PFF - Pennock's Fiero Forum, PDA Edition

The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 580/600)

newf

OCT 30, 05:44 PM

quote

Originally posted by E.Furgal:

YOU are so silly..
put up or shut up..
walk or ride a pedal bike and stop heating your home..

big evil big oil. yet you use it daily..
either put up or shut your pic hole. hypocrite

Yes obviously if one believes that big oil has control over money and power and has a vested interest in trying to keep down green energy it means that person must stop using oil.

newf

OCT 30, 05:48 PM

quote

Originally posted by jmclemore:

Peer reviewed means tied to someoneelses credibility and reputation. Sorry, but if your credibility and reputation all hang on the science you support, you will protect it at all cost. The difference between the scientist who for and against this "science" is who their pay checks come from.

Both deliver what they are paid to. And anyone who thinks a scientist from either side is more honest than the other, would likely buy a used car from dealer because they thought the name christain motors meant honesty and righteousness.

This means you must not believe in any science you cannot replicate yourself. I find when an overwhelming majority of scientists and experts in the field of a certain subject agree I usually tend to believe them, not saying they are always right but until proven otherwise it's usually the safer bet.

jmclemore

OCT 30, 07:56 PM

quote

Originally posted by newf:

I find when an overwhelming majority of scientists and experts in the field of a certain subject agree I usually tend to believe them, not saying they are always right but until proven otherwise it's usually the safer bet.

Blind faith in experts is a Baaaaaad! idea....
You can walk that path without me.

I will consider the claims made by those you will not recognize as experts. When those claims contradict the so called science, I trust your experts should be bright enough to answer and professional enough to adjust when they find an error in their own consensus. Anyone who says, this science is settled (including experts) has no intent of defending scientific methods. They are Protecting an agenda. I don't have to believe the deniers, it's how the experts and proponents respond to them that is telling.

I see it like this,
You are at the zoo and you noticed one of the chimpanzees are throwing poop at the crowd. You being a concerned member of humanity notify a staff member (aka expert) who quickly calls you an ignorant buffoon for even thinking such a thing is possible. You bite your tongue and say but I saw this with my own---- (interrupted by said expert : "your an idiot"). You smile and turn to walk away as you here, a thud and a string of not so family friendly expletives....

This is how "the experts" and many of their blindly lead herd treat the science and experts on the other side.... Science asks the questions, collect the data, measures and tests, reviews the results, repeats the process, compares the results and adjusts the accuracy of their model. There is no room for agendas and pride in science. Junk in, Junk² out.

newf

OCT 30, 09:46 PM

quote

Originally posted by jmclemore:

Blind faith in experts is a Baaaaaad! idea....
You can walk that path without me.

I will consider the claims made by those you will not recognize as experts. When those claims contradict the so called science, I trust your experts should be bright enough to answer and professional enough to adjust when they find an error in their own consensus. Anyone who says, this science is settled (including experts) has no intent of defending scientific methods. They are Protecting an agenda. I don't have to believe the deniers, it's how the experts and proponents respond to them that is telling.

I see it like this,
You are at the zoo and you noticed one of the chimpanzees are throwing poop at the crowd. You being a concerned member of humanity notify a staff member (aka expert) who quickly calls you an ignorant buffoon for even thinking such a thing is possible. You bite your tongue and say but I saw this with my own---- (interrupted by said expert : "your an idiot"). You smile and turn to walk away as you here, a thud and a string of not so family friendly expletives....

This is how "the experts" and many of their blindly lead herd treat the science and experts on the other side.... Science asks the questions, collect the data, measures and tests, reviews the results, repeats the process, compares the results and adjusts the accuracy of their model. There is no room for agendas and pride in science. Junk in, Junk² out.

Who said anything about blind faith? You can walk the path of denying good science and calling it bad and tainted because you don't like the results all you like but it doesn't change good science. Science is settled? I'm not sure why many people who disbelieve Climate Change keep throwing that out? No good science is settled but that doesn't mean because the science is always evolving and being refined that the results are opposite.

