Okay, maybe there isn’t gold in them thar comets, but there’s something worth mining them fer.
I am comfortable with genuine climate models. Yes they are accurate enough to trust. My question is: are the detractors of climate change seriously knowledgeable enough to trust or are they genuine American opportunists, not caring about the subject in any other way except to make money.I think Exxon's actions answer that question. They knew the cause and effects of global warming 35 years ago and launched a FUD campaign instead of taking mitigation actions.
I am comfortable with genuine climate models. Yes they are accurate enough to trust. My question is: are the detractors of climate change seriously knowledgeable enough to trust or are they genuine American opportunists, not caring about the subject in any other way except to make money.I think Exxon's actions answer that question. They knew the cause and effects of global warming 35 years ago and launched a FUD campaign instead of taking mitigation actions.Alright AMH, you go. Smack this thread back to where it belongs. We do get side tracked around here :coolsmile:
The Capitalist vs Communist rubbish is just smoke and mirrors like Democrats vs Republicans. psikI heard a joke long ago, while on a short visit to Budapest, back when the commies were there and real and infused every aspect of life. My local uncle told me a favorite joke: What was the difference between the capitalistic system and the communistic system? In the capitalistic system man exploits his fellow man, In the communistic system... it's exactly the other way around. :coolsmirk: :lol: Thanks, made me smile, even thinking about using it should the opportunity arise. That's exactly right. It's ridiculous to think there is no "capitalism" in a communistic economy. . There is at least as much as in what we refer to as a capitalistc economy. The only difference is that in a communist economy all the capitalism is in the hands of the "government" and not the individual people. In the final analysis, the impact of creating capital, using the earth's resources, building and manufacturing goods and providing services is exactly the same in both systems. The impact on the economy is the same, but in my opinion, the impact on society is much different. Keeping capital and the means of production in the hands of a few, as it is in a communistic system, is potentially far more destructive to the society than when it is in the hands of the broader population, as in a "capitalistic" system. Lois
I had no idea that 35 years ago there were scientists who knew that common human behavior could potentially put us on track for GW. What about deforestation was massively releasing the stored energy also known to contribute to more than loss of habitat and other more obvious reasons?How long ago was 1978? I can't remember anymore because I'm old. That was my first semester in college. I took a class called "Energy and Physics". We calculated how much energy hit the earth, how much oil there was, the affect of CO2 on the atmosphere, all that stuff. It wasn't rocket science. They knew.
I had no idea that 35 years ago there were scientists who knew that common human behavior could potentially put us on track for GW. What about deforestation was massively releasing the stored energy also known to contribute to more than loss of habitat and other more obvious reasons?How long ago was 1978? I can't remember anymore because I'm old. That was my first semester in college. I took a class called "Energy and Physics". We calculated how much energy hit the earth, how much oil there was, the affect of CO2 on the atmosphere, all that stuff. It wasn't rocket science. They knew. Is the motivation human greed? *Movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction*
I had no idea that 35 years ago there were scientists who knew that common human behavior could potentially put us on track for GW. What about deforestation was massively releasing the stored energy also known to contribute to more than loss of habitat and other more obvious reasons?How long ago was 1978? I can't remember anymore because I'm old. That was my first semester in college. I took a class called "Energy and Physics". We calculated how much energy hit the earth, how much oil there was, the affect of CO2 on the atmosphere, all that stuff. It wasn't rocket science. They knew. Is the motivation human greed? I'm trying to give up my habit of putting thoughts into people's heads. Or even figuring out what the thoughts might be. What matters is if they can lay their thoughts out in a way that other people can understand them, check them, use them. I actually assume that almost all people want a better world and want to understand how the world works. Most of them just get lazy and accept the closest authority, especially if that authority is tied to them getting fed in some way.
I had no idea that 35 years ago there were scientists who knew that common human behavior could potentially put us on track for GW. What about deforestation was massively releasing the stored energy also known to contribute to more than loss of habitat and other more obvious reasons?How long ago was 1978? I can't remember anymore because I'm old. That was my first semester in college. I took a class called "Energy and Physics". We calculated how much energy hit the earth, how much oil there was, the affect of CO2 on the atmosphere, all that stuff. It wasn't rocket science. They knew. Is the motivation human greed? Some of what I remember is that several of the small countries were burning forests to create a lot of carbon so that as the carbon credit laws went into effect they could stop burning and get paid a lot of the carbon credit money. But most of those carbon credit purposed laws never really became law. So yes, the motivation would have been greed.
