America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 7 years ago by tailgater. 144 replies replies.
3 Pages<123
Skit depicting Trump's assassination lands San Antonio teacher, students in hot water
opelmanta1900 Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
seriously, you've been asked to solidify your position with basic evidence and you can't... you might as well be a jehova's witness...
TMCTLT Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733

Joel....I know I don't need to tell you this but.....

Your wasting your time...and well time is well.....limited.
Brewha Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
opelmanta1900 wrote:
just say, "no, I haven't seen the data, I go off of what my religious leaders tell me"... just say it...

Given that neither one of us are climatologists, we all have to rely on the interpration and conclusion of experts. But hell - you went to high school and understand green house gasses right? You know we produce them in spades. You have seen the accelerating stinking in the ice caps, yes? I mean really, how smart do you really need to be to draw your own conclusion?


Here is your Easter egg:
"Where climate change is concerned, I believe NASA, The US Government, The DOD, The leaders of the nations of the world at the Paris Accords - and yes, Bill Nye."


Now - what is your faith on the subject my son?
opelmanta1900 Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
did you just call me son you little bitch?
victor809 Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
While likely none of us have seen raw climate data, we have seen the expert analysis of it.

Similarly I'm sure none of us have seen raw x-ray crystallography data of proteins, yet we accept a condensed statistical analysis of it from experts. I've accumulated and assessed reams of Fluorescence spectroscopy data and provided statistical analysis of it to make estimations of binding constants between a protein and a sugar. People did not need to look at my raw data to believe me. The raw data was available (as climate raw data is available) in the event someone wanted to try to replicate it or double check. This is no different.

If someone had a real, mathematically legitimate argument against existing climate models it would be more acceptable. But the arguments ive seen don't have that level of legitimacy.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
really? The arguments I've seen against all host the same complaint... the data is clearly cherry-picked... and the portions of raw data I have seen - experts were able to show where the data sets were made incomplete to support the hypothesis...
teedubbya Offline
#107 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
opelmanta1900 wrote:
did you just call me son you little bitch?



I think he misspelled sun.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#108 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
DrafterX Offline
#109 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,506
if climate change goes away how will they fund da welfare..?? Huh
Stinkdyr Offline
#110 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
If you are anti-climate change, then you should be in favor of ending welfare breeding.
If not, congrats, you are just another run of the mill, illiberal, lefty hypocrite!

Herfing
victor809 Offline
#111 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Opel... you complain about no access to raw data, then say you have read articles which provide evidence that the raw data is cherry picked... then just give me an article which is ....at absolute best... poor. In the first half the author demonstrated a very poor understanding of statistics and sample size... then just whined about abstracts.

Give me actual articles which state how the analysis of the data is wrong and provide an alternative analysis. The arguments on "the other side" which I have seen are generally not performed in a scientifically rigorous manner.

*disclaimer * while I believe anthropomorphic climate change is real, I don't actually care and don't have any desire to change our habits. I have no children and would be happier if I could ensure the entire planet is used up of all fun and/or necessary resources by the time I die. Anyone else's kids or grandkids **** off and die with me.
tailgater Offline
#112 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
While likely none of us have seen raw climate data, we have seen the expert analysis of it.

Similarly I'm sure none of us have seen raw x-ray crystallography data of proteins, yet we accept a condensed statistical analysis of it from experts. I've accumulated and assessed reams of Fluorescence spectroscopy data and provided statistical analysis of it to make estimations of binding constants between a protein and a sugar. People did not need to look at my raw data to believe me. The raw data was available (as climate raw data is available) in the event someone wanted to try to replicate it or double check. This is no different.

If someone had a real, mathematically legitimate argument against existing climate models it would be more acceptable. But the arguments ive seen don't have that level of legitimacy.


A. You had me at "reams"...
B. It's not a matter of data that doesn't compute. It's that it appears to be driven from the governments teet. Follow the money as they so often say.

