Jump to content

The Folly of Ignoring Climate Change


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Funny that you believe ^this is not JUST YOUR BULLSHIT.

"Actual scientists" say a lot of different things, but YOUR LIST of DENIERS is VERY SHORT.

And probably not even CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

If you're trying to say something, you fell short.

Quote

Someone is paying a LOT to promote that pipeline.

No, just people who are smart talk about it a lot.

Quote

Not producing the dirtiest oil does not let production "atrophy." 

So I guess that not having wells drilled or pipelines in place or thousands more people working in the industry and dozens of large companies with hundreds of millions of dollars in specialized equipment on the ground isn't the opposite of letting production atrophy. We can just turn off oil production for a few years and then turn it back on at the flick of the switch. Gotcha. Thanks for the "info" genius.

Quote

Thanks for your stupid and IGNORANT OPINION. NOT.

 You're on a roll.

Quote

Far from it. Just a BIG MOUTH.

Still goin'.

Quote

You're just SCARED.

Ho hum.

Quote

You believing tech progress is stupid just means that you're stupid.

No, I didn't say that tech progress is stupid.

I said that "thinking that growing our green tech sector will just replace all of our lost fossil fuel revenue is stupid".

FYI it's a completely different thing altogether. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Moving on? Hardly.

You could also use the other article where they say this:

That's also true. OK it's more "James Hansen did the climate model used by Ice Ageists to support their theory" but basically, Potayto, Potahto.

They built the model and their theory using his computer program, other tools and they came to their own conclusions.  It's not even to say that they were WRONG about the ice age, you would have to see their assumptions as per Hansen's note.

This is an effort to make it look like Hansen predicted an ice age, which isn't true.  Hansen hadn't done his PhD dissertation yet I think, still being in his 20s when he helped with this.

 This is a big nothing to me.  Why don't you actually talk about how many papers supported a natural ice age approaching and how they were received by climate science ?  I think the answer is that the troll blogs don't provide that to us.

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, herbie said:

If you think climate change is not real, or that we shouldn't even try to do something because it's natural, or because someone else isn't doing something

Why? Who's saying that? As I understand the argument it goes more like Warmageddon most likely isn't coming. There's no real definitive science showing it is. But if crises and catastrophes are coming the better response is the one we've always used. Adaptation. In fact we're better equipped for that right now with fewer consequences than using mitigation with carbon taxes, windmills, solar farms, global governance or whatever other useless manipulation a globalist or Progressive Socialist can come up with.

Edited by Infidel Dog
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

@Infidel Dog what happened to THIS thread ?  Did you move on from it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They built the model and their theory using his computer program, other tools and they came to their own conclusions.  It's not even to say that they were WRONG about the ice age, you would have to see their assumptions as per Hansen's note.

Hansen's model said CO2 warming wasn't powerful enough that you had to worry about it stalling an ice age. So it's not powerful enough to stop natural cooling but it is powerful enough to bring about Warmageddon. Something's rotten in the state of Jimmy there if he's saying both. And apparently he has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Lots of them are named.  Start with Michael Mann and thousands of cites to his 1998 paper.  

I made a list with lots of names. And there are a lot of people who don't want to speak up because their careers are on the line. Everyone loves Galileo, but no one wants to end up like him. 

Quote

2. Unrelated, kitchen sink stuff... please try to focus.

It's not unrelated. People who were sucked in by covid vaccines and Santa Claus and MMGW are all the same.

Quote

3. Because you and your ilk are failing to convince people of conspiracy theories.  As the internet matures, people are starting to realize that there are so many trolls telling us that we shouldn't believe our eyes that we should ignore them (ie. you).  Science means something.  The cover of OMNI magazine or some other tripe does not.

Again - try not to get upset reading this.  Just give some facts.  You provided a real new magazine - Forbes - as evidence but seem to be ignoring what they themselves said about STRONG consensus.  So be it.

People of your ilk still say "The gesundheitspass served a greater purpose" and "Calling unvaxxed people racists and misogynists was ok" and "The vaccines work and they're safe" and you know what? It's getting old, fast. 

Someone waited too long to tell you that Santa wasn't real and you grew up willing to believe that "nothing has to make sense, it just has to be on TV".

FYI your takeaway from the Forbes articles shouldn't be "strong consensus" imo. If I was in your boots, I'd be more worried about the fact that I had been spewing bullshit all this time. 

