• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Goodbye World

In a sense. Their statement is nothing more than agreeing with the assumed authority. This is without their own research to support or disagree with the assumed authority.


I have explained this several times. The research papers really have almost no "alarmism" dealing with AGW. If you ever read them, maybe you would see how they carefully use their words to let a person believe as they wish. They are never explicit on the doom and gloom the pundits glean from their works.



OK, so I look foolish to fools. I can deal with that, because those who are not fools do not see me as a fool.

The statements by the NAS,AAAS,Royal Society, etc are much more than agreeing with some assumed authority. They are clear statements calling for action on the issue.

The people who do the research are quite clear on what they think. Each time something is presented to you, you dismiss it as 'alarmist'. And it's seen almost daily in the climate literature.

You prattle on about 'pundits', but it's the scientists who are telling us the magnitude of the impact- in fact, in the joint NAS/Royal Society document, it says it quite clearly in very readable English, aimed right at autodidacts like yourself.

It can't be any clearer, but I guess when you are so mired in ideology, one can twist almost anything around.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
 
Last edited:
The statements by the NAS,AAAS,Royal Society, etc are much more than agreeing with some assumed authority. They are clear statements calling for action on the issue.

The people who do the research are quite clear on what they think. Each time something is presented to you, you dismiss it as 'alarmist'. And it's seen almost daily in the climate literature.

You prattle on about 'pundits', but it's the scientists who are telling us the magnitude of the impact- in fact, in the joint NAS/Royal Society document, it says it quite clearly in very readable English, aimed right at autodidacts like yourself.

It can't be any clearer, but I guess when you are so mired in ideology, one can twist almost anything around.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

Quite the contrary.

I have so far read the first several pages of that link, and see nothing alarming.

care to quote what is alarming to you?

Please give us a small quote and page number.
 
Quite the contrary.

I have so far read the first several pages of that link, and see nothing alarming.

care to quote what is alarming to you?

Please give us a small quote and page number.

Q. 19:
"Are climate changes of a few degrees a cause for concern?
Yes. Even though an increase of a few degrees in global average temperature does not sound like much, global average temperature during the last ice age was only about 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F) colder than now. Global warming of just a few degrees will be associated with widespread changes in regional and local temperature and precipitation as well as with increases in some types of extreme weather events. These and other changes (such as sea level rise and storm surge) will have serious impacts on human societies and the natural world.
Both theory and direct observations have con rmed that global warming is associated with greater warming over land than oceans, moistening of the atmosphere, shifts in regional precipitation patterns and increases in extreme weather events, ocean acidi cation, melting glaciers, and rising sea levels (which increases the risk of coastal inundation and storm surge). Already, record high temperatures are on average signi cantly outpacing record low temperatures, wet areas are becoming wetter as dry areas are becoming drier, heavy rainstorms have become heavier, and snowpacks (an important source of freshwater for many regions) are decreasing.
These impacts are expected to increase with greater warming and will threaten food production, freshwater supplies, coastal infrastructure, and especially the welfare of the huge population currently living in low-lying areas. Even though certain regions may realise some local bene t from the warming, the long-term consequences overall will be disruptive."
 
That is question 17. Not 19. Don't you ever get anything right?

Your comprehension is in question!

Even then, whoop-t-do...

A few degrees vs. the large amount described...

I noticed that is effectively a press statement.

I didn't notice a credentialed scientist making the claim!

Please tell us what I missed.
 
That is question 17. Not 19. Don't you ever get anything right?

Your comprehension is in question!

Even then, whoop-t-do...

A few degrees vs. the large amount described...

I noticed that is effectively a press statement.

I didn't notice a credentialed scientist making the claim!

Please tell us what I missed.

Sorry for the typo from the document that I served up to you and specifically directed you to because apparently words are too difficult for you to parse without my help.

All I can tell you is that it's a piece from the NAS. It's not S press statement, it's an educational piece, describing the scientific consensus. It's so simply written, even children should be able to grasp it.

To most people, statements like 'threatening the huge population in low lying areas' means something, generally not something good. I guess your comprehension is different. That's pretty concerning for an autodidact!

I guess if a credentialed scientist was quoted, you'd whine that he wasn't credentialed to your specifications.
 
Hmmm. What about if you look over pages 469-471 on this document? (or possibly pages 58-60 if you look at the chapter via adobe pdf).

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter6.pdf

Maybe this will get you to actually read something, although comprehension, I fear, is not currently a realistic scenario given your obvious blind spot bias that anything that involves complicated words and ideas is librul and evil.
This is where your brilliance can help to persuade someone of my limited reading comprehension. Please summarize and tell me what particular laws you suspect will need to be enacted for you to reach environut nirvana. Think of it this way, you claim there is an illness--AGW, what specific, concrete step do you propose to 'mitigate' this disease and how will that impact the lives of the average American. If you cant answer this sort of question then you are wasting your time.
 
LOL.

All this time, and you think I'm touting my competency in the field?

My competency is evaluating science and understanding scientific consensus and thought.

I'm not making stuff up, like you are. I'm clarifying the positions of the experts in the field.

If only you did some of that. All you actually do is to parrot out a few one liners and then link to huge amounts of words which you think wins arguments but actually demonstrates that you have no clue.
 
This is where your brilliance can help to persuade someone of my limited reading comprehension. Please summarize and tell me what particular laws you suspect will need to be enacted for you to reach environut nirvana. Think of it this way, you claim there is an illness--AGW, what specific, concrete step do you propose to 'mitigate' this disease and how will that impact the lives of the average American. If you cant answer this sort of question then you are wasting your time.

Carbon tax.
 
Carbon tax.

