Climate Change: A Summer of Storms and Smog Is Coming

[MUI + 92]

I have been busy working this week and have not able to follow this thread and get involved "live" but I just read through it and had to jump in with my two cents. 

My stance has always been that the premise of climate change being blamed on man is false with respect to the fact that we do not have enough data to lay "blame" in any direction be it man or nature.

Anyone who argues otherwise is just wrong and the "greenies" that provide all their BS links are just bolstering the Right side of the argument with their emotional stance. Man just does not have enough information to know whether Man has made the climate change or if God has made the climate change. 

Science tells us that climate is nothing if not change. Constant change. Weather is always described in terms of averages. What else do we have to describe and understand weather other than averages? It IS the nature of this science.

Can't we all just calm down and look at this logically? No emotion. No politics.

The Green Left has an agenda. The scientists they quote have an agenda-to continue getting funding. This is an incestuous relationship and is destructive to discovering the truth. 

Call me a skeptic, call me a right-winger, call me whatever you want but don't let your ego or small mindedness or political agenda overwhelm your thought processes. 

Younger people are more likely to go to the left because it is an easier path and requires less thought. As we age and gain life experience things change and we realize the error of our youthful thinking. Just calm down and think. We (society, and the whole planet) need your young minds for the great innovations that you are capable of, not for fighting with older generations. That is just not productive. 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, MUI said:

I have been busy working this week and have not able to follow this thread and get involved "live" but I just read through it and had to jump in with my two cents. 

My stance has always been that the premise of climate change being blamed on man is false with respect to the fact that we do not have enough data to lay "blame" in any direction be it man or nature.

Anyone who argues otherwise is just wrong and the "greenies" that provide all their BS links are just bolstering the Right side of the argument with their emotional stance. Man just does not have enough information to know whether Man has made the climate change or if God has made the climate change. 

Science tells us that climate is nothing if not change. Constant change. Weather is always described in terms of averages. What else do we have to describe and understand weather other than averages? It IS the nature of this science.

Can't we all just calm down and look at this logically? No emotion. No politics.

The Green Left has an agenda. The scientists they quote have an agenda-to continue getting funding. This is an incestuous relationship and is destructive to discovering the truth. 

Call me a skeptic, call me a right-winger, call me whatever you want but don't let your ego or small mindedness or political agenda overwhelm your thought processes. 

Younger people are more likely to go to the left because it is an easier path and requires less thought. As we age and gain life experience things change and we realize the error of our youthful thinking. Just calm down and think. We (society, and the whole planet) need your young minds for the great innovations that you are capable of, not for fighting with older generations. That is just not productive. 

Putting aside the usual claims  of ,Left Wing Agenda, ,Greenies' etc can you explain what would satisfy you that there is sufficient data to confirm that man is predominantly driving climate change  in the current period?

I ask this because the scientific consensus which is based on  scientific theory* has concluded that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change in this period.  

* Please consider what Scientific theory actual means if you are tempted to go down the usual mistaken interpretation of this which is is somewhat routine on this forum. 

Edited February 22, 2019 by NickW

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

* Please consider what Scientific theory actual means if you are tempted to go down the usual mistaken interpretation of this which is is somewhat routine on this forum.

the·o·ry

Dictionary result for theory

/ˈTHirē/

noun

noun: theory; plural noun: theories

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

   "Darwin's theory of evolution"

   synonyms:

   hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion For some reason I don't see the word fact in the definition of Theory. Assumption, presumption, conjecture, hypothesis. Not one to slam anyone unless ridiculous comments, I for one go with MUI as I am a believer in God and not the scientific community as they are biased. Funding is a big motivator of their opinions and if the goverments of the world would quit funding the scientific community would wither and die. Money is the root...…...just my nickel, priced for inflation.