We all know that the earth is 4,000 years old.
Oh, sorry, I thought this was the Noah's Ark convention.

the earth is umpteen billion years old. Man is a blip in the timeline.
Recorded data goes back a mere fraction of a blip.
Yet, in the course of only the last 30 years the data showed conclusively (add quotation marks where applicable) that the earth was freezing. No, wait. It's heating up. No, wait again. It's changing.
And the kicker? It's man's fault.
But wait. There's more:

It's not our clearing of the rain forests. Or the way we farm or raise cattle. or the way we damn up rivers and build stagnant bodies of water, then pollute those bodies of water. Or the way we build on our ocean's edge and change errossion and tidal flow. or our ever expanding concrete urban jungles that absorb and radiate the day's sunshine all night long. Or even our nearly exponential growth in population (which impacts all of the above activities)
Nope.
It's because we burn fossil fuels.

Because that's the only damaging thing we do that can be taxed.
I mean FIXED. That can be fixed.

NASA data only recently fell into line with the Algore-ologists.

Hell, we don't even know if the raising CO2 levels are a result or a cause of rising temps.

But the worst part about this is when sh*t-for-brain sheeple insist the science is conclusive and can't be discussed.

Remember, 30 years ago the science told us we were going to freeze like Nanook from the North.
It was conclusive.
Except that it wasn't.









tailgater Offline
#113 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
dam.

We dam up rivers.

Maybe they're damn rivers, but I meant that we dam them up. Not that we damn them to hell or anything.

Sorry for any confusion.

victor809 Offline
#114 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
... attacking the data because you don't like the suggested solution is dumb.

You realize it's OK to say "the data may be right but we're doing other bad things that may be causing it"... right? Things can be right but not the solution you want.

Going all in or all against is dumb in every topic
opelmanta1900 Offline
#115 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
I literally just grabbed the first article Google shot out and it actually does a very good job of showing how a very inaccurate statistic is used time and again by people trying to champion the hippie liberal douchebag agenda without an examination of the raw data...

And I didn't complain about not having access to raw data... i complained about people who are 100% convinced without having seen any raw data...

I believe the truth is in the middle somewhere... i don't want to bend mother earth over a smudge pot, but i don't think we're- as a race - warming the entire planet to a dangerous degree either... we should be responsible of course, but not drastic, and that doesn't seem to be a well represented point of view...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#116 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
victor809 wrote:
... attacking the data because you don't like the suggested solution is dumb.

You realize it's OK to say "the data may be right but we're doing other bad things that may be causing it"... right? Things can be right but not the solution you want.

Going all in or all against is dumb in every topic

Lol... did u just skip the first half of what he said? The part about 30 years of data being used to assess a billion year old planet?

ignoring the data because you don't like it's implications is no better than what you accuse tail of...
tailgater Offline
#117 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
... attacking the data because you don't like the suggested solution is dumb.

You realize it's OK to say "the data may be right but we're doing other bad things that may be causing it"... right? Things can be right but not the solution you want.

Going all in or all against is dumb in every topic


Actually, the data DOESN'T say that it's from fossil fuels.
There is a widely accepted conclusion that this is the case, but it's an assumption.

Look, there are three separate issues here:
1. is there climate change
2. is it man made
3. Are fossil fuels the major contributor


Unless ALL THREE are a resounding YES then there can be no reasonable taxation and legislation. But we're technically still discussion only #1, with 2 and 3 being simply assumed by the left.

It's a joke.
And since you're the most sciency guy on these boards I'm shocked that you don't see it.

for sake of argument, let's assume #1 is true.
To address #2 (and therefore #3) we must first determine what percentage of this change is man made.
And assuming that that our impact is meaningful, then we need to decipher which actions are preventable or can be modified.

My list above is just a discussion point off the top of my head. I assume there are a lot more ways that man impacts our environment and potentially our climate. But none of these are discussed. the implication when someone says "climate change" is always that it is man made by fossil fuel burning. Always.
But if anyone cries foul to this, we're called deniers.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#118 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Racist!
tailgater Offline
#119 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Applause
victor809 Offline
#120 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Tail, I don't disagree with your post at all.

... OK, now that you've had a chance to recover...

The problem is have is not with #2 or #3...

The problem is when someone works backwards from deciding they don't want any legislation around #3 therefore #1 must be a liberal conspiracy.

For what it's worth, when someone says climate change is don't think fossil fuels are considered the only impactor. Remember cfcs?...

Anyway, calling the whole thing a liberal conspiracy (from #1 through #3) because you don't like the options suggested in #3 is idiotic. Look at me as an example.