Ok great. Finally an answer. Now, how will this work, what will it cost the average American and what impact will it have on global climate?
 
Sorry for the typo from the document that I served up to you and specifically directed you to because apparently words are too difficult for you to parse without my help.

All I can tell you is that it's a piece from the NAS. It's not S press statement, it's an educational piece, describing the scientific consensus. It's so simply written, even children should be able to grasp it.

To most people, statements like 'threatening the huge population in low lying areas' means something, generally not something good. I guess your comprehension is different. That's pretty concerning for an autodidact!

I guess if a credentialed scientist was quoted, you'd whine that he wasn't credentialed to your specifications.

You just don't get it. It speaks of a large changes being so different, then speaks of moderate change foreseen. Not large changes.

For children?

Is that your speed? Why not a research paper from them?
 
How does one mourn the death of the world? In pieces, because it is too much to bear in one big bite. Anyway, it is the way the world will die, in pieces. A piece here, and a piece there, and we won't realize what is happening until it is too late. Not many people know that, because of the folly of man, oxygen is being depleted from the oceans, and that the oceans are dying. Once they are gone, the rest of the world will follow within a hundred years, another piece at a time, until it is barren and devoid of life. In another million years or so, life will again form on this planet. Once dinosaurs ruled. Then did man. What will be next? I think cockroaches. Who knows? They might be the next species to land on the moon, say fifty or a hundred million years from now. One small step for a roach, a giant leap for insects. Then it will be their turn to destroy the planet.

OK, that's out of the way. Let's all put on a Justin Bieber CD and party, and not think about it. Let's just not think. We happen to be damn good at that.

I think it will be CATS. They are growing thumbs now. They know and share feelings with me, I communicate easily with them, in both this world and in the spirit world.
They already rule over the internet, so in time, they will inherit this earthly world too.
 
I think it will be CATS. They are growing thumbs now. They know and share feelings with me, I communicate easily with them, in both this world and in the spirit world.
They already rule over the internet, so in time, they will inherit this earthly world too.

Yep.

My black cat has two thumbs on each paw.
 
Yep.

My black cat has two thumbs on each paw.

Dang right!

Have you seen the internet picture of a tuxedo cat with both his thumbed paws extended that says, "Your days are numbered. I now have thumbs".

Thumb cats rule....or soon will. I am glad they consider me on their side.
 
[h=2] 1000 year rainfall study suggests droughts and floods used to be longer, worse[/h]
A study done on… golly, Antarctic Ice, allegedly shows that in the catchment area for Newcastle in NSW, Australia, the last 100 years have been pretty darn nice, compared to the past when droughts and big-wet periods used to last a lot longer.
Set aside, for a moment, that the ice cores are thousands of kilometers away and in a totally different climate, if they are right, if, then natural climate change is much worse than our short climate records are telling us. And if our current records are so inadequate and don’t represent the “old-Normal”, then we have a flying pigs of predicting the “New Normal”. Has the climate changed at all, or is the new one just like the old old one?
Hydroclimatologist and lead author, Dr Carly Tozer from the ACE CRC said the research showed exposure to drought and flood risk was higher than previously estimated.
“The study showed that modern climate records, which are available for the past one hundred years at best, do not capture the full range of rainfall variability that has occurred,” Dr Tozer said.
“The wet and dry periods experienced since 1900 have been relatively mild when we look at the climate extremes of the past millennium.”
“Looking back over the past thousand years, we see that prolonged wet periods and droughts of five years or longer are a regular feature of the climate.”
The press release and interview can tell us that we are “underestimating” the risk of drought and flood, which sounds like the usual “worse than expected” scare story beat up in the media — but it is different. This time we are underestimating the risk of natural causes of floods and droughts:
“Water resources infrastructure in Australia is still mostly designed based on statistics calculated from about the last 100 years of instrumental rainfall and streamflow observations,” Dr Kiem said.
“What this study shows is that existing water management plans likely underestimate the true risk of drought and flood due to the reliance on data and statistics obtained from only the relatively short instrumental period.”
The ABC and The Conversation don’t draw the bleeding obvious next step: If follows — as day after night, that if we’ve underestimated natural climate change — then the models have been overestimating the influence of CO2.
There is no mention of climate change in the ABC interview. None on The Conversation either. You might feel relieved that these stories didn’t beat us over the head with the usual doctrine: “climate change will be worse than we thought, spend more money, buy a windmill”. But they should have mentioned climate change. They should have connected the dots for what this means — the climate is likely to get more extreme in future, but it’s less likely that “carbon dioxide” is the cause. They certainly wouldn’t have hesitated if the study suggested that 20th century was “unprecedented”, or “hotter”, “wetter” or “drier” than the last thousand years.
[h=3]As for the Antarctic rainfall indicator of Newcastle…[/h] Carly Tozer, The Conversation
Keep reading →
 
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05...vels-rise-part-deux-the-erosion-strikes-back/

The islands, to the extent that they were islands were exposed to intense erosional forces for decades, if not centuries. They eroded away. Sedimentary geology depends on lots of things eroding away. Without erosion, there wouldn’t be much in the way of clastic deposition (like sandstone).
If “five of the Solomon Islands [had] been swallowed whole by rising sea levels, it would be impossible for “islands in the more sheltered Roviana area of the southern Solomon Islands” to “not experience significant coastal recession.” Secular sea level rise doesn’t care about shelter, waves and storms do. However, Albert et al., 2016 assert that sea level in the Solomon Islands is rising at 7 mm/yr and that this is likely to accelerate. Dr. Albert Parker has previously demonstrated that the 7 mm/yr claim is “cherry picking,” based on tide gauge records from Honiara, Guadalcanal.
 
Back
Top Bottom