[NickW + 2,714]

46 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

the·o·ry

Dictionary result for theory

/ˈTHirē/

noun

noun: theory; plural noun: theories

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

   "Darwin's theory of evolution"

   synonyms:

   hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion For some reason I don't see the word fact in the definition of Theory. Assumption, presumption, conjecture, hypothesis. Not one to slam anyone unless ridiculous comments, I for one go with MUI as I am a believer in God and not the scientific community as they are biased. Funding is a big motivator of their opinions and if the goverments of the world would quit funding the scientific community would wither and die. Money is the root...…...just my nickel, priced for inflation.

You failed to spot the *

Scientific Theory

Scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

[skeptic + 6]

didn't downvote you, just know how west tex weather can change in a hurry

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

3 minutes ago, skeptic said:

didn't downvote you, just know how west tex weather can change in a hurry

Okay, the red arrow down is downvote. yes, the weather here is and has always been crazy. 79735 is probably one of the most challenging as is 3k feet elevation, mountains 50 miles west and beyond, this is high desert, where sea shells can be found on a short walk. So at one time this was all under water, Biblical flood if you believe, and or the land has risen. Lots of Volcanic (extinct) to the south and west of here. Formed a massive bowl/basin hence Permian Basin. I have seen massive snows, flooding, drought in the many years here. One days 75 the next day could be 45...….. 

[esgeo + 54]

Here's a good, recent paper that correlates sudden, significant increases in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere with catastrophic extinctions.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00083-9

Unlike humanity, "nature" (i.e., laws of physics, chemistry, biology...) doesn't discriminate whether the source of increased greenhouse gases is a result of human activity, volcanoes, degassing of methane hydrates, etc..., it just reacts to disequilibrium. We, as humans can try to model/understand nature's reactions to perturbations using principles of thermodynamics, biochemistry, evolutionary biology, etc..., but its ultimately a longer game than we will be able to play 

I admit, as an earth scientist, I have little confidence in immediate future predictions related to climate change, as there are so many variables and complex systematics at play. The paper above presents one pre-historical end member- if an enormous amount of sequestered carbon becomes rapidly volatilized, there are catastrophic impacts on the biosphere (i.e., life on earth is fundamentally altered from its present form). And the timescale of observation of changes from this devolatilization event (some 245 million years ago) is on the order tens to hundreds of generations of human lifetimes. In the geologic record, this is a blink of an eye, but when we are talking about what is going to be happening in 2050, 2100, even the year 2500, this is the timeframe that our climatic diseqilibrium is really just beginning due to the effects of human civilization.

The discourse on this site instills in me the sense that egos are much more influential than understanding of scientific principles what it comes to what people choose to believe and value in the "climate debate" or the need for "environmentalism" in general. For many on this site, it seems to be at most an issue of personal freedoms and liberty (and perceived threat thereof). However, for me, it is totally impersonal and apolitical, and instead is just an issue of mass balance in nature. Too much global change too quickly- whether it be greenhouse gas emission, land use change, toxic pollution, resource use/scarcity, etc... is the recipe for disequilibrium that nature will inherently react to. Unfortunately, cheap hydrocarbon-based energy, while fostering the growth of human civilization, has also been a boon for all of these unintended consequences. In my view, it is unfortunate that we have a societal agenda to use hydrocarbons to make money (as opposed to vice-versa), and thus, in my view, their price represents inadequate valuation of their true costs and benefits. I am not anti-hydrocarbon energy per se- I actually see the tremendous value they have and will continue to provide to society. But when the egos (on whatever side of the argument) drown out our collective ability to conceptualize our fundamental existence in terms of mass and energy, and balances thereof, it is only a matter of time before nature reminds us how fragile a thing our existence is.