#1 I believe is accurate. The climate is likely becoming less habitable for us.
#2 I think there is a decent amount of impact is from people. People produce waste the same way as petri dish full of bacteria grows until the waste products (very little per cell) make it inhospitable. There are too many people.
#3 I don't care. The planet can last the next 50 years. I'm fine and your children smell anyway.

See? A lack of caring about fossil fuel regulation doesn't mean one has to decide that the bulk of scientists, especially those with what would be considered rigorous papers, think is accurate.
victor809 Offline
#121 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Opel. The paper cited a number of 97% papers and showed how they got 97%. He tried to criticize their sample size, but didn't seem to understand statistically significant figures. Then it showed studies of other sample groups which got 70-75% (not surprising as he changed sample groups)... a different number in a different sample group (explicitly stated, ie "members of x organization ") doesn't disprove a number derived from a different sample group (ie "all peer reviewed papers with a climate change topic").

People are believing the published assessment of the data. That's simply what you have to do unless you want to learn how to analyze it yourself. If a new assessment comes out contradicting it, in a manner that is scientifically rigorous, then I see no problem with changing my views.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#122 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Racist!
Brewha Offline
#123 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
opelmanta1900 wrote:
did you just call me son you little bitch?

Only metaphorically Opel. Pay it no mind.

If it makes you feel better I in no way consider you my offspring.

And let's remember that the pokes and jives are meant in fun. No reason to get angry.

Or where you not angry?
Brewha Offline
#124 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
DrafterX wrote:
if climate change goes away how will they fund da welfare..?? Huh

Ethanol.
Brewha Offline
#125 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
Stinkdyr wrote:
If you are anti-climate change, then you should be in favor of ending welfare breeding.
If not, congrats, you are just another run of the mill, illiberal, lefty hypocrite!

Herfing

And everyone who is really pro-life has adopted at least 2 children.


Yuk, yuk, yuk, r d r r
Brewha Offline
#126 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
tailgater wrote:
A. You had me at "reams"...
B. It's not a matter of data that doesn't compute. It's that it appears to be driven from the governments teet. Follow the money as they so often say.

We all know that the earth is 4,000 years old.
Oh, sorry, I thought this was the Noah's Ark convention.

the earth is umpteen billion years old. Man is a blip in the timeline.
Recorded data goes back a mere fraction of a blip.
Yet, in the course of only the last 30 years the data showed conclusively (add quotation marks where applicable) that the earth was freezing. No, wait. It's heating up. No, wait again. It's changing.
And the kicker? It's man's fault.
But wait. There's more:

It's not our clearing of the rain forests. Or the way we farm or raise cattle. or the way we damn up rivers and build stagnant bodies of water, then pollute those bodies of water. Or the way we build on our ocean's edge and change errossion and tidal flow. or our ever expanding concrete urban jungles that absorb and radiate the day's sunshine all night long. Or even our nearly exponential growth in population (which impacts all of the above activities)
Nope.
It's because we burn fossil fuels.

Because that's the only damaging thing we do that can be taxed.
I mean FIXED. That can be fixed.

NASA data only recently fell into line with the Algore-ologists.

Hell, we don't even know if the raising CO2 levels are a result or a cause of rising temps.

But the worst part about this is when sh*t-for-brain sheeple insist the science is conclusive and can't be discussed.

Remember, 30 years ago the science told us we were going to freeze like Nanook from the North.
It was conclusive.
Except that it wasn't.



A truly entertaining rant Tailgater. Bravo.

Some of my faves:

Umpteen = 4.5
NASA doesn't understand the climate.
Science cannot be conclusive.
We don't know if CO2 levels are causing a rise in temperature (that one is pure gold!)
The governments of the world have conspired to lies about Climate Change (I gathered this one, did I guess right?)

Keep those card and letters coming!

tailgater Offline
#127 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
A truly entertaining rant Tailgater. Bravo.

Some of my faves:

Umpteen = 4.5
NASA doesn't understand the climate.
Science cannot be conclusive.
We don't know if CO2 levels are causing a rise in temperature (that one is pure gold!)
The governments of the world have conspired to lies about Climate Change (I gathered this one, did I guess right?)

Keep those card and letters coming!



To keep things civil, I'll assume you're post is in jest.

Otherwise your comprehension skills prevent a reasonable discussion.