I'm trying to give up my habit of putting thoughts into people's heads. Or even figuring out what the thoughts might be. What matters is if they can lay their thoughts out in a way that other people can understand them, check them, use them...So instead of coming up with rational conclusions and trying to convince others of those rational conclusions, you want others to learn to go thru the process of coming up with rational conclusions themselves. Instead of giving people fish, you want them to learn to fish, so to speak.
Some of what I remember is that several of the small countries were burning forests to create a lot of carbon so that as the carbon credit laws went into effect they could stop burning and get paid a lot of the carbon credit money. But most of those carbon credit purposed laws never really became law. So yes, the motivation would have been greed.Don't suppose you have a source? Maybe it was burning forests for Palm Oil? just wondering
My view by what you are portraying is that your politicize politicking on climate change is nothing more than playing politics by deciphering data that can be portrayed in a manner for goals by an orthodox movement against successfully established entities and entrepreneurs more than a concern for science and the future. I do like the fact that you are concerned about getting people to look at you data, but very concerned about the force that drives you.
I think you are a smart and cool guy. But if you really think you are trying to have a rational discussion. Then we have the same goals. But I can’t see you having a rational discussion with the methods you use.
Here’s what I get out of your methods. You want people to understand Climate Change in the same manner that you do. It is like you are trying to get a girl to marry you. You go to her and say that her ass is too big and you think her hair is ugly. But she need to view your videos and data of why she should marry you. Then you whine because she is not agreeing to marry you. Your buddies on the site tell you to tell her that her feet stink and you don’t think she loves the baby Jesus. Then show her some more videos and data of why she should marry you.
How’s that working out so far?
I seem to be the only one backing the ICCP. And if you are not helping them, then you are most likely hurting the cause.
The ICCP in a quick two minute search.
Skeptics. A quick search of the 2014 IPCC report. In the special report section there were seven reports that used the word “skeptic".
“Climate skeptic" use by a guy from Germany talking about the political point of view in a draft of general comments. “Climate change skeptics" used in three times in general comment report. These reports are not meant to be cited, quoted or distributed. “Skeptic criticism" used in 2005, about hydrogen cars. “Hydrogen skeptics" used in 2007. To avoid “skeptic criticism". 2005.
Denier or Deniers. Nothing found.
ICCP is that something like the CCCP?
Oh I notice you couldn’t manage to provide any source to support your claim,
instead you busied yourself with creating a straw man to burn up.
Interesting how your type is so good at that.
You laugh at me for providing sources that have the ability to teach you something about our climate system.
Implying that’s akin to calling a chubby girl fat - where you come up with that is anyone’s guess.
You seem to think, this is supposed to be popularity contest with the disingenuous.
Science isn’t a democracy - science is about learning what is.
Not what you think it should be.
My view by what you are portraying is that your politicize politicking on climate change is nothing more than playing politics by deciphering data that can be portrayed in a manner for goals by an orthodox movement against successfully established entities and entrepreneurs more than a concern for science and the future.I recognize all those words you used but the order in which you used them makes no sense. You need to work on constructing cogent sentences so people can understand what you are blathering about.
My view by what you are portraying is that your politicize politicking on climate change is nothing more than playing politics by deciphering data that can be portrayed in a manner for goals by an orthodox movement against successfully established entities and entrepreneurs more than a concern for science and the future.I recognize all those words you used but the order in which you used them makes no sense. You need to work on constructing cogent sentences so people can understand what you are blathering about. Yeah that, ROFL. psik
ICCP is that something like the CCCP? Oh I notice you couldn't manage to provide any source to support your claim, instead you busied yourself with creating a straw man to burn up. Interesting how your type is so good at that. You laugh at me for providing sources that have the ability to teach you something about our climate system. Implying that's akin to calling a chubby girl fat - where you come up with that is anyone's guess. You seem to think, this is supposed to be popularity contest with the disingenuous. Science isn't a democracy - science is about learning what is. Not what you think it should be.See, that’s my point. Tell me that you didn’t understand Iccp was meaning Ipcc. If you didn’t, I would find it hard to believe. So now why the nit picking? It must mean you are not serious about climate change or you would stay focused on true subject matter with meaning. If you don’t get the meaning of the dating example, let me try another example. If I want to convince you to look at data from a different point of view. And I started the thought with, let’s try, “Know it all smart ass". What I have done is set the tone of the thinking to an unacceptable level of communicating where nothing will ever get agreed upon. And that’s exactly what you are doing by using the terms “deniers" and “skeptics". I will concede that this web site has mostly people that agree with using the term deniers. But, to those know it all smart asses, it still does not make it right. Wouldn’t you agree? Now, I am not laughing at you for providing climate sources. Just the opposite. What I was telling you is if you want to be taken seriously, then get serious. Stop the name calling. That’s not good science communication methods but great Trumpiology.
If I want to convince you to look at data from a different point of view.Then present the data damit all. Instead you come with grand rambling stories full of make-believe that boil down to how I've hurt your feelings so of course, you won't learn anything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zANvYB93u2g :coolsmirk: CCCP that was just a joke that popped into my head as I was reading what you wrote. I wonder if you even get it? Jeez, considering the mistakes and loonie lines you punch out, I get to have some fun sometimes. :lol: As for using the term denialist (Have I really called you that? How often? Actually I don't think I ever have, but I could be wrong, though I'm not interested enough to take the time to look. I'll leave it to you.) but back to the term denialist … there the essence is that if one denies incontrovertible established science, such as trying to claim that the "CO2 theory" is nonsense based on incomplete global temperature records, while ignoring that the physics of Greenhouse Gases is damned well established and settled science - then said character in a state of denial of serious science.
Actual I think it's something worse http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-mischief/Besides that's just a cheap smoke screen you're blowing - I will happily listen to your perceptions, if you will attempt to explain them. I am even capable of bending over backwards to see your understanding from your perspective, allow it to wash over me a little so to speak. See what resonates with reality as I've learned to understand it. Problem there is I've heard most the reruns already, and they just sharpen my understanding for why this thing is very real. Just like the experts are telling us. Mike maybe you can explain to me why expert understanding needs to be justified and defended to begin with? Doesn't that strike you as very weird? I've tried to seriously engage with you. I present my explanations and provide the sources that I've learned from and that have convinced me. When you, or others bring up links, you know that more times than not I'll check it out. Sometimes spend a lot of time looking into it and consistently finding calculated misdirection and omission. Always the game playing and these days I'm into trying to describe it for others to learn from. In the end we are left with the facts. And all the facts line up with Anthropogenic Global Warming being everything that experts are telling us it is. You engaged us, me, you invited challenging thoughts and my 'method' - Walk away, ignore me… Play hurt feelings like you are doing, why I don't know* Or play science-by-talk, whereby you ignore most of what we understand about the science. You can resent me for having a better than average understanding, but then I have invested a great deal of years, decades into learning about it. Present succinct arguments why I'm full of it. _______________________________________________________________
See, that’s my point. Tell me that you didn’t understand Iccp was meaning Ipcc.Did you mean IPCC? People wouldn't nit pick your posts so much if you didn't get so many details wrong.
I like to have fun too. Off subject. A week ago I had a Buda monk spend a couple of days at my farm. I have workers housing and was ask by the neighbors to use the housing for the monk and others. I had no problem. The monk had nothing but a simple robe and a cloth sack. But was the happiest man I have ever met in my life. I hope he doesn’t get Americanized while he is here.
As far a calling me a denialist, no I can’t remember you doing that. But I get the point from your posts that the denialists are the problem. And that the denialists are major corps, rich people or people who have been bought by the denialists to do their bidding. I don’t see that at all. What I have seen is a two-step dance at avoiding major talking points and bad science.
Let’s review the last three to twenty years. First we had “Global Warming". The problem was that global warming was never a true science, or better said, was never treated as a true science. And by that I mean there was never a baseline of the natural heating cycle so we could measure the man made heat. Those who tried to establish a base line were proven wrong. Then we got trends theories and hidden heat theories, which just proved that the data was never complete.
In science we need a datum point or datum line to build or relate to. The datum line needs to be the Milankovitch Cycles. So I will ask again for the hundredth time. Where are we in the Milankovitch Cycles? In five years of asking there has only been one response. Until that is answered, there is no way to really know the true affects caused by CO2 from the natural cycles. Gore admitted that he failed badly in his claim to separate the heat effect of man-made from natural heat.
Does CO2 cause heating? Of course it does. Is CO2 the only thing that causes heating? Of course not. Can we believe the predictions of Global Warming? No, because there is no Global Warming anymore. We now have Climate Change. And we are going thru a period where the meaning of climate change goes from meaning “weather". To a new meaning of the old term of Global Warming. Now how dumb is that?
The points made review. If man was not on earth today. There would still be sea level rises, record setting heat levels and extinction taking place due to the Milankovitch Cycles. History has proven that time over time again. To take the earth’s natural cycle and blame it on mankind is wrong. Mankind is doing more than enough damage to the earth already in more ways than just increasing the earth’s heat. So why the con job on Climate Change? That will just cause delays in fixing the problems. Let the facts be driven by real science and not by a political agenda and then the people and governments will respond.