   

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

44 minutes ago, NickW said:

You failed to spot the * 

Scientific Theory

Scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

I didn't fail to spot the notation (*). Please read your definition, just because you want to believe to be true, so be it. Theory is still not FACT. I choose to believe that God in his infinite wisdom is the controller of all weathers, good and bad alike. Scientific community is paid for by the government and therefore once receiving payment (paycheck) their opinions are askew and altered as they now need to get said moneys to support family(s) and is how they're making a living. So the bias is been proven by others in this forum with links to prove. You can go on and on with climate change theory, I just pointing out FACT. Maybe in few years they will figure out how to alter the climate and save the earth from all the evils of Crude Oil and the byproducts created. Many things made from crude. No hurt feelings m8 on this subject, k?

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

I didn't fail to spot the notation (*). Please read your definition, just because you want to believe to be true, so be it. Theory is still not FACT. I choose to believe that God in his infinite wisdom is the controller of all weathers, good and bad alike. Scientific community is paid for by the government and therefore once receiving payment (paycheck) their opinions are askew and altered as they now need to get said moneys to support family(s) and is how they're making a living. So the bias is been proven by others in this forum with links to prove. You can go on and on with climate change theory, I just pointing out FACT. Maybe in few years they will figure out how to alter the climate and save the earth from all the evils of Crude Oil and the byproducts created. Many things made from crude. No hurt feelings m8 on this subject, k?

God doesn't exist and if it does how do you know its male? 😛

The empirical proof to support AGW theory is massive whereas proof as to Gods existence is zilch. 

You appear to apply completely different proof standards to what you believe in. 

Scientific theory is as near to fact as you will get.  Here is a few simple ones expressed as mathematics:

E=mc2

PV=K

M = E₀ + pV₀/c²

Of course anyone is welcome to retest those scientific theories but until someone comes up with something fundamentally different then they stand as fact. I acknowledge AGW is far more complex because it involves numerous different factors but the models can still be retested and scrutinised. 

[MUI + 92]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

Putting aside the usual claims  of ,Left Wing Agenda, ,Greenies' etc can you explain what would satisfy you that there is sufficient data to confirm that man is predominantly driving climate change  in the current period?

I ask this because the scientific consensus which is based on  scientific theory* has concluded that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change in this period.  

* Please consider what Scientific theory actual means if you are tempted to go down the usual mistaken interpretation of this which is is somewhat routine on this forum. 

Although your asking for a time frame for data is just being argumentative, I will say that I am not sure what the parameters of the appropriate data set would be that are required to solve this issue. But in my humble estimation it would be quite large. Thousands of years, maybe even millions, but that alone is not enough. There are too many variables in this equation that we need data for prior to taking any drastic action.... and we don't even know if any of the proposed actions will do any good.

Current science is only accepted as fact until someone comes along and proves whatever part of said accepted fact wrong. 

Please do not be so arrogant as to think that we know enough to take any action. We don't even know for sure that there is a problem that needs our help. 

I can remember the media drama back in the 70's where everyone was in a tizzy about the planet going into a deep chill. Some were calling it a mini Ice Age. We survived all that and we will survive this drama as well unless we are foolish enough to take unwarranted action.

Edited February 22, 2019 by MUI

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, MUI said:

Although your asking for a time frame for data is just being argumentative, I will say that I am not sure what the parameters of the appropriate data set would be that are required to solve this issue. (1) But in my humble estimation it would be quite large. Thousands of years, maybe even millions, but that alone is not enough. There are too many variables in this equation that we need data for prior to taking any drastic action.... and we don't even know if any of the proposed actions will do any good.

(2). Current science is only accepted as fact until someone comes along and proves whatever part of said accepted fact wrong. 

Please do not be so arrogant as to think that we know enough to take any action. We don't even know for sure that there is a problem that needs our help. 

I can remember the media drama back in the (3)70's where everyone was in a tizzy about the planet going into a deep chill. (4)Some were calling it a mini Ice Age. We survived all that and we will survive this drama as well unless we are foolish enough to take unwarranted action.

Labeling anyone who believes in AGW or addressing other environmental issues as having a 'left wing agenda' or is corrupted by the huge sums of money paid in research grants 😄 might be construed as argumentative........

