What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled [W:154]

Renae · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

iguanaman said:
We expel Co2 BECAUSE it is poisonous to us. It would kill us if we didn't. That is not the worst of your mistakes. You seem to believe in a conspiracy theory about scientists but neglect the fact that the money and power exists in the fossil fuel producers who's existence is threatened by AGW. Scientists can pursue other research they don't "need" AGW. What would Exxon/Mobil sell in a world without fossil fuels? Who has the most reason to protect their interests at all costs?

Your big mistake is agreeing with Slevin.

Renae · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

SlevinKelevra said:
Not really.

/shrug, you keep trucking with that, I won't stop you, it's funny.

longview · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

SlevinKelevra said:
what a god-damn idiot

you can throw this "read" in the trash bin.

any idiot who would write the following obviously knows NOTHING about science, in any shape or form.

oooops

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia
Carbon Dioxide Poisoning - Springer
Ventilatory and cardiovascular responses to hypercapnia and hypoxia in multiple-system atrophy. - PubMed - NCBI

No wonder this cretin can't understand simple things like vibrational modes and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Misquote much?
The actual quote for bullet 5 was,

5
CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.

and bullet 6 said,

6
There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

Why was it necessary for you to mix quotes from two sections?

SlevinKelevra · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

longview said:
Misquote much?
The actual quote for bullet 5 was,

and bullet 6 said,

Why was it necessary for you to mix quotes from two sections?

I already fixed that, keep up.

longview · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

SlevinKelevra said:
I already fixed that, keep up.

I am not sure you did, You see, you quoted only a small portion of bullet 6.

6
There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

I have boded the portion you quoted, in it's full context, it is clear he is speaking of CO2 concentrations Humans live in every day.

SlevinKelevra · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

longview said:
I am not sure you did, You see, you quoted only a small portion of bullet 6.

I have boded the portion you quoted, in it's full context, it is clear he is speaking of CO2 concentrations Humans live in every day.

I'm quite sure I did. There is no context. He spoke in absolute form.

Renae · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

longview said:
I am not sure you did, You see, you quoted only a small portion of bullet 6.

I have boded the portion you quoted, in it's full context, it is clear he is speaking of CO2 concentrations Humans live in every day.

Slevin is playing semantics games because semantics allows him to ignore inconvenient truths and focus on absurdities.

longview · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

SlevinKelevra said:
I'm quite sure I did. There is no context. He spoke in absolute form.

Believe what you will, but using that cherry picked comment as a basis disregard the entire article, is weak at best.

longview · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Renae said:
Slevin is playing semantics games because semantics allows him to ignore inconvenient truths and focus on absurdities.

But does he apply the same test, to the IPCC reports?

Renae · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

longview said:
But does he apply the same test, to the IPCC reports?

Why would he? He believes in the IPCC. Anything that isn't IPCC just HAS to be big oil funded greed at the expense of the children! For to doubt the IPCC might mean that's he's been wrong, and when you're wrong on something of this scale then you have to question your entire belief system.

It's not about if the IPCC Science is solid or not, it's about the political ends and means to reach it that are important. Take away one foundational brick and it all falls down.

Poor Debater · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Renae said:
You once again live up to your name, bravo!

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-4-Temperature.pdf

That link, took me two seconds to find, it was in the essay, as a reference.

And that essay is non-peer-reviewed junk science. The Denizens of Denierstan show us once again that they cannot read anything, and will not read real science.

Renae said:
You see all those underlined phrases link somewhere to give the doubtful reader more information, so they can judge for themselves whether or not the point being made is accurate. You are of course, free to make your silly claims, but...

My "silly" claim was that your source did not cite Royer, which is a central source in the field. Your reply failed to refute that claim, or even to address it.

So I guess you're the silly one.

Renae · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Poor Debater said:
And that essay is non-peer-reviewed junk science. The Denizens of Denierstan show us once again that they cannot read anything, and will not read real science.

My "silly" claim was that your source did not cite Royer, which is a central source in the field. Your reply failed to refute that claim, or even to address it.

So I guess you're the silly one.

You are free to believe that ONLY government action, high costs, huge reductions in our standard of living (unless our rich of course, then it's different) can change the impending doom of climate change. Ya know, climate, changes. Man isn't making it worse, and we cannot make it better. Remember in 2025 how foolish you were today.