Quote

This was a good conversation, I hope you learned something.  Cheers.

I know that I at least helped you see some truth, so it was a start. Cheerioooo. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Infidel Dog said:

1. Hansen's model said CO2 warming wasn't powerful enough that you had to worry about it stalling an ice age. So it's not powerful enough to stop natural cooling but it is powerful enough to bring about Warmageddon. Something's rotten in the state of Jimmy there if he's saying both. And apparently he has.

1. You're not addressing his points or mine though.  You can't call it 'his' model if he's only providing software to the scientists publishing the findings.  If you have evidence that his software was flawed please provide that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

@Infidel Dog what happened to THIS thread ?  Did you move on from it ?

Not sure what you're talking about. "This thread?" Which thread? In this thread I said there were other influences of warming and many arguments against the idea human caused CO2 was the only influence on climate. There's an argument that Milankovitch cycles can offer one of the multitude of influences on climate available to the hodge podge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Not sure what you're talking about. "This thread?" Which thread? In this thread I said there were other influences of warming and many arguments against the idea human caused CO2 was the only influence on climate. There's an argument that Milankovitch cycles can offer one of the multitude of influences on climate available to the hodge podge.

You posted a bunch of alternate theories explaining climate change.  I picked one - Milankovitch Cycles - and responded with an article that explained why they're not significant.  Did you read that ?

Are we have a dialogue ?  If so, it kind of goes both ways - isn't that just fair ?  If you put something out as a point of interest, we should both talk about it and either settle it or agree to disagree.  Or ... ?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You're not addressing his points or mine though.  You can't call it 'his' model if he's only providing software to the scientists publishing the findings.  If you have evidence that his software was flawed please provide that.

It's a climate model produced by software dummy. The "climate program" they're talking about in the Washington times article is a climate model. Do you at least know what that is? Climate models were a thing Hansen was famous for. He had hundreds predicting climate catastrophe and a few that even told us if certain conditions were applied maybe it wouldn't be so bad.

Now you if you use your limited searches you'll only hear about the few that weren't so reactionary and managed to stay close to the known climate we've seen but not the many that tell us "OMGs we're all gonna die!!!". But they are both climate models - just as the Venus "climate program" telling us not to worry too much about the power of CO2 to slow a glacial ice age was a climate model. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. It's a climate model produced by software dummy.
2. The "climate program" they're talking about in the Washington times article is a climate model. Do you at least know what that is? Climate models were a thing Hansen was famous for. He had hundreds predicting climate catastrophe and a few that even told us if certain conditions were applied maybe it wouldn't be so bad.
3. Now you if you use your limited searches you'll only hear about the few that weren't so reactionary and managed to stay close to the known climate we've seen
4. but not the many that tell us "OMGs we're all gonna die!!!".
 

1. If you read his explanation, it isn't that at all.  And you're calling me names now which tells me you're frustrated that the article you cut/pasted isn't convincing me.  Please stop... I will only engage with you as long as it's pleasant.
2. Yes I do.  If you read what he provided the researchers it wasn't a full model it was something they could use in their paper. I already talked about that.
3. Well to be honest i lost interest in this after dozens of false rabbit holes such as this one saying that Hansen created a model that predicted the ice age.  
4. Climate Papers talk about warming, and so on, they don't say "we're going to die".  Thats media and you keep confusing the two.

I think we're going around in circles on this.  Hansen wasn't creating climate models as a grad student, so let's move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You posted a bunch of alternate theories explaining climate change.  I picked one - Milankovitch Cycles - and responded with an article that explained why they're not significant.  Did you read that ?

Not even the warmists at NASA GISS would tell us Milakovitch cycles aren't a climate influence. And no, I didn't hear them say Milankovitch Cycles were not an influence. I heard them say such orbital cycles weren't an influence that mattered much to current warming. But that's fine. There are others who think they are. And that also was my point. That what you're told to believe and what you'd like to believe is not "The Science" as in the only science. Science is about debate until the more complete truth gradually makes its way to the surface. There's even a name for it. It's called the "Scientific Method." Something political influenced warmism seems determined to leave behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


2. Yes I do.  If you read what he provided the researchers it wasn't a full model it was something they could use in their paper. I already talked about that.

See this is what I was talking about when I mentioned how Hansen likes to parse language to cover up the fact his predictions failed.