1. Would you have applied this same time frame to issues such as Acid rain or Ozone depletion

2. Scientific theory is only accepted by the consensus once it has stood up to extensive peer scrutiny and review. Universities generally don't wise to destroy their academic reputations by supporting the publication of refutable nonsense. 

For me to present a position that the Moon is made of Green Cheese would not stand that test unless I provided considerable evidence to substantiate that claim. 

3. The global temp flat lined during this period - primarily caused by aerosol effects. There was no global deep chill. 

4. The press. This was never presented as a serious proposition by the science community although it may have been debated. 

[Illurion + 894]

Interesting article today on Breitbart London............:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/23/delingpole-the-five-best-arguments-against-climate-alarmism/

quotes from it:

Delingpole: The Five Best Arguments Against Climate Alarmism

4,559

 

AP Photo/Susan Walsh

 

23 Feb 20191,006

 

 

5:40

Tony Heller, aka Steven Goddard of the Deplorable Climate Science Blog, has compiled a must-read list of the five top arguments against climate alarmism.

This was in response to a challenge by Scott Adams, who is unsure what position to take on this issue and needs persuasion.

On one of his Periscopes, Adams — creator of the Dilbert cartoons, now with a flourishing side-career as an internet seeker-after-truth — said that if Heller could produce five unassailable arguments then he would become a climate sceptic; but that if Heller failed, then he (Adams) would “come down hard on the opinion that there’s something big to worry about.”

 

 

 

I think he has done a great job. The five arguments, which I’ll rephrase slightly, are as follows:

Climate alarmism is just a modern version of man’s primal superstitions about cataclysmic natural events. But these fears are baseless for there is no legitimate evidence to show that “extreme weather is increasing or sea level rise is accelerating.”

Climate alarmism is a form of Groupthink — or, as Heller puts it, the Emperor’s New Clothes. This Groupthink requires ignoring the evidence and instead deferring to the opinions of a very small body of parti pris “experts”.

If the case for the “global warming” were as strong as these experts say, the debate would be over by now. Instead, all of their “apocalyptic predictions” have failed miserably. What reason do we have to believe them after all this time?

Climate alarmism is entirely dependent on graphs and computer models which rely on cherry-picked or corrupt data. Few if any of these models have come close to forecasting real world outcomes.

The proposed solutions to “climate change” are “unworkable, dangerous and useless.”

In my view the last argument is the clincher. It’s the one that ought to unite all of us, sceptics and true believers alike. After all, even those who fully subscribe to the theory that climate change is dangerous, unprecedented and man-made ought surely to agree that there’s no point chucking money at the problem if it’s going to do more harm than good.

Yet this is exactly what is happening.

Taxpayer-subsidised wind and solar are doing huge damage to the environment, to wildlife, and to the economy.

Biofuels are destroying rainforest and agricultural land, driving up food prices, needlessly hurting nature.

Rent-seekers in crony capitalist Potemkin industries like renewables are being subsidised to produce inefficient, intermittent, unnecessarily costly power, misallocating scarce resources and driving the indigent deeper into fuel poverty.

Science in universities and schools is being corrupted by a Climate Industrial Complex which rewards science, however flawed, which promotes the alarmist narrative and which punishes science that defies the so-called “Consensus”.

Vast sums of public money — in excess of $1.5 trillion per year — are being squandered on the chimaera of “climate change.” Yet despite all this spending, using the alarmists’ own calculations, it will offset “global warming” by the end of the century by 0.048°C (0.086°F).

That’s 1/20th of one degree Celsius.

The activists, shyster politicians, rent-seekers, dodgy scientists, media second-raters and other useful idiots who are pushing for more climate action are demanding the impossible. If ever they achieved their ambitions, western industrial civilisation would collapse.

As Heller puts it:

The reason winter is cold, is because of a lack of solar energy.  The sun is low in the sky, days are short, and it is cloudy much of the time.  Yet climate alarmists want people to be dependent on solar energy for their survival.  They imagine that there is some storage technology which can store huge amounts of energy for long periods of time when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. But as Bill Gates pointed out, that technology doesn’t exist.