Poor Debater · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

code1211 said:
Again, the writer of the article is posing questions that seem to allow room for both doubt and more questions based on data that is pretty available to the world and done by real scientists with real degrees from the world of academia.

YOU are saying there is room for neither doubt nor questions of any kind at any time for any reason from any sector in this discipline of science.

Please provide a quote from me saying that there is no room for doubt at any time for any reason. Or withdraw your false claim.

Please provide a quote from me saying that there is no room for questions at any time for any reason. Or withdraw your false claim.

code1211 said:
We are encouraged to proceed on faith

Please provide a quote from me that encourages you to proceed on faith rather than evidence. Or withdraw your false claim.

code1211 said:
and ignore any apparent contradictions

Please provide a quote from me that encourages you to ignore apparent contradictions, instead of understanding their cause. Or withdraw your false claim.

code1211 said:
The study of nature in the Science of AGW is interesting in that the study of nature is not allowed in the Science of AGW. Not much different than studying sex in a Monastery.

So I said that the Denizens of Denierstan don't know the science, don't understand the science, and don't cite the science, and code "responds" with a post that is nothing but a series of falsehoods and strawman arguments.

Denier FAIL.

Poor Debater · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Renae said:
You are free to believe that ONLY government action, high costs, huge reductions in our standard of living (unless our rich of course, then it's different) can change the impending doom of climate change.

I will take that as a tacit admission that your position is entirely political, and has no scientific foundation.

Renae said:
Ya know, climate, changes. Man isn't making it worse, and we cannot make it better.

Then please explain why these data are linear:

jimbo · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

JumpinJack said:
Stupid. More rightwingnut nonsense. There is no dispute here, any more than there is dispute by knowledgeable people that gravity exists. This is settled science. More than that, just walk outside and enjoy the record setting 97 degree day in October, or fly down to the Gulf Coast to enjoy the increased number of hurricanes caused by the 1 or 2 degree rise in Gulf of Mexico temperature, or go on an expedition to the North Pole and the Arctic to do selfies on the melting glaciers and take pics of the starving polar bears (if you can find one). Or go to New Jersey to see the aftermath of Sandy, one of the increasingly occurring natural disasters.

You either believe in science, or you don't. So do you? Do you feel so lucky that you would bet the entire existence of human beings on earth based on non-science mumbo jumbo? Ask yourself this: If you are wrong, what are the consequences? Too terrible to imagine. If science is wrong, what are the consequences? A better earth.

It's 56 degrees here today. Pretty much average for this time of year. If you take a quick at the highest number of hurricanes by year, you will find them scattered randomly since 1880. The gulf temperature has not gone up by 2 degrees over the past few years. There are approximately 40,000 polar bears at present. Up from less than 6000 in the 1930's. Glaciers come and go. If they fail to melt, we have an ice age and the entire earth would be covered with ice miles thick. Sandy was a disaster, but not exactly the first time a hurricane or typhoon has struck land.

Other than those minor corrections, your analysis is correct.

longview · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Poor Debater said:
Wow. Four thousand words, and not a single citation to real science anywhere.

I think in the first few pages there were several links to real science, and more later.
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Global Warming and Hurricanes
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
The truth about polar bears - Canadian Geographic
and lastly a lecture by Dr, Richard Lindzen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw

Renae · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Poor Debater said:
I will take that as a tacit admission that your position is entirely political, and has no scientific foundation.

Then please explain why these data are linear:

CO2 goes up, it goes down, it's been higher, it's been lower. AND?

It's not driving climate, that big ball of plasma we see during the day is. Man's paltry affect on CO2 is not.

Okay, I'll ask you then, if we were to reduce CO2 emissions world wife, to what the IPCC wants, how much "warming" is averted?

Poor Debater · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Renae said:
Okay, see here folks, the link was to an essay written by a life long democrat, vegan learned man who realized that too many people failed to question the science, he did to prove the settled science RIGHT and ended up with us skeptics.

Wow, a vegan. That certainly bespeaks of enormous knowledge of science right there.

If you want to impress me, find me something written by a scientist. Something that's passed peer-review. Thousands of such "essays" are published every month. Why haven't you read them?

Renae said:
Because hurricane formation laughs at your silly fears.

Contrary to popular belief, climate models do not predict more hurricanes. They do predict that the most intense ones will be stronger.

You might have known that if you had spent more time reading science and less time reading the blogs of Denierstan.

Renae · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Poor Debater said:
Wow, a vegan. That certainly bespeaks of enormous knowledge of science right there.