So what you seem to be saying is because a computer program was used to create the model Rasool used to show how CO2 couldn't prevent the cooling necessary to create an ice age that it wasn't the model but only the program that needs to be mentioned and therefore everything else becomes false.

And to that I simply reply, Bullshit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Not even the warmists at NASA GISS would tell us Milakovitch cycles aren't a climate influence. And no, I didn't hear them say Milankovitch Cycles were not an influence. I heard them say such orbital cycles weren't an influence that mattered much to current warming. But that's fine. There are others who think they are. And that also was my point. That what you're told to believe and what you'd like to believe is not "The Science" as in the only science. Science is about debate until the more complete truth gradually makes its way to the surface. There's even a name for it. It's called the "Scientific Method." Something political influenced warmism seems determined to leave behind.

No, I read past that statement to the rationale.  Their reasons make solid sense.  I'm not 'told to believe ', I ask for explanation and investigate further.

It's not they said/they said as you imply.  We can look into these questions beyond the summary that some people provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

See this is what I was talking about when I mentioned how Hansen likes to parse language to cover up the fact his predictions failed.

So what you seem to be saying is because a computer program was used to create the model Rasool used to show how CO2 couldn't prevent the cooling necessary to create an ice age that it wasn't the model but only the program that needs to be mentioned and therefore everything else becomes false.

And to that I simply reply, Bullshit.

But... Why?  There were reasons given.  Hansen even explains what his software did, with regards to light defraction.

I read that and said "hmmm I see.... The paper was about global temperatures, and Hansen's program formulated light defraction.  They're not the same thing, therefore the claim that he predicted an ice age is false"

I investigated the claims and the response.  With your response, I don't see where else to go with the conversation.  All I can surmise is that you think he's lying I guess.

I need more info to come to that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

Asking questions is great and healthy. Not listening to the answers that are provided is less so. If you don't have any ability to conduct climate science yourself (applies to any specialty), then you turn to the experts for answers, right? And when every climate scientist is telling you that yes, mankind is driving climate change, that's your answer. 

It's not "drinking koolaid" to listen to experts who are doing the work that you can't or don't do yourself. It's just basic, rational behavior. 

If you don't have any qualification or capability as a cardiologist, but 100 of 100 cardiologists tell you fried foods are killing you, and you say "Hm, I'm not convinced," what is that?

O.....

Healthy skepticism is great, .... I don't know what your particular entanglement is, ....

Thing is, not 100 out of 100 are in agreement. There are doubters and those that will show their evidence against it..   http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

I am not going to carry on with you as you seem to be one of those evangelists and they turn me off and I tune out.

No insult. You sound like those anti vaxxers in rthe other threads with your posts to me. I just do not want to be preached to, by anyone, for anything. I have no entanglement.

I will say one last time , I do believe there is climate change.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ExFlyer said:

Thing is, not 100 out of 100 are in agreement. There are doubters and those that will show their evidence against it..

I am not going to carry on with you as you seem to be one of those evangelists and they turn me off and I tune out.

No insult. You sound like those anti vaxxers with your posts to me. I just do not want to be preached to, by anyone, for anything. I have no entanglement.

I will say one last time , I do believe there is climate change.

Hah. I think you've got our roles reversed here. The medical community has an overwhelming consensus that vaccines are safe and effective. There are a few crackpots and discredited liars out there who sow FUD that undermines that consensus and the anti-vaxxers glom onto an extreme minority opinion rather than accepting the settled science.

The exact same scenario has played out in climate science. Overwhelming consensus among scientists -- and near unanimity among climate scientists -- yet some people find themselves drawn to (usually unqualified) fringe dissenters to pretend that the science isn't settled. It is. Overwhelmingly so. 

You, sir, and the other folks who remain "unconvinced" of mankind's influence on climate change, are the anti-vaxxers in this situation. 

And the problem in both cases is not merely philosophical or academic. The anti-vaxxers and climate deniers are creating the appearance of controversy where, scientifically speaking, there is none. It undermines the urgency for action and leads people to make choices that ultimately harm themselves and their communities. Whether it's a suburban soccer mom who's unvaxxed kid kills a pediatric cancer patient in a measles outbreak or some a-hole in a 1-ton diesel "rolling coal" to smoke out a nearby Prius, these people translate FUD into harm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 11:17 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. These changes are considered to be pretty much understood.  Volcanic activity and such explains it.  The causes of current climate change are as certain as you can get in climate science.  
2. 3. Fair - but that's politics.  Politicians also show up at the scene of a disaster and start passing out paper towels etc.  It's really a side issue.  Al Gore is not a climate scientist.  