I have degrees in science and engineering, and have worked for most of the last 45 years as both. The job of scientists is to come up with ideas. By contrast, the primary job of engineers is to make things that work. If a bridge or a microprocessor, doesn’t work – very bad things will happen. Bad engineering is fatal to humans, companies and civilizations.

This is what I find so puzzling about self-proclaimed “environmental” campaigners. They keep telling us that they want to save the planet, that they are concerned about “future generations”, that the people who “deny” climate change are selfish, greedy, and anti-science.

Yet everything these “environmental” campaigners do achieves an effect diametrically opposite to their alleged good intentions.These greenies are hurting the poor, they’re damaging the planet, they’re hampering the economic growth that historically has enabled us to overcome or limit such environmental problems as pollution, they’re killing birds and bats and orangutans. Yet still, somehow, they keep telling us that they have the moral high ground.

Think about this next time you read some scare story about the coming climate apocalypse or about kids bunking off school in order to protest that more needs to be done: it’s not science you’re seeing here but hard left politics.

That’s the main reason, Scott Adams, why you shouldn’t allow yourself to be troubled by the great climate scare: because even if the greenies are right about the science — which they’re not, by the way — they are completely wrong about the solutions.

Their claimed intentions may sound good; the outcomes they inflict on us are evil.

[Illurion + 894]

I find it funny that the left loves to claim that the "CRISIS" on the USA / Mexican border is "manufactured."

To me,  the entire "GLOBAL WARMING"   discussion is the real  "MANUFACTURED CRISIS"  of our lifetimes....

Time will tell......

[Cowpoke + 70]

7 hours ago, Illurion said:

Tony Heller, aka Steven Goddard of the Deplorable Climate Science Blog

Tony has done a heck of a great Job over the years exposing data manipulation within the community of climate debate.

 

[Cowpoke + 70]

8 hours ago, Illurion said:

Think about this next time you read some scare story about the coming climate apocalypse or about kids bunking off school in order to protest that more needs to be done: it’s not science you’re seeing here but hard left politics.

Yep, and that's kinda the fly in the ointment of the debate/discussion. Stacey Lennox over at the Resurgent has a nice multi article series going on now  #2 out yesterday was about Greta Thunberg And Why You And Dianne Feinstein Should Care:

https://theresurgent.com/2019/02/22/2-who-is-greta-thunberg-and-why-you-and-diane-feinstein-should-care/

Basically the leftist climate extremist are now weaponizing "the children"  . And you can see that in the recent Sunrise Movement's encounter with Senator Feinstein. Stacey just published #3 on that: https://theresurgent.com/2019/02/23/sunrise-movement-children/

IMO,what you have at play here is leftist groups that creep into the discussion to promote an agenda where there is a potential large transfer of money, power & control by the upper echelon of the groups. And a somewhat more personal feeling of belonging to a movement or having a purpose for those boots on the ground do gooders. Thereby they (the organizations) seek to weave themselves into it and thus gain a seat at the table to divvy up the spoils should the agenda (climate change in this case) tilt in their favor.

So open debate/ discussion get's mired when these leech groups dive into the mix and start the fearmongering. It really changes the dynamics of the debate.

 

Edited February 24, 2019 by Cowpoke

[Illurion + 894]

On 2/22/2019 at 2:38 PM, NickW said:

God doesn't exist ............

The empirical proof to support AGW theory is massive....................

back in the 1960's  i attended a convention of  "HIPPIES"  ....

it was pretty fun...  i had a good time...

people came from all over the USA....

from New York,   there was an old Volkswagen Micro-bus that was covered in bumper stickers.........

