TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:Miktay wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
if consensus is your argument, that's not a very long list.Miktay wrote:The issue iz whether man made climate change iza real phenomena that poses a threat to humanity worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars over the short term and trillions over the long term.
Even if you deny climate change, the effects of pollution on cities like Beijing from smog are undeniable. This pollution can come from many sources, but burning coal has been linked to the largest number of air pollution deaths in China, causing 366,000 premature deaths in 2013.
Any activity to pollute our environment less than we already do will be priceless.
Miktay wrote:Good science iz not democracy. It doesn't work by consensus. Scientific theories have to be continually tested and challenged against reality. Through thiz vetting they may become accepted scientific axioms...until something better comes along.
If u follow the scientific process you find that those who advocate the catastrophic effects of man made global warming have only conjecture to stand on. There is no proof thiz theory iz valid.
The mere fact that the alarmist crowd wants the public to accept their point of view as a scientific fact based on a consensus should make u suspicious.
matr1x wrote:Having personally done much work in climate science research, it's not that hard to not just see the effects, but trace the cause. The carbon emissions from man made sources have particular isotopes and can be traced. Also, most temperature models and history records show the dramatic change
Miktay wrote:matr1x wrote:Having personally done much work in climate science research, it's not that hard to not just see the effects, but trace the cause. The carbon emissions from man made sources have particular isotopes and can be traced. Also, most temperature models and history records show the dramatic change
There iza fine line between correlation and causation.
Causation hasn't been proven. It probably never will be. Climate iza complex system.
Miktay wrote:Why do u need marketing to sell the theory of man made global warming?
abducted wrote:Miktay wrote:matr1x wrote:Having personally done much work in climate science research, it's not that hard to not just see the effects, but trace the cause. The carbon emissions from man made sources have particular isotopes and can be traced. Also, most temperature models and history records show the dramatic change
There iza fine line between correlation and causation.
Causation hasn't been proven. It probably never will be. Climate iza complex system.
Miktay, go on and thump your bible, but please learn to spell. matr1x, the reason Miktay must deny man made climate change is because he cannot reconcile the all powerful God of the bible with man's ability to change a complex thing like climate.Miktay wrote:Why do u need marketing to sell the theory of man made global warming?
Because science deniers like yourself are not listening to facts, so environmentalists have to resort to marketing. Why is it important to spread your religious beliefs?
EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:Doh study them, they have no issues when China burning all the coal and abusing workers in slave factories but them so concerned about the planet and the people now? who the fcku them really fooling? They are anti Trump because Trump wants to make it hard to build things outside of the US where they can pay workers 50 cents an hour.
If the world wants to do something about Climate change, start with the 3rd world. So long as the 3rd world continue to have this ridiculously high population there will be no stopping climate change.
The Europeans have the right idea, low birth rate and an educated population with little to no corruption and lets not forget the amazing ability to use a trashcan, something that is alien to the 3rd world.
abducted wrote:Miktay wrote:matr1x wrote:Having personally done much work in climate science research, it's not that hard to not just see the effects, but trace the cause. The carbon emissions from man made sources have particular isotopes and can be traced. Also, most temperature models and history records show the dramatic change
There iza fine line between correlation and causation.
Causation hasn't been proven. It probably never will be. Climate iza complex system.
Miktay, go on and thump your bible, but please learn to spell. matr1x, the reason Miktay must deny man made climate change is because he cannot reconcile the all powerful God of the bible with man's ability to change a complex thing like climate.
Because science deniers like yourself are not listening to facts, so environmentalists have to resort to marketing. Why is it important to spread your religious beliefs?
Miktay wrote:abducted wrote:Miktay wrote:matr1x wrote:Having personally done much work in climate science research, it's not that hard to not just see the effects, but trace the cause. The carbon emissions from man made sources have particular isotopes and can be traced. Also, most temperature models and history records show the dramatic change
There iza fine line between correlation and causation.
Causation hasn't been proven. It probably never will be. Climate iza complex system.