If you want to impress me, find me something written by a scientist. Something that's passed peer-review. Thousands of such "essays" are published every month. Why haven't you read them?

Contrary to popular belief, climate models do not predict more hurricanes. They do predict that the most intense ones will be stronger.

You might have known that if you had spent more time reading science and less time reading the blogs of Denierstan.

What's your background in Meteorology or climate sciences? Anyway, that being said, CO2 has gone up and where are the intense hurricanes??

Poor Debater · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

code1211 said:
We are cooler than the warmest point of this interglacial.

False.

code1211 said:
We are cooler than the warmest point of any interglacial. We are cooler than most of the lat 65 million years.

The absolute temperature isn't the problem. The problem is the speed of the change, which is 10 times faster than the fastest natural climate change ever recorded. If we rise 2 degrees in 10 million years, no problem. If we rise 2 degrees in 100 years, big problem. And that's where we are now.

code1211 said:
CO2 has been much, much higher in the past and has been sequestered when cooling started, as an effect of the cooling, even though the CO2 level was so extremely high. Much higher than today. High enough to have made the air toxic for mammals.

And if we continue to de-sequester all of that CO2, you don't see a problem? Sheesh.

code1211 said:
Cooling, it seems, has started and continued when CO2 was very much higher than it is today.

Another denier who hasn't read Royer 2007. It's a science-avoiding epidemic, folks!

iguanaman · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Renae said:
Your big mistake is agreeing with Slevin.

You didn't answer my question. Who has the greatest reason to protect their interests, Scientists or fossil fuel producers? You do know the 3 of the top 5 grossing corporations in the world are fossil fuel producers.

longview · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Poor Debater said:
False.

The absolute temperature isn't the problem. The problem is the speed of the change, which is 10 times faster than the fastest natural climate change ever recorded. If we rise 2 degrees in 10 million years, no problem. If we rise 2 degrees in 100 years, big problem. And that's where we are now.

And if we continue to de-sequester all of that CO2, you don't see a problem? Sheesh.

Another denier who hasn't read Royer 2007. It's a science-avoiding epidemic, folks!

You do know that Marcott, et al 2013 stated,
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf

The 73 globally distributed temperature records used in our analysis
are based on a variety of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling
resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years, with a median resolution of 120 years (5).

So showing the rapid warming between 1978 and 1998 as unprecedented, is meaningless with Marcott.
It simply lacks the resolution to see a two decade change.

iguanaman · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Renae said:
What's your background in Meteorology or climate sciences? Anyway, that being said, CO2 has gone up and where are the intense hurricanes??

This year, mostly in the Pacific ocean where there has been a near record number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes so far.

The number of hurricanes or typhoons that have reached Category 4 or 5 strength in the Northern Hemisphere this year is closing in on a record set just over a decade ago. Following a trio of Category 4 hurricanes at the same time during the final weekend of August, we've now seen 15 storms of Category 4 or 5 strength in the Northern Hemisphere so far in 2015. This is just three shy of the current Northern Hemisphere record of 18 set in 2004.

http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/record-most-category-4-or-5-hurricanes-typhoons

Poor Debater · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Renae said:
CO2 goes up, it goes down, it's been higher, it's been lower. AND?

AND, did you also look at the vertical axis of the graph? Did you not understand the graph, or shall I explain it to you?

Renae said:
Okay, I'll ask you then, if we were to reduce CO2 emissions world wife, to what the IPCC wants, how much "warming" is averted?

Complete cessation of CO2 emissions would leave about 10 to 20 years of warming "in the pipeline" after which earth's temperature would stabilize. The point at which we stabilize depends on the total amount of CO2 emissions up to the cessation point.

Poor Debater · Oct 17, 2015

Re: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Renae said:
What's your background in Meteorology or climate sciences? Anyway, that being said, CO2 has gone up and where are the intense hurricanes??

Top line: total hurricanes. No trend.
Bottom line: Most intense hurricanes. Moving up. The gap is closing.

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled [W:154]

Renae

Renae

longview

SlevinKelevra

Sage

longview

SlevinKelevra

Sage

Renae

longview

longview

Renae

Poor Debater

Well-known member

Renae

Poor Debater

Well-known member

Poor Debater

Well-known member

jimbo

longview

Renae

Poor Debater

Well-known member

Renae

Poor Debater

Well-known member

iguanaman

longview

iguanaman

Poor Debater

Well-known member

Poor Debater

Well-known member