Your analogy as compared to the science of Climate Change is confused and not applicable but I will agree that "Science asks the questions, collects the data, measures and tests, reviews the results, repeats the process, compares the results and adjusts the accuracy of their model" which is why the majority of scientists have come up with the same or similar conclusions regarding Climate Change.

Anyways I've been down this seemingly endless road before I don't really wish or expect to change your opinion and I doubt without great and expert evidence you will ever change mine.

I bid you Adieu.

ray b

OCT 30, 09:54 PM

quote

Originally posted by Hudini:

When you lie about the numbers you then get news media repeating those claims. No one actually looks at "the science" as you call it. Then you get regular people who take them at their word and start throwing around "denier" when people question the numbers. I mean, other than being unethical and wrong, what difference does it make?

the well funded denier oil&coal industry has been lying from day one
actually many of their flacks were lying before then but about tobacco smoking

lost in the warming discussion is the FACT our sun is slightly cooler with far less spots
in the current cycle http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

so here is a major CLUE
if the heat coming in is less
but the avg temp is still rising
the effect of the greenhouse gases
is there by proven
game set and match
your side lost
maybe you are to dumb to admit it
or like mr jones
know something is happening
but don't know what it is
or trust it
or like it
but mother nature don't give a damm

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 10-30-2016).]

E.Furgal

OCT 31, 12:18 AM

quote

Originally posted by rinselberg:

Much of North America was a jungle... when? Was it 1000 years before the Industrial Age? No. There is enough historical and archaeological evidence to rule that out. No such jungle covering most of North America 1000 years ago. What about 10,000 years ago? No. The fossil evidence and the archaeological evidence is clear. No such jungle, even 10,000 years ago.

The farther backwards in time before the present, or before the Industrial Age, the less relevant that observation about a jungle. Why less relevant? Consider the time scale that is relevant to people who are concerned about man-made global warming. Is it 10,000 years into the future? I don't think so. If it somehow became known to science that the planet--for whatever reason(s)--cannot possibly sustain human life any farther into the future than 10,000 years, would you expect the human race to collectively shrug its shoulders and say "What's the point of going on with human life any longer. We haven't got a future beyond the next 10,000 years?" I think not.

What if the expectation for any kind of human survival was only for the next 1000 years? Would that make any difference. I don't see it. I think the human race (collectively) would want to keep on living for as long as possible and hope that something would change before that 1000 year deadline. Maybe science (collectively) would change its findings about "Doomsday in 1000 years". Maybe in another 100 or 200 years there would be technological advancements beyond the present human capabilities that would render the "Doomsday in 1000 years" expectations a moot point.

So the concern about man-made global warming extends from the present, to somewhere between just 200 or 300 years from now (on the low end), to about 1000 years from now--at most. What lies in store for humanity beyond 1000 years from now is a moot point, in terms of the concerns about man-made global warming.

I think most climate researchers hold that there is no known reason to expect the earth's climate to change much during the next 1000 years, provided that the CO2 component of the atmosphere is stabilized at about 350 ppm. Is the earth's orbit around the sun going to change in any significant way during the next 1000 years? The earth's diurnal axis of rotation? The moon's orbit around the earth? Would the processes of plate tectonics or "continental drift" change the configuration of the earth's continents in any significant way during the next 1000 years? Will the earth be receiving significantly more or less solar energy as the next 1000 years go by? The climate researchers that I have been reading about are saying "No" on all of these counts.

So that's why the concerns about CO2 in the atmosphere, and the human contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere are relevant, and why this prehistoric jungle that E.Furgal just referenced--a climate interval that ended considerably more than 10,000 years ago--has no practical relevance to the concerns about man-made global warming.

I just referenced the CO2 "target" of 350 ppm. That will take some doing. It's mostly above 400 ppm. It crossed the 400 ppm threshold just a few years ago.

i could try to be more exacting about all this, by resorting to some new online searches to refresh my memory. When (exactly) was the 400 ppm CO2 threshold exceeded? How many tens of thousands or millions of years have passed since most of North American was a jungle? But I've already made my argument. Any more exactness would be overkill. I have "bounded" the problem, as the "math heads" (not to be confused with the meth heads) are prone to saying.

