Climate Change Report

#2,328
#2,328
VolStrom said:
Mark Dice had A nice piece on this today.
Click to expand...

It is going to happen. The switch from global warming to climate change for phraseology was just the first moving of the goalposts. They need a name with more fear mongering in it. Lets sit back and see what they come up with. I'm hoping its Climacaust. Maybe even Climaggedon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and VolStrom
#2,331
#2,331
Orangeslice13 said:
Solving the plastic problem goes a long way towards solving supposed climate change. Of the two of us...you’re the one with your head in your ass. At least I’m taking action

Lol at “you people “. You mean Jews right?
Click to expand...

If all Jews deny man made climate change exist I guess that would be true but unfortunately, "you people" just refers to idiots.
 
#2,334
#2,334
Mick said:
If all Jews deny man made climate change exist I guess that would be true but unfortunately, "you people" just refers to idiots.
Click to expand...

Mick can’t be a racist . He sees white nationalist around every corner , plus he’s a card carrying liberal so he has a built in pass . Maybe he just doesn’t like the Jews hoarding all the diamond stores . It’s hard to be the next flavor flav having to pay full retail for all them diamonds . Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,338
#2,338
Wafflestomper said:
First off, I'm not a scientist, and I don't believe I ever claimed to be one.

Second, determining whether the observed warming is due to human activity shouldn't require 10 million or more years of data because it's principally an energy balance problem rather than a trending problem. We only need the trends to determine that the climate is changing, and it's not clear why we need more than 150 years of good data to do that.
Click to expand...

Respect the sun. Mother Nature doesn't like it when you don't give her the respect she's due.
 
#2,342
#2,342
MG1968 said:
The relevance is that sometimes scientists are wrong, even when there’s a consensus.
Click to expand...
Wafflestomper said:
I call this the "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia defense;" Mack uses this reasoning in his argument against evolution. But the argument is only useful to demonstrate the trivial fact that a consensus doesn't guarantee that a particular claim is true. If you're using it to try to show that a particular claim is false then it raises some pretty unsavory questions, such as "should we consider everything for which there is a scientific consensus to be false?"

In the case of homosexuality though, it's former status as a mental disorder has more philosophical underpinnings than scientific ones (i.e., what exactly constitutes a mental disorder?). This is not really an issue in the climate change debate.
Click to expand...

Haha, great reference. Here’s more on the ‘science was wrong before’ fallacy
 
#2,343
#2,343
Roustabout said:
And even if man is responsible for some warming, it doesn’t change the fact that most the people complaining about it don’t do anything personally to make any difference, nor are they willing to terminate foreign trade with the greatest offenders.
Click to expand...
The proposed European Climate Law includes a border adjustment on their carbon tax, which is something I’ve also suggested on this board. But what I would do differently is make it a revenue-neutral carbon tax or fee and dividend program such as the Baker-Schultz plan advocated by young conservatives at CPAC.
Roustabout said:
So, since it’s settled science what percentage of warming in human kind responsible for?
Click to expand...
From AR5, “It is extremely likely [95-100% confidence] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”

That is, the percentage of warming that humankind is responsible for is approximately 100%. More specifically, it’s actually about 110%. That’s because a small fraction of the warming has been offset by human aerosol emissions, which have a cooling effect. An even smaller fraction of the warming has been offset by natural cycles (see Fig 10.5). Because if there were no human influences on climate, orbital mechanics predict we would continue the slow long-term cooling trend that started around 6000 years ago.
 
#2,344
#2,344
BartW said:
Haha, great reference. Here’s more on the ‘science was wrong before’ fallacy
Click to expand...

That whole article is based on the assumption someone would argue it’s been wrong “ before , so I’m not buying it “ change the words to say science can and is often times driven by political agendas , religious beliefs , social acceptance ( ether for or against ) and throw in money / funding just for fun and you have an argument .“ I don’t believe the science until they can prove it , not by saying it MAY happen, or it’s LIKLEY to happen , SOMETIME , in the Next 50 YEARS , POSSIBLY” . That’s not and never has been a proven scientific fact when they say things like that and keep moving the goal posts when it doesn’t happen .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,345
#2,345
FLVOL_79 said:
No hurricanes in Florida for 12 years when climate scientists were confident with 100% certainty cat 5s would wipe us out is all anyone needs to look at to see climate science is part science part uneducated guess and part fear mongering.

It's a bunch of geologists staring at computer models and flinging poo until something sticks. That's why the term climate change, which has been around forever, supplanted global warming as the go to catch phrase for fear mongers. It's a catch all and gives them an out when they are wrong which is more often than not.
Click to expand...
Some people come to this thread in good faith looking to exchange ideas and maybe learn a thing or two. But ^most people^ are clearly just trolling. WS gave you a very reasonable explanation as to why this is incorrect just a few pages back, but here you go repeating these false talking points again. It’s the same as BOT and others coming in here telling everyone “it’s the sun” again, even though he’s been shown several times why this is not possible. “They changed the name”, “ice age predicted in 70s” etc. etc. All of you regulars know better by now and repeating these PRATTs is just trolling at this point.

The climate myth whack-a-mole on this board is absurd. The goalposts are endlessly moving. It’s impossible to ever nail down a complete, coherent, counterargument. The skeptics can’t even agree whether global warming is occurring at all, whether it’s caused by humans, whether it’s bad, etc. They can’t agree amongst themselves and they can’t even be consistent within themselves. They regularly jump from one position to the next, depending on what’s convenient. It’s just one thoughtless meme after another. Before you know it, all your facts, data, and logic have been ignored, and you’re back at square one explaining why it’s not the sun…
 
#2,346
#2,346
BartW said:
The proposed European Climate Law includes a border adjustment on their carbon tax, which is something I’ve also suggested on this board. But what I would do differently is make it a revenue-neutral carbon tax or fee and dividend program such as the Baker-Schultz plan advocated by young conservatives at CPAC.

From AR5, “It is extremely likely [95-100% confidence] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”

That is, the percentage of warming that humankind is responsible for is approximately 100%. More specifically, it’s actually about 110%. That’s because a small fraction of the warming has been offset by human aerosol emissions, which have a cooling effect. An even smaller fraction of the warming has been offset by natural cycles (see Fig 10.5). Because if there were no human influences on climate, orbital mechanics predict we would continue the slow long-term cooling trend that started around 6000 years ago.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s use more aerosols.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top