I like to have fun too. Off subject. A week ago I had a Buda monk spend a couple of days at my farm. I have workers housing and was ask by the neighbors to use the housing for the monk and others. I had no problem. The monk had nothing but a simple robe and a cloth sack. But was the happiest man I have ever met in my life. I hope he doesn’t get Americanized while he is here. As far a calling me a denialist, no I can’t remember you doing that. But I get the point from your posts that the denialists are the problem. And that the denialists are major corps, rich people or people who have been bought by the denialists to do their bidding. I don’t see that at all. What I have seen is a two-step dance at avoiding major talking points and bad science. Let’s review the last three to twenty years. First we had “Global Warming". The problem was that global warming was never a true science, or better said, was never treated as a true science. And by that I mean there was never a baseline of the natural heating cycle so we could measure the man made heat. Those who tried to establish a base line were proven wrong. Then we got trends theories and hidden heat theories, which just proved that the data was never complete. In science we need a datum point or datum line to build or relate to. The datum line needs to be the Milankovitch Cycles. So I will ask again for the hundredth time. Where are we in the Milankovitch Cycles? In five years of asking there has only been one response. Until that is answered, there is no way to really know the true affects caused by CO2 from the natural cycles. Gore admitted that he failed badly in his claim to separate the heat effect of man-made from natural heat. Does CO2 cause heating? Of course it does. Is CO2 the only thing that causes heating? Of course not. Can we believe the predictions of Global Warming? No, because there is no Global Warming anymore. We now have Climate Change. And we are going thru a period where the meaning of climate change goes from meaning “weather". To a new meaning of the old term of Global Warming. Now how dumb is that? The points made review. If man was not on earth today. There would still be sea level rises, record setting heat levels and extinction taking place due to the Milankovitch Cycles. History has proven that time over time again. To take the earth’s natural cycle and blame it on mankind is wrong. Mankind is doing more than enough damage to the earth already in more ways than just increasing the earth’s heat. So why the con job on Climate Change? That will just cause delays in fixing the problems. Let the facts be driven by real science and not by a political agenda and then the people and governments will respond.So you believe that 7 billion people on earth, every one exhaling CO2 and also burning something, has no appreciable impact on the climate in a closed system? Interesting fantasy.
Let’s review the last three to twenty years. First we had “Global Warming". The problem was that global warming was never a true science...There you go again. Bad enough you started out saying you entertained a monk from a small Texas town, now you're confusing facts with science. Of course global warming is not a science any more than galaxies are a science. Climatology is the science we use to study global warming.
...or better said, was never treated as a true science. And by that I mean there was never a baseline of the natural heating cycle so we could measure the man made heat. Those who tried to establish a base line were proven wrong. Then we got trends theories and hidden heat theories, which just proved that the data was never complete.And now you are talking complete bullshit.
In science we need a datum point or datum line to build or relate to. The datum line needs to be the Milankovitch Cycles. So I will ask again for the hundredth time. Where are we in the Milankovitch Cycles? In five years of asking there has only been one response. Until that is answered, there is no way to really know the true affects caused by CO2 from the natural cycles. Gore admitted that he failed badly in his claim to separate the heat effect of man-made from natural heat.Denialist lies. We know very well where we are in the Milankovitch Cycle, which you could easily find with a simple search. BTW, this argument is a red herring anyway, as other factors are far more influential on Earth's climate. The current rate of change is the highest known, and mankind's carbon emissions are driving that.
Does CO2 cause heating? Of course it does. Is CO2 the only thing that causes heating? Of course not. Can we believe the predictions of Global Warming? No, because there is no Global Warming anymore. We now have Climate Change.Again, you are swallowing lies. Denialists coined the term climate change and are now using it to denigrate climatologists and spread doubt among the gullible.
And we are going thru a period where the meaning of climate change goes from meaning “weather". To a new meaning of the old term of Global Warming. Now how dumb is that?About as ignorant a statement as you've ever made on these forums, which is saying a lot. Climate change never meant "weather." I learned the difference between weather and climate in eighth grade.
The points made review. If man was not on earth today. There would still be sea level rises, record setting heat levels and extinction taking place due to the Milankovitch Cycles. History has proven that time over time again. To take the earth’s natural cycle and blame it on mankind is wrong. Mankind is doing more than enough damage to the earth already in more ways than just increasing the earth’s heat. So why the con job on Climate Change? That will just cause delays in fixing the problems. Let the facts be driven by real science and not by a political agenda and then the people and governments will respond.There you go, repeating denialist talking points as if they are facts. You are completely wrong on this subject, Mike. CC has provided numerous links in this thread, and we have many archived discussions on climate change here, yet you continue to spread lies. CC may not have said it, but I will: You are not a climate skeptic, you are a climate denier. Skeptics follow the evidence. You've taken a superficial look at some denialist sites and now refuse to open your mind to what the scientific research shows. That is denialism.