And do yourself a favor and study up on the CO2 thingy.
CO2 is higher today. Many claim that it therefore causes global warming (yes, warming).
Others point out that a warmer environment allows for higher levels of CO2 to exist in the atmosphere.
If you think this is "pure gold" it would be interesting to hear of your background.
And by "interesting" I mean "friggin hilarious".

And it's not a conspiracy when billions in tax dollars are involved. It's business as usual. That was the point. But I understand how you got lost. I blame myself. What, with no pictures or quotes from rachael maddow.

Happy Thanksgiving!
tailgater Offline
#128 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Tail, I don't disagree with your post at all.

... OK, now that you've had a chance to recover...

The problem is have is not with #2 or #3...

The problem is when someone works backwards from deciding they don't want any legislation around #3 therefore #1 must be a liberal conspiracy.

For what it's worth, when someone says climate change is don't think fossil fuels are considered the only impactor. Remember cfcs?...

Anyway, calling the whole thing a liberal conspiracy (from #1 through #3) because you don't like the options suggested in #3 is idiotic. Look at me as an example.

#1 I believe is accurate. The climate is likely becoming less habitable for us.
#2 I think there is a decent amount of impact is from people. People produce waste the same way as petri dish full of bacteria grows until the waste products (very little per cell) make it inhospitable. There are too many people.
#3 I don't care. The planet can last the next 50 years. I'm fine and your children smell anyway.

See? A lack of caring about fossil fuel regulation doesn't mean one has to decide that the bulk of scientists, especially those with what would be considered rigorous papers, think is accurate.


The conspiracy isn't in regards to actual climate change.
It always comes back to the cause.

Face it. If the entire world were to agree that the climate was changing, but there wasn't a push to "blame" human consumption of fossil fuels, then we wouldn't hear our politicians claim that climate change was the biggest challenge that needed to be faced. But they do. And they're not pushing for people to stop procreating or to do any of the other things on my haphazard list.
They ONLY push to tax fossil fuels and negotiate carbon credits. A term that shouldn't even exist.

The problem I have is that I think many of the proposals are truly beneficial based on reduced pollution alone. But it's against my nature to accept proposals that are based on a false premise.

So yeah. We mostly agree. Just don't tell anyone.

Brewha Offline
#129 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
tailgater wrote:
To keep things civil, I'll assume you're post is in jest.

Otherwise your comprehension skills prevent a reasonable discussion.

And do yourself a favor and study up on the CO2 thingy.
CO2 is higher today. Many claim that it therefore causes global warming (yes, warming).
Others point out that a warmer environment allows for higher levels of CO2 to exist in the atmosphere.
If you think this is "pure gold" it would be interesting to hear of your background.
And by "interesting" I mean "friggin hilarious".

And it's not a conspiracy when billions in tax dollars are involved. It's business as usual. That was the point. But I understand how you got lost. I blame myself. What, with no pictures or quotes from rachael maddow.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Tail, it wouldn't be Cbid with out the standard redassing when folks disagree. And a happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.


About the CO2 -

Of the gases in our air, most of the molecules with three or more atoms are considered "green house gases" because they reflect infrared radiation (read heat). So water vapor, H2O is one of them. Two hydrogen a, one oxygen, right? Now we all know the on a clear night it gets colder, and on a cloud covered night things tend to stay warm. The clouds (H2O) act like a reflective blanket.

Some of the big heat reflector gasses in our air are H20, CO2, CH4 (Methane) and CFC (chlorofluorocarbons - remember the ban on that stuff?) The reflective properties of these a very different, with CFC being the winner - quite bad indeed.

I would point to the charted data on the sharp rise in CO2 that coincides with the industry revolution. And the current size of the ice caps. But as we all see here on Cbid - there is no agency or organization with "acceptable data" on much of anyting. Yes - I believe NOAH, NASA, the DOD and so on. But who the hell are they right?

Anyway, the more greenhouse gasses are in the air, the more heat is reflected back to earth, warming it. So at least on this point there should be agreement. Should be.....

Now I'm not a scientist, just an engineer. But this looks like high school science to me.
tailgater Offline
#130 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
Tail, it wouldn't be Cbid with out the standard redassing when folks disagree. And a happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.