On the back of the micro-bus,  there was a "clear" space,  with ONLY ONE bumper sticker placed in the middle of the space.......

that "special" bumper sticker was yellow,  with big black letters.........

it said:

"UFO'S ARE REAL......   THE AIR FORCE DOESN'T EXIST"

i thought it was very funny......

 

LOOKING AT WHAT YOU WROTE ABOVE,   YOU TAKE ME BACK 50 YEARS......

YOUR WRITING SAYS:

"GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL.....  GOD DOES NOT EXIST"

 

so tell me NICKW....   are you a descendant of those  CRAZY HIPPIES FROM NEW YORK  ?  

 

because GOD most certainly exists,   and Global Warming is a FRAUD FAD that is fading fast.......

 

[Illurion + 894]

On 2/22/2019 at 5:48 PM, NickW said:

Labeling anyone who believes in AGW or addressing other environmental issues as having a 'left wing agenda' or is corrupted by the huge sums of money paid in research grants 😄 might be construed as argumentative........

1. Would you have applied this same time frame to issues such as Acid rain or Ozone depletion

2. Scientific theory is only accepted by the consensus once it has stood up to extensive peer scrutiny and review. Universities generally don't wise to destroy their academic reputations by supporting the publication of refutable nonsense. 

For me to present a position that the Moon is made of Green Cheese would not stand that test unless I provided considerable evidence to substantiate that claim. 

3. The global temp flat lined during this period - primarily caused by aerosol effects. There was no global deep chill. 

4. The press. This was never presented as a serious proposition by the science community although it may have been debated. 

none of what you say is true.....

universities and various research entities ROUTINELY publish all kinds of crap studies that are ROUTINELY DEBUNKED........

the 'aerosol effect"  as a supposed cause of the "hole in the ozone layer"  was DEBUNKED LONG AGO,  as it was proved that the "hole" opens and closes routinely every few decades,  and was caused by the effects of the SUN....

there is no consensus that supports global warming..........  there are only a group of people that "claim they are a consensus."

 

ps:   you stating that GOD DOES NOT EXIST is the equivalent of you saying that THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE.......

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 2/20/2019 at 7:16 AM, ronwagn said:

Pretty old pictures I think. A great reason for switching to natural gas. 

Rolling Coal: Show Of Strength Or Smoking Gun?

Have you ever seen the "smoke" that comes out of a jet fighter during an airshow or NFL fly-by?  It's rigged for show, nothing more/nothing less.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid
Wow! That sounds pretty scary!!! It's no wonder numerous websites picked up the story, which resulted in numerous other sites re-reporting this "news." Each mention seemed to spawn another new article about rolling coal. The "revelations" about rolling coal reported by Slate appear to be based on the existence of some "Prius Repellant" stickers, Facebook communities devoted to rolling coal, posts on YouTube and Instagram, and an article on Vocativ.com titled, "Rollin' Coal is Pollution Porn for Dudes with Pickup Trucks." Unless we missed the call or email, Diesel Power magazine was never contacted for comment by Slate or Vocativ, and we would have loved to set them straight…but why question a dramatic headline when you can just run with it and reap the benefits?

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 6:16 PM, ronwagn said:

Pretty old pictures I think. A great reason for switching to natural gas. 

I found the YouTube video and several others. that was a drag pro-drag racing event in Canada, not so long ago. Just YouTube search Rolling coal....there are some fantastic Semi's that race on the pro level. Not standard work vehicles. Sorta like the modified diesel tractor pulls you see blowing lots of smoke.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

I found the YouTube video and several others. that was a drag pro-drag racing event in Canada, not so long ago. Just YouTube search Rolling coal....there are some fantastic Semi's that race on the pro level. Not standard work vehicles. Sorta like the modified diesel tractor pulls you see blowing lots of smoke.

I read a story recently about "smoker" races. I thought it was a stupid idea because of the pollution but I realize a lot of guys love to race everything from toy and model cars, and boats all the way up to tractors and small model jets. I will be buying a model truck of some kind to play with my grandsons and nephews.

Thanks for the info!