Miktay, go on and thump your bible, but please learn to spell. matr1x, the reason Miktay must deny man made climate change is because he cannot reconcile the all powerful God of the bible with man's ability to change a complex thing like climate.
Abducted: You are casting aspersions based on your baseless assumptions. Nowhere have I mentioned the Bible in relation to AGW. You've gone off on a hysterical rant.
What I have asked iz that...as laymen...we use a common framework of logical thought and the scientific method to reason.
If that offends you...u are not suited to thiz discussion.
Recall that the scientific method:Because science deniers like yourself are not listening to facts, so environmentalists have to resort to marketing. Why is it important to spread your religious beliefs?
If environmentalists are using marketing then they are part of the problem. Marketing iz not science.
At iz roots this iz a scientific question. So where is your proof? Where is the body of scientific experiments that support the catastrophic effects of man made global warming?
I have seen many theories on both sides of the argument. Lotsa theories but no proof.
Miktay wrote:So where is your proof? Where is the body of scientific experiments that support the catastrophic effects of man made global warming?
I have seen many theories on both sides of the argument. Lotsa theories but no proof.
matr1x wrote:What worries me is people like miktay will reproduce and spread stupidity.
There is an observation, a hypothesis, and proof for the hyp to formulate a theory. So others criticize it to see if the observations hold up. And they do.
De Ganges call and say miktay in deNile
adnj wrote:No one is certain that human actions are the sole cause of global warming. If that is your point, then you are right.
On the other hand, increasingly severe weather patterns, rising sea level, drought, increased respiratory illness, and lost productivity due to temperature extremes is expected to cost approximately US$ 2 trillion per year at the end of the next decade.
Scientists Say Earth's Warming Could Set Off Wide Disruptions
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS
Published: September 18, 1995
The earth has entered a period of climatic change that is likely to cause widespread economic, social and environmental dislocation over the next century if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, according to experts advising the world's governments.
The picture of probable disruption, including adverse changes and some that are beneficial, emerges from draft sections of a new assessment of the climate problem by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and from interviews with scientists involved in the assessment. The panel, a United Nations group of 2,500 scientists from around the world, advises parties to a 1992 treaty that are negotiating reductions in heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
...A continuing rise in average global sea level, which is likely to amount to more than a foot and a half by the year 2100. This, say the scientists, would inundate parts of many heavily populated river deltas and the cities on them, making them uninhabitable, and would destroy many beaches around the world. At the most likely rate of rise, some experts say, most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years. They are already disappearing at an average of 2 to 3 feet a year.
This is similar to the ozone depletion scenario of the 1970s. No one was certain that CFCs caused the reduction but it was seen as a reasonable approach to phase them out rather than risk irreparable damage to the ozone layer. Ozone healing is currently occurring.
The salient, and perhaps elusive point for some, is that by reducing human CO2 emissions these issues can be mitigated and perhaps the trends reversed. The question that you have to answer for yourself is simply if you are willing to risk doing nothing.
Miktay wrote:When asked for proof that supports the theory of AGW the response is ad hominem attacks.
Miktay wrote:I am amazed by the levels of ignorance displayed here. Amazed but not surprised
When asked for proof that supports the theory of AGW the response iz ad hominem attacks. You are labelled a bible thumper...an ancient thinker...etc.
What makes this worse iz people like Matr1x.
Matr1x claims to have done research into climate science. So ostensibly he/she has more than a laymans understanding of the topic. You would think that he/she could easily offer answers to basic questions.
So what iz the scientific response from Matr1x?matr1x wrote:What worries me is people like miktay will reproduce and spread stupidity.
There is an observation, a hypothesis, and proof for the hyp to formulate a theory. So others criticize it to see if the observations hold up. And they do.
De Ganges call and say miktay in deNile
Matri1x iz worried. Worried because of a simple question: Where iz the proof that supports the catastrophic theory of AGW?
But thiz iz typical behavior of the Big Climate lobby and their rabid supporters. When asked for the evidence that substantiates their catastrophic worldview...they ignore u. They attack u. They belittle u.
Asking questions iz a fundamental part of the scientific process.