About the CO2 -

Of the gases in our air, most of the molecules with three or more atoms are considered "green house gases" because they reflect infrared radiation (read heat). So water vapor, H2O is one of them. Two hydrogen a, one oxygen, right? Now we all know the on a clear night it gets colder, and on a cloud covered night things tend to stay warm. The clouds (H2O) act like a reflective blanket.

Some of the big heat reflector gasses in our air are H20, CO2, CH4 (Methane) and CFC (chlorofluorocarbons - remember the ban on that stuff?) The reflective properties of these a very different, with CFC being the winner - quite bad indeed.

I would point to the charted data on the sharp rise in CO2 that coincides with the industry revolution. And the current size of the ice caps. But as we all see here on Cbid - there is no agency or organization with "acceptable data" on much of anyting. Yes - I believe NOAH, NASA, the DOD and so on. But who the hell are they right?

Anyway, the more greenhouse gasses are in the air, the more heat is reflected back to earth, warming it. So at least on this point there should be agreement. Should be.....

Now I'm not a scientist, just an engineer. But this looks like high school science to me.


Just one example:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

Scientific American is a PRO climate change website.
Read this short article which basically shows that historical global warming (tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago) shows a temperature increase, FOLLOWED by a rise in CO2 levels. As I stated previously, our atmosphere can hold higher levels when it gets warmer.

But the best part? I purposely chose a PRO climate change website because it shows what the (government funded) scientific community is doing.
They see data calling into question the relationship between CO2 and Warm temperatures, and they make an attempt to explain it away.
Instead of accepting "the most comprehensive data" available, they work to disprove it.

And their result? Instead of a 1400 year lag in CO2 spikes, it was reduced to a "mere" 200 years.
Still a lag, just closer to their PRECONCEIVED concept of what happens.

So maybe you were right.
This is pure gold.

For the record, I don't dismiss the notion that man made CO2 levels can cause climate change. I welcome the discussion. Which is where you and I differ, since you consider the current government funded conclusion as definitive.
Brewha Offline
#131 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
tailgater wrote:
Just one example:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

Scientific American is a PRO climate change website.
Read this short article which basically shows that historical global warming (tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago) shows a temperature increase, FOLLOWED by a rise in CO2 levels. As I stated previously, our atmosphere can hold higher levels when it gets warmer.

But the best part? I purposely chose a PRO climate change website because it shows what the (government funded) scientific community is doing.
They see data calling into question the relationship between CO2 and Warm temperatures, and they make an attempt to explain it away.
Instead of accepting "the most comprehensive data" available, they work to disprove it.

And their result? Instead of a 1400 year lag in CO2 spikes, it was reduced to a "mere" 200 years.
Still a lag, just closer to their PRECONCEIVED concept of what happens.

So maybe you were right.
This is pure gold.

For the record, I don't dismiss the notion that man made CO2 levels can cause climate change. I welcome the discussion. Which is where you and I differ, since you consider the current government funded conclusion as definitive.

I'm not sure what conclusion you are drawing from the article. It appears to be discussing the problem that gasses float to an upper layer of snow as it turns to ice - making the matching of the gasses to the time of the ice problematic.

CO2 is by no means the only mechanism to cause climate change. Before we were leaving a carbon foot print many of the heating cycles are assigned to debris in the air from volcanic activity, meteors and the like. Even setting that aside, do you feel this article offers evidence that CO2 does not effect the climate?

I take note that your calling SA a "Pro Climate Change" site. As though this were purely a political choice - like abortion. We disagree on this.

When you say "government funded conclusion", which government are you speaking of? There are ove 100 nations that signed onto the Paris Accords. They all have their own agencies and studies. CC is not just some American political football. Check it out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreementhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement



The real issues is the cost of limiting the emissions - because it cut into the profits of the biggest companies in the world - Oil and Gas.
Covfireman Offline
#132 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 809
It's useless to argue climate change. Facts are irrelevant . There are to many people who believe the BS that oil and gas industry puts out . Of course they argue your facts are admitting that they dismissed the facts because of the messenger and that they've been led astray by politicians that are just lining their pockets .


I will say our methods of dealing with climate change is screwed up . Why do we allow countries like China and India continue their polluting without severe economic penalties? If the less pouting countries charge those contrived a higher excise tax or just a plane tariff on those countries they would either clean up their act or their economy would suffer . At the same time goods produced in the less polluting countries would be more competitive. . That would increase the employment in those countries mainly the US and western Europe. That would increase wages in the contrived that drive the world's economy. That increase would improve consumer spending giving the big polluting contrived an additional incentive to improve.