[Illurion + 894]

interesting reads:

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/

Only 43% of climate scientists agree

https://www.therebel.media/_hole_in_the_ozone_layer_hoax_global_warming

[MUI + 92]

On 2/22/2019 at 4:48 PM, NickW said:

Labeling anyone who believes in AGW or addressing other environmental issues as having a 'left wing agenda' or is corrupted by the huge sums of money paid in research grants 😄 might be construed as argumentative........

1. Would you have applied this same time frame to issues such as Acid rain or Ozone depletion

2. Scientific theory is only accepted by the consensus once it has stood up to extensive peer scrutiny and review. Universities generally don't wise to destroy their academic reputations by supporting the publication of refutable nonsense. 

For me to present a position that the Moon is made of Green Cheese would not stand that test unless I provided considerable evidence to substantiate that claim. 

3. The global temp flat lined during this period - primarily caused by aerosol effects. There was no global deep chill. 

4. The press. This was never presented as a serious proposition by the science community although it may have been debated. 

I wouldn't consider the "agw" "believers" anything other than the cult followers that they ARE! They ARE part of the left wing of today's politics.

Hey, why did you all have to change the name from "man-made global warming"? Were you getting a bad wrap? Do you think agw sounds cooler? 

 The "scientists" that have sold out to the agw "cause" have discredited themselves by doing so. 

The politicians that align themselves with this "cause" are just in it for the power grab that they seek by aligning themselves with what they see as an opportunity to stir up a bunch of emotionally charged people who are eager to go......somewhere....they just don't know where but as long as there is a bunch of them going, they are happy to lead them over the cliff with the rest of the lemmings.

On to your "points/questions"

1. Probably, although this is not nearly as complex an issue. Not nearly as many variables involved.

2. Are you really going to stand by this reply? It just makes little sense as a reply to what I posted. Green Cheese? Are you so arrogant to think that you are the smartest person in this room? Really????

3. The data speaks for itself. There was no real basis for a scare 40+ years ago (as proved out by the results of the span of history since then) and there is no basis for your "agw" scare now. You have only bought into the crap that the media and government schools have fed you since kindergarden.

4. The press was a collection of idiots in the 70's and have only gotten worse to date. The "science" community did nothing back then to separate themselves from these idiots, quite the contrary. They aligned themselves with their willing accomplices in the media to perpetuate their false science in order to keep the funding coming. They have little if any credibility left now because of it.

On a personal level I do feel sympathy for you being an atheist but maybe that explains the pain and anger that comes through in your posts. I do hope you can overcome this.  

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, MUI said:

I wouldn't consider the "agw" "believers" anything other than the cult followers that they ARE! They ARE part of the left wing of today's politics.

Hey, why did you all have to change the name from "man-made global warming"? Were you getting a bad wrap? Do you think agw sounds cooler? 

 The "scientists" that have sold out to the agw "cause" have discredited themselves by doing so. 

The politicians that align themselves with this "cause" are just in it for the power grab that they seek by aligning themselves with what they see as an opportunity to stir up a bunch of emotionally charged people who are eager to go......somewhere....they just don't know where but as long as there is a bunch of them going, they are happy to lead them over the cliff with the rest of the lemmings.

On to your "points/questions"

1. Probably, although this is not nearly as complex an issue. Not nearly as many variables involved.

2. Are you really going to stand by this reply? It just makes little sense as a reply to what I posted. Green Cheese? Are you so arrogant to think that you are the smartest person in this room? Really????

3. The data speaks for itself. There was no real basis for a scare 40+ years ago (as proved out by the results of the span of history since then) and there is no basis for your "agw" scare now. You have only bought into the crap that the media and government schools have fed you since kindergarden.

4. The press was a collection of idiots in the 70's and have only gotten worse to date. The "science" community did nothing back then to separate themselves from these idiots, quite the contrary. They aligned themselves with their willing accomplices in the media to perpetuate their false science in order to keep the funding coming. They have little if any credibility left now because of it.

