|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..40..77..114..151..187~188~189~190~191..198..204..210..216..222..224~225~226 [Next] | ||||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2018, R.S. wrote: Read above for both sides having an agenda.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7491 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2018, R.S. wrote: Not similar, way worse climatic episodes in the past. Way more drastic than anything happening in the present.
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 24, 2018, RNK wrote: RNK, as I said, even if we grant that the episodes were more drastic in the past, it still doesn't disprove present day anthropogenic cc. See this... https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate......riod.htm And, do you consider NASA and NOAA to be credible sources of information? Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
So we go with a non disprovable theory like astrology. Great plan.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 24, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: Only an Aries would say something as daft as that. Ron PS - Are you equating astrology with climate science?
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
No. I was addressing your personal comment of "RNK, as I said, even if we grant that the episodes were more drastic in the past, it still doesn't disprove present day anthropogenic cc".
It is YOU I was addressing, not climate science. Just like I can claim a giant racoon farted and caused the big bang. The fact that you can't disprove it in no way makes it plausible. I was addressing how dumb that theory is. Not if climate science is right or wrong. So I an equating true believers of EVERYTHING put forth that moves a big government agenda forward like you with astrology. You dutifully parrot every talking point needed. Good for you. The earth is still under attack. Literally not figuratively under attack each and every day. But useful idiots on each side keep falling for wedge issues to argue and feel superior about. How silly. They wind them up like dogs getting ready for a walk. Meanwhile each side gets more wealthy. They show up in Washington with a $160,000 a year paycheck and in 2 years are worth millions. But tell the people climate is changing so they don't notice. Scream abortion and gun control every now and then too. Never DO ANYTHING about it but keep mentioning it so they are kept busy. Congrats on being the smartest guy in the room.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 24, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: Wait, are you saying that climate science is not "plausible"?? Not sure what your rant is about. RNK made a statement that seemed to be intended to discredit climate science because of long ago changes in the climate. I merely pointed out that regardless of what happened in the past, present day science supports anthropogenic cc. That's all. And when did I EVER advocate for policy that "moves a big government agenda forward"?????? What "talking points" are you referring to? I have NEVER claimed that we need to be doing "X" in regards to climate change. I have only argued that the scientific consensus supports climate change. That's it! Before we can even start talking about what to do about anthropogenic cc, we need to first agree that it's occurring. That's been my sole intent in these threads. For you to read something else into my statements about the science is more indicative of your knee-jerk reactions than anything else. So how about you stop imputing motives and agendas to everyone and everything and instead just address the actual comments? And I now realize that I was mistaken about you. Only a Taurus - not an Aries - would have such knee-jerk reactions. Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7491 Posts |
There is no consensus that GW exists.
"So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with. Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”." https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2......43d53bb3
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 24, 2018, R.S. wrote: Please, Astrology has proven useful for thousands of years across continents and civilizations. Climate science is not even in its infancy. Or perhaps you believe that "they" strategically loose butterflies to cause weather changes elsewhere?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts |
Personally, I'm partial to reading the patterns in a pile of chicken bones.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2018, NYCTwister wrote: Not so fast. https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic......warming/ "Cleaning Up Air Pollution May Strengthen Global Warming" "That means efforts worldwide to clean up the air may cause an increase in warming, as well as other climate effects, as this pollution disappears." "New research is helping to quantify just how big that effect might be. A study published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters suggests that eliminating the human emission of aerosols—tiny, air-polluting particles often released by industrial activities—could result in additional global warming of anywhere from half a degree to 1 degree Celsius. This would virtually ensure that the planet will warm beyond the most stringent climate targets outlined in the Paris climate agreement. " "These results are in line with other studies that have investigated the cooling "mask" of aerosols. A 2016 paper published in Nature Geoscience found that up to a half-degree Celsius of the warming that has been observed in the Arctic—the most rapidly warming region on the planet—since 1980 was caused by pollution reductions in Europe." |
|||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts |
Oh well, I guess we should just accept that we're doomed.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 25, 2018, RNK wrote: Setting the record straight... First, there most certainly is a scientific consensus that GW exists. Second, you go on to post a quote and a link which ostensibly supports your claim that "There is no consensus that GW exists." However, the article you linked to seems to argue a different point - that there is no consensus regarding taking action on, or the effects of, climate change - not that there is no consensus on climate change itself. From paragraph 2: Quote:
Consensus momentum regarding action on climate change? and from paragraph 5 (italics is mine): Quote:
As Joseph Bast, who heads the Heartland Institute points out, "It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW (Anthropogenic human-caused) global warming is or will be a catastrophe... Furthermore, Larry Bell, the author of the article, is mentioned in an excerpt of this article: The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change https://www.skepticalscience.com/consensusforbes.html Quote:
Larry Bell in Forbes And then there's this regarding the "no consensus" myth: https://skepticalscience.com/global-warm......iate.htm Lastly, you still haven't answered this: Do you consider NASA and NOAA to be credible sources of scientific information? Please answer. Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 25, 2018, R.S. wrote: If by "credible sources of scientific information", you mean that 1. I accept everything they say without question and 2. That they are totally devoid of an bias, then the answer is no and no. On the one hand, much (most?) of the work they do is very good and obviously scientifically sound. The work NASA does with regards to outer space is fantastic! I hope we continue to explore the Cosmos and I hope that as a country, we bring back the pioneering spirit we had in the 60's when we walked on the moon. On the other hand, I think their continued adjustments of historical climate data is highly suspect and I have no doubt that they have been as involved in 'climate gate' shenanigans as many others were. |
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 25, 2018, NYCTwister wrote: I see you're kinda a 'glass half-empty' kinda guy. |
|||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts |
Nah,
But it's obvious you're a "It hurts to sit down" kinda guy
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7491 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 25, 2018, RNK wrote: Another article stating the same thing as the last one I posted: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/42......n-tuttle Not 97% Consensus!
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 26, 2018, RNK wrote: ...nine out of ten dentists agree... Archimedes' lever ... Pascal's wager... in quiditch it's a golden snitch... imagine how good you can feel when you ... um... what specifically are you doing?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
Al Gore would have lost global warming bet, academic says
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/01/2......ays.html |
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 25, 2018, rockwall wrote: There are well over a couple hundred prestigious worldwide scientific bodies that endorse anthropogenic cc. Below is just a partial list... American Ass. For The Advancement of Science American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Medical Ass. American Meteorological Society American Physical Society The Geological Society of America U.S. National Academy of Sciences U.S. Global Change Research Program American Institute of Physics Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change American Society of Agronomy American Public Health Ass. American Statistical Ass. Botanical Society of America Ecological Society of America National Association of Marine Laboratories American Society of Plant Biologists The Royal Society of U.K. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics International Union for Quaternary Research Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Royal Meteorological Society (U.K.) World Meteorological Organization Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society World Health Organization Do you think they're ALL involved in some sort of shenanigans/conspiracy along with NASA and NOAA? Do you think CO2 emissions in the atmosphere have ANY effect on climate? Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (153 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..40..77..114..151..187~188~189~190~191..198..204..210..216..222..224~225~226 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.13 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |