ronwagn + 6,290 December 11, 2018 Just now, Red said: The first defence of those in denial of climate change is to respond off topic. However the EBM is so basic to climate science it should have taken less than a few minutes to counter it, if a counter were available. I therefore double down on my views. In other words, you have a closed mind and are unable to observe actual facts as they exist on earth. Rather you get lost in your own fallacious calculations and theories. At least you should study both sides of the arguments. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 11, 2018 Just now, ronwagn said: In other words, you have a closed mind and are unable to observe actual facts as they exist on earth. Rather you get lost in your own fallacious calculations and theories. At least you should study both sides of the arguments. That's 2 replies off topic. I double down on my earlier double down. Such a basic issue and you are stumbling in dark to meaningfully respond. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 December 11, 2018 Just now, Red said: That's 2 replies off topic. I double down on my earlier double down. Such a basic issue and you are stumbling in dark to meaningfully respond. Just study my material and argue from knowledge, not mindless criticism. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 11, 2018 Just now, ronwagn said: Just study my material and argue from knowledge, not mindless criticism. That's 3 non-replies from you Ron - would you like a prize now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 11, 2018 57 minutes ago, ronwagn said: I study both sides and believe that the climate scientists you favor are frauds and propagandists. The obvious facts seem to belie their claims. I doubt you have spent as much time studying the issue as I have. Knowing, and saying you know, are clearly different. I will prove to Tom that his faith in your claims is not well founded. Which climate scientists do I favour ( - your first claim)? If you cannot name them, how do you reconcile that with your claim they "are frauds and propagandists"? What "obvious facts" are you referring to? Your doubts about how much time I have spent, compared to you, have no foundation. And feel free to doubt. But remember that spending a lot of time on something could equally mean you just do not understand it, which I suspect is the real issue here. I look forward to your responses, and trust Tom will be equally impressed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 11, 2018 Ron, just an FYI - Al Gore has never been on my reading list so why would you introduce him if we are talking about climate s science? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 11, 2018 I am losing count - is that 5 or 6 replies from you, Ron, which have failed to respond to my very easy question about the EBM? Darwin Award contender for sure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 December 11, 2018 3 minutes ago, Red said: Knowing, and saying you know, are clearly different. I will prove to Tom that his faith in your claims is not well founded. Which climate scientists do I favour ( - your first claim)? If you cannot name them, how do you reconcile that with your claim they "are frauds and propagandists"? What "obvious facts" are you referring to? Your doubts about how much time I have spent, compared to you, have no foundation. And feel free to doubt. But remember that spending a lot of time on something could equally mean you just do not understand it, which I suspect is the real issue here. I look forward to your responses, and trust Tom will be equally impressed. One obvious fact is that sea level rise is very slow and is not sufficient to cause alarm. Nevertheless, global warming advocates perpetuate scare tactics as their favorite modus operandi. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 December 11, 2018 3 minutes ago, Red said: Ron, just an FYI - Al Gore has never been on my reading list so why would you introduce him if we are talking about climate s science? Because his beliefs were formed by a leader of the global warming cabal. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan van Eck + 7,558 MG December 11, 2018 41 minutes ago, Red said: That's 3 non-replies from you Ron - would you like a prize now? Red, that was a tad inappropriate. Let us try to keep this an intellectual Forum Board. Thank you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 December 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Red said: I began studying climate in 1974, and my degree thesis was on the impact of changing rainfall patterns on the Murray Darling River system - over 40 years ago. Whereas your claims on climate science are utter nonsense. Climate basics start at the EBM, and extend nowadays to the ESM. I have never seen any science countering the EBM, so if you know of any, seeing you have strong claims, then please offer them. Promoting one fossil fuel ahead of another, when there alternatives to both, can only make sense to you, I suppose. Furthermore, arguments on the CO2 benefit to plant growth growth are not particularly strong. It's like saying I am not concerned about asbestos because it really is an excellent insulator. It appears that you don't know much about botany I fear. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 11, 2018 1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said: Red, that was a tad inappropriate. Let us try to keep this an intellectual Forum Board. Thank you. Thanks Jan - you are right. I am still waiting for a reply from Ron which has relevance. All I have is the ubiquitous non-science that I expected would be the case, and Ron is doing a great job in proving. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 11, 2018 18 minutes ago, ronwagn said: Because his beliefs were formed by a leader of the global warming cabal. At what point will you either use links to climate science to show you have a valid claim, or at least respond to my initial simple question? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan van Eck + 7,558 MG December 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Red said: Thanks Jan - you are right. I am still waiting for a reply from Ron which has relevance. All I have is the ubiquitous non-science that I expected would be the case, and Ron is doing a great job in proving. OK, Red, and let's stay real here, you have had your dozen jabs at Ron, and he at you, so this cannot degenerate into some Yahoo.com message board food fight. At this point everybody on the planet knows your respective thoughts. Enough already, guys. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 11, 2018 25 minutes ago, ronwagn said: One obvious fact is that sea level rise is very slow and is not sufficient to cause alarm. Nevertheless, global warming advocates perpetuate scare tactics as their favorite modus operandi. That claim is not supported in science. I refer you here: Accelerating rate of sea level rise Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said: OK, Red, and let's stay real here, you have had your dozen jabs at Ron, and he at you, so this cannot degenerate into some Yahoo.com message board food fight. At this point everybody on the planet knows your respective thoughts. Enough already, guys. I appreciate your comments. "Climate Change" is front and centre heading this thread. I believe it important that those claiming to understand it can demonstrate that they do. On the other hand, if posters choose to attribute beliefs to me which I know do not exist, I find it useful to seek from them how they arrive at such conclusions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 December 11, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Red said: That claim is not supported in science. I refer you here: Accelerating rate of sea level rise I have been going to ocean beaches and have not noticed any change. The rich continue to build as close to the shore as possible and there will be plenty of time for them to build homes and hotels. They know that they can make their money and enjoy their homes because ocean level rise is very slow. Meanwhile, the general populace is supporting insurance rates that are not sufficient to cover costs of storm surges from hurricanes. In other words, it is no cause for alarmism and hysteria. I actually love the study. It proves the point I am making. Ocean level rise is very slow and quite manageable. I take it that you want the world to eventually use only "renewable energy". Do you know that natural gas is renewable and is constantly renewed by the bodies of every living thing? Edited December 11, 2018 by ronwagn addition Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 December 11, 2018 3 minutes ago, Red said: I appreciate your comments. "Climate Change" is front and centre heading this thread. I believe it important that those claiming to understand it can demonstrate that they do. On the other hand, if posters choose to attribute beliefs to me which I know do not exist, I find it useful to seek from them how they arrive at such conclusions. What beliefs are misattributed to you? Al Gores? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 11, 2018 1 minute ago, ronwagn said: What beliefs are misattributed to you? Al Gores? With the greatest respect, Ron, if you seriously want me to respond then please message me. We in forums should not overlook how silly we can appear to others, irrespective of claim and counter claim. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 December 11, 2018 I appreciate that Red. I sincerely think I could sharpen my knowledge by debating with you. I really think that you are sincere and honest. We just come from opposite sides of the same argument. Economic and political factors enter into the argument also. It is very complex. We are both in favor of diminishing coal use, I assume and using the best possible new energy sources that are affordable. I will have to leave it at that since I cover over 225 topics in my website domain. I spend about fifty hours a week and seldom have time for arguments. I really do not have time to debate everyone. I have about 20,000 friends and followers on various social media. I just let my collections of articles speak for themselves. People can draw their own conclusions. I like your sea level reference and have added it to my topic on Global Warming. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/9/2022.full.pdf #359 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan van Eck + 7,558 MG December 11, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, ronwagn said: I actually love the study. It proves the point I am making. Ocean level rise is very slow and quite manageable. On the other hand, it may be "proving" no such thing. Those measurements are, from what I can make of the technical jargon, done by pinging from a satellite off the water surface. But that assumes that there is no change in the "tilt" of the Earth's axis, even an imperceptible tilt. Any tilt would shift the tides. If the tides are not precisely the same over the study period, then the measured water heights will also not be the same. This is one of the problems in earth science. It gets difficult to separate correlation from causation. You may be measuring the same volume of water, but having it slosh around on the planet surface in some different pattern. Edited December 11, 2018 by Jan van Eck 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Kirkman + 8,860 December 11, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said: This is one of the problems in earth science. It gets difficult to separate correlation from causation. ^ 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 11, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said: This is one of the problems in earth science. It gets difficult to separate correlation from causation. That has not been the case for a very long time. A simple read to clarify why is here: Differentiating correlation from causation Edited December 11, 2018 by Red poor spella Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