On a personal level I do feel sympathy for you being an atheist but maybe that explains the pain and anger that comes through in your posts. I do hope you can overcome this.  

1. Fair point but it was still an issue, particularly in the case of Ozone depletion that we could not see or feel in any acute sense similar as we experience now with AGW . Acid rain was somewhat more noticeable because of damage to lakes and forest systems.

2. I am simply making the point that a hypothesis alone without challenge is not sufficient to create a bonefide Scientific theory. I used the Green Cheese analogy because that was specifically used by the lecturer running my research module classes when I did my Post grad.

I never said I was the smartest or made any claim to be in this field . Red and Enthalpic on this subject are leagues ahead of me.

3. The scare was created by the media not the science community.

4. From experience the press only print what suits them - I know that from first hand experience. The scientific community was not complicit in this hence the reason there are literally no research papers supporting the hypothesis that we were on the brink of an ice age. The press is much faster than science at forming an opinion because the press can simply make up unsubstantiated stories on a whim based on the weather today (sound familiar?) whereas for Science to formulate a theory it has to collect and collate the data, analyse the data. The data set has to be large enough to allow for statistically reliable analysis. The formulation of a theory has to be subject to extensive peer review. This all takes time In bonefide research universities (obviously not including Hamburger or Trump Uni)

5. I'm agnostic rather than Atheist. I was simply making the point there is not a singular piece of testable, empirical evidence to support the existence of a supreme being. That belief is simply based on faith.  In contrast AGW as a theory has a huge amount of empirical and testable evidence to support it yet you lot claim there isn't sufficient evidence for AGW but are dam sure the sky fairy exists.

6. The pain and anger comment -appears to be a stray into the ad hominems. I don't feel particularly angry or in pain. If you want to see that take a look at all the bold type responses

[NickW + 2,714]

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 2:41 AM, Illurion said:

none of what you say is true.....

universities and various research entities ROUTINELY publish all kinds of crap studies that are ROUTINELY DEBUNKED........

the 'aerosol effect"  as a supposed cause of the "hole in the ozone layer"  was DEBUNKED LONG AGO,  as it was proved that the "hole" opens and closes routinely every few decades,  and was caused by the effects of the SUN....

there is no consensus that supports global warming..........  there are only a group of people that "claim they are a consensus."

 

ps:   you stating that GOD DOES NOT EXIST is the equivalent of you saying that THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE.......

Provide one piece of testable evidence or an repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God.

I'm agnostic but more than happy to change my position subject to seeing the evidence.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 2:41 AM, Illurion said:

none of what you say is true.....

universities and various research entities ROUTINELY publish all kinds of crap studies that are ROUTINELY DEBUNKED........

the 'aerosol effect"  as a supposed cause of the "hole in the ozone layer"  was DEBUNKED LONG AGO,  as it was proved that the "hole" opens and closes routinely every few decades,  and was caused by the effects of the SUN....

there is no consensus that supports global warming..........  there are only a group of people that "claim they are a consensus."

 

ps:   you stating that GOD DOES NOT EXIST is the equivalent of you saying that THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE.......

So to the list of atmospheric phenomena you claim to be a scam we can add.

( 1) Aerosol impact on regional / global climate

( 2) Chloroflourocarbon depletion of stratospheric Ozone

Despite the fact that 1 can be seen occurring following major volcanic eruptions which coincidentally emit similar aerosols as industrial processes. 1 can easily be measured in a lab or by Satellites or by ground measurements

2. Can be easily measured in a lab by a chemist. The depletion of Ozone coincides with the rise in emissions of CFC's with no obvious other cause for that level of Ozone loss such as global nuclear war, major asteroid strike, gamma ray burster detonating in our local neighbourhood of the milky way.

I got this funny feeling you might be an anti vaxxer too. What are views on the 'scams' that smoking and asbestos damage health?