* abortion should be looked at scientifically also but hey how do you convince someone who bases their life on a bunch of fairytales written a couple thousand years ago are FACTS . I'm waiting on Tawa and Masauwu .
Brewha Offline
#133 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
True....true....

But one of my many admitted character flaws is disagree with ideas that I don't.......agree with.

Anyway - I think we all have a duty to each other to call bullsh1t when we think that is the case.
frankj1 Offline
#134 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
so, global warming is killing Trump?
Covfireman Offline
#135 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 809
Brewha wrote:
True....true....

But one of my many admitted character flaws is disagree with ideas that I don't.......agree with.

Anyway - I think we all have a duty to each other to call bullsh1t when we think that is the case.



I'm glad someone has the fortitude to try to educate the uneducatable . I'm just sad that reading comprehension has fallen to the level it has .




I like how if you don't agree you're either a liberal looney or a right wing bible thumper . To many people just want to believe they made the right political decision and throw reason out the window . I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad the way we divide ourselves. *




* generalization no specific target altho it defines 2 here perfectly

Brewha Offline
#136 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
frankj1 wrote:
so, global warming is killing Trump?

If it did, what would happen to Man's quest for irony?
frankj1 Offline
#137 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Brewha wrote:
If it did, what would happen to Man's quest for irony?

not to mention Victor's ironing.
Brewha Offline
#138 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
Cbid really is a cornucopia of philosophical enigmas.......





Just sayin'
tailgater Offline
#139 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
I'm not sure what conclusion you are drawing from the article. It appears to be discussing the problem that gasses float to an upper layer of snow as it turns to ice - making the matching of the gasses to the time of the ice problematic.

CO2 is by no means the only mechanism to cause climate change. Before we were leaving a carbon foot print many of the heating cycles are assigned to debris in the air from volcanic activity, meteors and the like. Even setting that aside, do you feel this article offers evidence that CO2 does not effect the climate?


Actually, I was addressing your "pure gold" comment, and your scientific follow up. As far as the effect? I can't say that it proves a negative (as you are specifically asking). I'm saying that the "consensus" believers point to CO2 as a MAJOR cause, despite 400,000 years of evidence that questions this (and I'm being kind).

Brewha wrote:

I take note that your calling SA a "Pro Climate Change" site. As though this were purely a political choice - like abortion. We disagree on this.


They are indeed "pro CC" in that they not only believe man is causing it, but they're also willing to reinterpret hard data to potentially skew the data towards their preconceived conclusion. Brew, the BEST data available today shows that CO2 levels FOLLOWED periods of global warming. By as much as 1400 years. If this BEST data coincided with their predetermined conclusion, you can bet your bottom dollar that they wouldn't have dug deeper to find those tiny bubbles. And if someone else did, they'd conclude that it didn't matter, since 200 years is still POST warming by a long shot.


Brewha wrote:

When you say "government funded conclusion", which government are you speaking of? There are ove 100 nations that signed onto the Paris Accords. They all have their own agencies and studies. CC is not just some American political football. Check it out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreementhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

The real issues is the cost of limiting the emissions - because it cut into the profits of the biggest companies in the world - Oil and Gas.


America is the tail that wags the Dog. How many of those 100 nations would be doing this without American support and leadership?
That, of course, is a rhetorical question.

And I agree that oil and gas is fighting this. They have much to lose, while Uncle Sam has much to gain.

I've said this before, but I agree with most of the protocols, because it will address the real issue of pollution.
And renewable energy is needed as our population continues to grow.

I just abhor the false premise and the money grab.


Brewha Offline
#140 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
tailgater wrote:
Actually, I was addressing your "pure gold" comment, and your scientific follow up. As far as the effect? I can't say that it proves a negative (as you are specifically asking). I'm saying that the "consensus" believers point to CO2 as a MAJOR cause, despite 400,000 years of evidence that questions this (and I'm being kind).