If you can't answer basic questions about your theories then that isn't very scientific.
That's more like a religion.
And most of us know it's very difficult to reason with religious zealots. You can never get a straight answer from these people.
shogun wrote:The omnipotent being in the sky is going to fix it all, so why do anything?
sMASH wrote:I believe the humans are assisting global warming, yet I will admit we don't have concrete proof.
What we have is circumstantial. We have evidence of human induced increases in green house gases, evidence of destructing of CO2 sinks, and statistics of repeated record breaking temperatures in recent years.
Its not definitive as global warming is a natural cycle the earth encounters very so often.
The problem is, we may not be able to withstand it.
So it would be in our best interest and the best interest of the future generations to curb it as much as we can. So that would entail reducing what ever impact we add to the system.
The only time we can confirm the culprit is after the fact, but no one might be around by that time.
Think about it like this, the earth with its atmosphere is like an enclosed space, like a closed up garage. If u keep burning fossil fuels and releasing green house gases, its like starting a car in that closed up garage.
Would u prefer to be in that closed up garage with the car running or not running?
maj. tom wrote:The point of the global warming debate is to create better energy sources, more efficient and renewable, with less pollution byproducts. It would help everyone if we could cut the pollution and greenhouse gases, and stop burning energy inefficient fuels like oil, gas and coal. Politics and lobbying is at the heart of this debate. The politicians are using both sides, but one side has better long-term investments and payoffs than the other short term high yielding wastage that benefits a small but very powerful clique.
It is definitely shown that the rate of warming has never been so drastic in such a short time. You can clearly see this in the ocean temperature data collected in the past 100 years. Yes, the earth will warm eventually and stabilize. But evolution will not be able to catch up with the rate of that warming. We are Homo sapiens, evolved within this current Ice Age, a mere 200, 000 years old as a species. The Holocene extinction has already begun, despite that we are still in that same Ice Age. No one can stop it.
So what all these scientists are trying to do is urge the rest of us to push the politicians to fund development of better and cleaner and more efficient sources of energy so mankind can survive. You really think that the Earth gives a triple bonded CO if Homo sapiens go extinct? It all balances out back after a few millions years. And by pushing such technology we can start to build habitats in orbit, on the moon, on other planets, below our own oceans. Just so that we can survive. We are the only animals on this planet to be able to wield that kind of power.
Someone with an IQ over 75 actually has a problem with that? With saving ourselves? People who argue against such overwhelming evidence, and shystering behind what is "real science and the scientific method and there is no proof", what do you gain from it though?
Global Warming could be something that lasts just 1000 years and then stabilizes, but would you have done your part in your time to leave the planet livable for your line of DNA? You are so sure about it that you want to flip that political coin all for the money and energy wastage we are living today?
adnj wrote:Miktay wrote:When asked for proof that supports the theory of AGW the response is ad hominem attacks.
You still have not stated a position cogently.
You either have no belief in global warming, no belief in human affected global warming or no belief in consensus opinion. In and of itself, there is no way to know what causes climate shift (ice ages for example) until the event is past.
Mitigation is always in the hand of the individual: drive less, use lower wattage bulbs, buy recycled materials, turn the thermostat up two degrees. Or conversely, get a V8 truck, burn your leaves, run your AC when you're not at home. There are nearly 8 billion people on the planet, you might help to make a difference.
So rather than soaking up bandwidth, let's agree that everyone has an opinion and just wait to see what happens. Anything else is just trolling.
sMASH wrote:I believe the humans are assisting global warming, yet I will admit we don't have concrete proof.
What we have is circumstantial. We have evidence of human induced increases in green house gases, evidence of destructing of CO2 sinks, and statistics of repeated record breaking temperatures in recent years.
Its not definitive as global warming is a natural cycle the earth encounters very so often.
The problem is, we may not be able to withstand it.
So it would be in our best interest and the best interest of the future generations to curb it as much as we can. So that would entail reducing what ever impact we add to the system.
The only time we can confirm the culprit is after the fact, but no one might be around by that time.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat
Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.