Actually Gore studied the climate under a guy who was perhaps the grandfather of the climate freak out. Then years later, this scientist somewhat "softened" his doomsday theories...

So AL stabbed him in the back claiming the man was old and feeble minded.

AL Gore...a real compassionate person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But... Why?  There were reasons given.  Hansen even explains what his software did, with regards to light defraction.

I read that and said "hmmm I see.... The paper was about global temperatures, and Hansen's program formulated light defraction.  They're not the same thing, therefore the claim that he predicted an ice age is false"

I investigated the claims and the response.  With your response, I don't see where else to go with the conversation.  All I can surmise is that you think he's lying I guess.

I need more info to come to that conclusion.

See this is why it's kind of pointless to give a Progressive both sides when they ask for a cite. 

They'll only read the side that favors them then strut around like they're all of a sudden experts on the issue you just told them about a post ago.

I think the problem now is you don't understand the difference between a program and the model it creates.

Climate models happen when a program parses data into readable predictions of what to expect when conditions meet the programmed structure. Models make predictions. Programs create them.

So now do you understand what the first cite I gave  you was saying? Or are you still locked into only considering the one I generously gave you showing Hansen's denial after the prediction of an ice age didn't happen.

Here the fist cite again so you can actually read it this time:

"

"Hansen’s climate model says ice age to occur by 2021, ‘no need to worry about CO2’

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/flashback-hansens-climate-model-says.html

Flashback from the Washington Times, July 9, 1971, a NASA scientist using a “computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen” predicted an ice age would occur within 50-60 years. According to Hansen’s computer model, “they found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere.”

Here's a question for you. If a glacial ice age did happen do you think Hansen would be denying that the model his program created worked?

Edited by Infidel Dog
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Actually Gore studied the climate under a guy who was perhaps the grandfather of the climate freak out. Then years later, this scientist somewhat "softened" his doomsday theories...

So AL stabbed him in the back claiming the man was old and feeble minded.

AL Gore...a real compassionate person.

Roger Revelle was Gore's professor at Harvard and a climate expert who discovered how CO2 follows a seasonal cycle with a significant upwards component.

No evidence for the other conclusions YOU'VE drawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 8:04 AM, Rebound said:

....While petroleum will continue to meet significant parts of our energy needs for many decades to come, we need to stop politicizing the move to new technology. All of warfare in history has always been won by the nation with the better technology and the better production capability. America must seize on the opportunity to be an alternative energy leader, if we are to remain a world leader. 

 

Demanding that America remain a world leader is still politicizing the move to alternative energy.   About 80% of the world's economy was powered by fossil fuels as of 2019, hence the term "hydrocarbon economy".   The United States (and allies) have a huge interest and investment in remaining the "leader" there as well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just more evidence that many scientists must be wacked out on some drug.

quote

Scientists have revealed that an ancient shark with paired spines and bony armor may be humans’ earliest ancestor. The Paleozoic fossil was retrieved from a site in Shiqian County in Guizhou Province, South China. With the finding, scientists have come to understand the existence of human sharks.    unquote

Humans Are Descended From Sharks, Scientists Reveal (msn.com)

Darwinism or Evolutionism has been strongly debunked in various books.  The transitional fossils just are not there;  they don't exist to show evolution from one species to another.  But occasionally some scientist or paleontologist finds some bones of something and uses it to fabricate a fantastic story.  These are useful to make a name for one's self and get funding.  But they don't add anything to the subject.  They do however confuse a lot more people who are borderline confused already.

Just goes to show you can't believe everything you hear or read.

human shark.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Roger Revelle was Gore's professor at Harvard and a climate expert who discovered how CO2 follows a seasonal cycle with a significant upwards component.

No evidence for the other conclusions YOU'VE drawn.

CO2 is a trace gas in atmosphere to begin with and man's contribution is only 3% of that miniscule amount.  The total CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 PPM.  Of that Canada's fossil fuel contribution is about 0.18 PPM, next to nothing.  The chances of man being the cause of climate change is negligible enough to say non-existent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,764
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    RevolutionPartyofCanada
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Mentor
    • Matthew went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Matthew earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • User went up a rank
      Veteran
    • PoliFile earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...