They are indeed "pro CC" in that they not only believe man is causing it, but they're also willing to reinterpret hard data to potentially skew the data towards their preconceived conclusion. Brew, the BEST data available today shows that CO2 levels FOLLOWED periods of global warming. By as much as 1400 years. If this BEST data coincided with their predetermined conclusion, you can bet your bottom dollar that they wouldn't have dug deeper to find those tiny bubbles. And if someone else did, they'd conclude that it didn't matter, since 200 years is still POST warming by a long shot.




America is the tail that wags the Dog. How many of those 100 nations would be doing this without American support and leadership?
That, of course, is a rhetorical question.

And I agree that oil and gas is fighting this. They have much to lose, while Uncle Sam has much to gain.

I've said this before, but I agree with most of the protocols, because it will address the real issue of pollution.
And renewable energy is needed as our population continues to grow.

I just abhor the false premise and the money grab.




The point of the article is that scientists were getting bad information from the samples, obviously bad information, since they all know that original readings fly in the face of logic. And they figured out that the gas bubbles were floating up to higher layers......



tailgater Offline
#141 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
The point of the article is that scientists were getting bad information from the samples, obviously bad information, since they all know that original readings fly in the face of logic. And they figured out that the gas bubbles were floating up to higher layers......





The best data available for years showed that CO2 levels rose after temperature spikes.
Despite this, we're being told that the science is settled. There is a consensus.
The scientists in this article were the first to publish anything showing the gas bubble issue. And they did so because the data didn't fit their preconceived beliefs.

Ice data has been our best tie to climate trends over time. And the data has been consistently ignored or explained away.
I think the findings in this article are important. But the fact that it doesn't concern you in the least that your settled consensus completely ignored such a glaring contradiction speaks volumes about the willingness for serious debate.



tailgater Offline
#142 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
And I should note (again) that even with the gas bubble correction, the data shows a 200 year lag between temperature and CO2 levels. Showing that CO2 was an effect, not a cause.
Brewha Offline
#143 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
tailgater wrote:
The best data available for years showed that CO2 levels rose after temperature spikes.
Despite this, we're being told that the science is settled. There is a consensus.
The scientists in this article were the first to publish anything showing the gas bubble issue. And they did so because the data didn't fit their preconceived beliefs.

Ice data has been our best tie to climate trends over time. And the data has been consistently ignored or explained away.
I think the findings in this article are important. But the fact that it doesn't concern you in the least that your settled consensus completely ignored such a glaring contradiction speaks volumes about the willingness for serious debate.


Seriously - I don't feel that you are approching this with the best scientific methodology.

The warming effect of CO2 can be demonstrated - this is not a point of debate. It is expected that ice samples would, in some cases, bare this out. Assuming the historic warning trend was attributed to CO2 - which is not always the case. But the article says that they now know why the CO2 to warming event measurements have been corrupted. And by dating the associated nitrogen, they can make accurate corrections.

Maybe this helps:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the time disparity does not mean that CO2 is not an issue.
tailgater Offline
#144 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
Seriously - I don't feel that you are approching this with the best scientific methodology.

The warming effect of CO2 can be demonstrated - this is not a point of debate. It is expected that ice samples would, in some cases, bare this out. Assuming the historic warning trend was attributed to CO2 - which is not always the case. But the article says that they now know why the CO2 to warming event measurements have been corrupted. And by dating the associated nitrogen, they can make accurate corrections.

Maybe this helps:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the time disparity does not mean that CO2 is not an issue.


Forrest, meet the trees.
You get bogged down when it suits your viewpoint.
I'm not honestly prepared to discuss the ice core results themselves. I use them to point out the willingness of the settled-consensus crowd to ignore any data that doesn't fit their preconceived conclusion.

Look at your words regarding the warming effect of CO2: "this is not a point of debate".
While it may not be our debate, it actually remains an open discussion among those with an open perspective. True, CO2 will warm the air, but it is believed it might only be in close proximity and may not have measurable impact on overall climate.

Heck, I was recently reading an article about the ice in the Antarctic. Seems that it's been pretty constant over the last 100+ years. Down a little, then up a little. But overall the same.
Which is interesting. Since the diminishing ice in the Arctic is the #1, in-your-face PROOF that shows climate change is real.

And I'm sure that there will be an explanation on why this doesn't matter.
But it's funny when One melting polar ice cap is guaranteed proof, while one constant polar ice cap doesn't matter.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123