The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997. These winds normally push sun-baked water towards Indonesia. When they slackened, the warm water sloshed back towards South America, resulting in a spectacular example of a phenomenon known as El Niño. Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled.
For several years, scientists wrote off the stall as noise in the climate system: the natural variations in the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere that drive warm or cool spells around the globe. But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt. Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, if not into the atmosphere. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.
Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.
Think about it like this, the earth with its atmosphere is like an enclosed space, like a closed up garage. If u keep burning fossil fuels and releasing green house gases, its like starting a car in that closed up garage.
Would u prefer to be in that closed up garage with the car running or not running?
maj. tom wrote: The point of the global warming debate is to create better energy sources, more efficient and renewable, with less pollution byproducts. It would help everyone if we could cut the pollution and greenhouse gases, and stop burning energy inefficient fuels like oil, gas and coal. Politics and lobbying is at the heart of this debate. The politicians are using both sides, but one side has better long-term investments and payoffs than the other short term high yielding wastage that benefits a small but very powerful clique.
Someone with an IQ over 75 actually has a problem with that? With saving ourselves? People who argue against such overwhelming evidence, and shystering behind what is "real science and the scientific method and there is no proof", what do you gain from it though?
It is definitely shown that the rate of warming has never been so drastic in such a short time. You can clearly see this in the ocean temperature data collected in the past 100 years. Yes, the earth will warm eventually and stabilize. But evolution will not be able to catch up with the rate of that warming.
maj. tom wrote:Oh no the magic Dragon in the sky will give us the technology. Or no wait, we will discover a Stargate. We don't have to work and progress scientifically to gain these energy supplies for many generations. The LED screen and computer processors you're using now is in fact captured alien technology that just appeared in 2016 that is suddenly more energy efficient than anything before its time.
This is an extension of the nuclear power debate. Who stopped that? Which lobby drove the fears of nuclear meltdowns across all of America? By now we probably could have figured out a way to recycle or harness the energy of nuclear waste with continued research.
Where are we now? More energy insecure than ever. Energy security is the biggest problem we are currently facing. It will lead to global devastating wars in the future.
BBC News wrote:
Hillary Clinton told to 'move on' from her loss
Hillary Clinton has been told it's time to "move on" after she added her own party officials to the list of those she blames for her 2016 election loss.
Democratic Senator Al Franken told Yahoo News: "I think she has a right to analyse what happened, but we do have to move on."
Mrs Clinton this week faulted Democratic National Committee (DNC) voter data as "mediocre to poor".
She has also blamed the FBI, Russia and media.
Minnesota Senator Franken said on Thursday: "We have to move on by proving we are the party that cares about a lot of the people who voted for Donald Trump."
Minnesota Senator Al Franken Image copyright EPA
Image caption Minnesota Senator Al Franken says the party must focus on the future
Mrs Clinton, speaking at a conference in California on Wednesday, said: "I take responsibility for every decision I make - but that's not why I lost."
She said the Democratic party did not help her once she was nominated as their White House candidate.
"I get the nomination, so I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party," she said.
"I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. I mean, it was bankrupt.
"It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, non-existent, wrong.
"I had to inject money into it."
She added: "I also think I was the victim of the very broad assumption that I was going to win."
But Andrew Therriault, former DNC director of data science, lashed out at Mrs Clinton in a series of tweets that have since been deleted.
Twitter Image copyright Twitter
"DNC data folks: today's accusations are f****** bull****, and I hope you understand the good you did despite that nonsense," he wrote.
He also wrote that the battleground swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, all of which Mrs Clinton lost, never looked "even close to safe".
The Clinton campaign has been criticised by political experts for not campaigning more frequently in those crucial swing states.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
The grassroots movement aiming to topple President Trump
Media captionThe grassroots movement aiming to topple President Trump
"Her team thought they knew better", Mr Therriault said.
President Donald Trump reacted to Mrs Clinton's complaint by pouring scorn on his old foe.
"Crooked Hillary Clinton now blames everybody but herself, refuses to say she was a terrible candidate," he tweeted. "Hits Facebook & even Dems & DNC."
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 31 guests