BAHAHAHA your in cali.. go to the tar pits..

jmclemore

OCT 31, 01:29 AM

quote

Originally posted by newf:

Who said anything about blind faith?

quote

You did.....
And you back it up by dismissing anything to the contrary. I don't think you will ever see a flaw in the science you believe in. You and a couple of other members act like your on a mission to protect every aspect of global warming. While many of us are more than willing to accept that the climate is or may be changing. It's hard to have a scientific conversation with a 3 friggin parrots singing like a broken record.

you guys are inflexible, dismissive and demeaning to any post that challenges the gray areas of the so called settled science. Once again, you can not conclusively can any aspect of science as settled until we absolutely know everything that can be known. True scientists welcome the discovery of a flaw just as easily as a new detail. Either way it clarifies what we know and improves the accuracy of what we understand.

A wide spread agreement of facts that must remain true to support a desire out come or agenda is not science, it's fraud and misinformation. If you think the data and it's relevance are more important than any reputation, political view or agenda then it is reasonable to expect that the influence of money and power of an entity outside of the scientific community would present the unnecessary potential for corruption for all of the obvious reasons. I have not seen or heard of any scientist/expert in recent history who joined a consensus that required the rebuild of their research, reputation and income. No , those epiphanies accompanied by an 180 degree pivot from their original consensus usually comes after realizing that you can not compete with the bottomless wallet of the federal tax payer.

When your Dr. tells you that you have 6 months to live, don't doubt him. After all his medical opinion is based on peer reviewed studies and has the support of a great majority of medical professionals. The fact that you have 6 months to live is settled since based of the consensus scientific medical experts. A second opinion is not warranted at all , right..... Settled science? thank god a bunch of foolish scientist and researcher didn't stop asking for more data after they deemed cancer to be certain death..... We'd still be teaching the flat earth theory if "settled science" based on the "consensus of experts" were the end of the discussion.

Settled Science, really....

Blind Faith.....

We are still digging into the facts and asking question.
You guys are stuck in a fox hole reusing ammo.
I'll agree that recycling is a good thing but I will at least
agree that each time the material is reprocessed it becomes
degraded and loses the qualities for which it was originally chosen.

We are still looking...Not following...
we can disagree on what would be a safe bet...

Hudini

OCT 31, 05:01 AM

quote

Originally posted by ray b:

the well funded denier oil&coal industry has been lying from day one
actually many of their flacks were lying before then but about tobacco smoking

lost in the warming discussion is the FACT our sun is slightly cooler with far less spots
in the current cycle http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

so here is a major CLUE
if the heat coming in is less
but the avg temp is still rising
the effect of the greenhouse gases
is there by proven
game set and match
your side lost
maybe you are to dumb to admit it
or like mr jones
know something is happening
but don't know what it is
or trust it
or like it
but mother nature don't give a damm

Your side lost? We have sides? This is the total BS this whole debate has been degraded to. Your side lost. Like we aren't in this together. We have sides now. No discussion of the flaws in the data. How the models have utterly failed to predict real world data. Your side lost. Pathetic really.

Mickey_Moose

OCT 31, 01:09 PM

quote

Originally posted by newf:

Yup it's those darn super rich researchers and scientists not big oil.

Not exactly poor researchers (some over $400K/year).

Heck: Montemagno,Carlo Professor 2015 $538,345.35 (plus benefits and other "perks" at $37,815.98)

...and remind me again how much Gore and Suzuki are making?

http://www.hrs.ualberta.ca/...losure/compdata.aspx

[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 10-31-2016).]

ray b

OCT 31, 10:11 PM

quote

Originally posted by Mickey_Moose:

Not exactly poor researchers (some over $400K/year).

bet they could make more by lying/working for the oil & coal corpRATs lying machine
but some study the world rather then try to get rich

dude just like DNA once we can really read it
will kill the creationist's BS with proof
the data is over whelming the no warming oil&coal flacks
you can argue you just donot like the results
and no it has not been as bad or as quick as some early models indicated
but the trend is clear
esp in view of the solar output and spot numbers

your sides conspiracy theory is just dumb
sorry but the data is piling up now

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?