter in the Southern hemisphere, and thus if ice were not forming we'd have a hell of a lot bigger problem on our hands than we do already) suggests that the Earth isn't getting warmer. That's literally the best argument I've seen against climate change in 5 years.

Which is probably why this topic died. There's nothing to argue anymore. We haven't falsified it, and millions of people tried. Most of them ended up realising they were wrong. The rest are ignorant or stupid or not even scientists.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.