• 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!

A way to convince the deniers

vegas giants said:
You have cancer. One doctor says you have six months to live. One a year.


You end up in remission.



This is science. AGW science is far far more accurate than medicine.


You trust medicine.

You dont trust AGW science....but only for political reasons
Click to expand...

Your example regarding cancer is incomplete. Doctors don't just scream a deadline from the hallway as they pass the room of the patient. They discuss the sickness, the therapies or treatment and the prognosis.

I just had a root canal and after the various warnings demanded by, I think, the legal team, I finally had to ask if the doctor would proceed if it was his own mouth. He said he would.

Warnings included puncturing the tooth wall below the gum line, leaving a broken part of the instrument in the root, actually breaking the jaw, horrible infection and various other catastrophes.

I then asked if any of these things had ever happened during his actions and he said they had not. We proceeded following his advice.

Survival prognoses for cancer are generally given in terms of percentages. Those percentages are based on actual, real outcomes. That is science.

Cancer survival rate: A tool to understand your prognosis - Mayo Clinic

CAGW is stated in terms of certainty: 12 years to act! They are never right. So, in terms of percentages, the predictions are wrong 100% of the time. That is science.

If the doctor you are working with kills 100% of his patients, why are you listening to him?

CAGW is wrong 100% of the time. Why are you listening to them?
 
code1211 said:
Your example regarding cancer is incomplete. Doctors don't just scream a deadline from the hallway as they pass the room of the patient. They discuss the sickness, the therapies or treatment and the prognosis.

I just had a root canal and after the various warnings demanded by, I think, the legal team, I finally had to ask if the doctor would proceed if it was his own mouth. He said he would.

Warnings included puncturing the tooth wall below the gum line, leaving a broken part of the instrument in the root, actually breaking the jaw, horrible infection and various other catastrophes.

I then asked if any of these things had ever happened during his actions and he said they had not. We proceeded following his advice.

Survival prognoses for cancer are generally given in terms of percentages. Those percentages are based on actual, real outcomes. That is science.

Cancer survival rate: A tool to understand your prognosis - Mayo Clinic

CAGW is stated in terms of certainty: 12 years to act! They are never right. So, in terms of percentages, the predictions are wrong 100% of the time. That is science.

If the doctor you are working with kills 100% of his patients, why are you listening to him?

CAGW is wrong 100% of the time. Why are you listening to them?
Click to expand...

It sounds like you get your AGW news from greta or AOC. I don't. I get mine from the scientific community. And it is always laid out clearly in scientific terms.


Medicine is wrong 100% of the time. Why are you listening to them???
 
bluesmoke said:
Yup....
Click to expand...
We have to consider the prorated cost of a defense against sea level rise!
If for example New York City spends $10 billion, and that expenditure, buys 1000 years of protection,
then the prorated rate of each year of protection is $10 million per year, and they get some nice park space out of the deal.
 
longview said:
How do you know? Tim's ideas are not all that unreasonable.
Consider New York city's plan, (which is mostly about storm surge, but will also help any sea level rise.)
De Blasio unveils $10B plan to flood-proof Lower Manhattan by extending shoreline into the East River | 6sqft


So a sea wall park with a minimum height of 20 feet, for $10 billion,
The question would be how much time would a 20 foot sea wall buy?
The sea level rise in New York City, has been fairly steady for over a century at .94 feet per century,
so half of the rise of a 20 foot sea wall, (10 feet) would buy 10/.94= 10.63 centuries, or 1063 years.
New York City's current budget for Traffic Operations & Maintenance, is $270 million a year,
https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2019/03/841-DOT-2020.pdf
so $10 billion would be about 38 years. It sure looks like the Traffic Operations & Maintenance budget would be enough for sea level rise defense.
Click to expand...



……...
 
longview said:
We have to consider the prorated cost of a defense against sea level rise!
If for example New York City spends $10 billion, and that expenditure, buys 1000 years of protection,
then the prorated rate of each year of protection is $10 million per year, and they get some nice park space out of the deal.
Click to expand...

NYC is not projecting that will.last 1000 years. You made that up
 
vegas giants said:
It sounds like you get your AGW news from greta or AOC. I don't. I get mine from the scientific community. And it is always laid out clearly in scientific terms.


Medicine is wrong 100% of the time. Why are you listening to them???
Click to expand...

In the case of my root canal, medicine was right. That destroys you 100% projection. You are working with data that is not accurate. Of course, you support CAGW so, your error is to be expected. ;)

My fist dose of CAGW theory was presented by Dr. James Hansen in 1988. I bought it as any good Liberal would. I was on your side until about the start of this century.

Two major bits of actual, real world info snuck into my consciousness and I don't recall which came first and which came second.

George Will on the David Brinkley Sunday morning show mentioned in passing that the world was less than a degree warmer on that day than it was 2000 years earlier. He noted that is "astonishing stability" talking about the global temperature.

Brinkley was absent that day and Sam Donaldson was moderating. He raised his hand to cut Will off who immediately stopped talking. Both what Will said and how Donaldson reacted interested me.

Then I became aware that James Hansen had thrown away the temperature data used previously in favor of completely different data that he liked better.

Ever since, I've been examining the way the CAGW case is stated and it is always stated in a way that is dishonest, dismissive, distracting, incomplete and misleading.

I cannot say with authority that the warnings from the CAGW fanatics is either right or wrong, but I can say that it questionable and is presented more like propaganda than like science.

As a result, I question it like any THINKING individual would.

If you accept this propaganda as truth, it says much about you as it is, almost always, is dishonest, dismissive, distracting, incomplete and misleading.

Again, to doubt the accuracy of your propaganda, all I need to have is questions. To prove it, you, and anybody else, need to have absolute proof.

You do not. Case closed.
 
code1211 said:
In the case of my root canal, medicine was right. That destroys you 100% projection. You are working with data that is not accurate. Of course, you support CAGW so, your error is to be expected. ;)

My fist dose of CAGW theory was presented by Dr. James Hansen in 1988. I bought it as any good Liberal would. I was on your side until about the start of this century.

Two major bits of actual, real world info snuck into my consciousness and I don't recall which came first and which came second.

George Will on the David Brinkley Sunday morning show mentioned in passing that the world was less than a degree warmer on that day than it was 2000 years earlier. He noted that is "astonishing stability" talking about the global temperature.

Brinkley was absent that day and Sam Donaldson was moderating. He raised his hand to cut Will off who immediately stopped talking. Both what Will said and how Donaldson reacted interested me.

Then I became aware that James Hansen had thrown away the temperature data used previously in favor of completely different data that he liked better.

Ever since, I've been examining the way the CAGW case is stated and it is always stated in a way that is dishonest, dismissive, distracting, incomplete and misleading.

I cannot say with authority that the warnings from the CAGW fanatics is either right or wrong, but I can say that it questionable and is presented more like propaganda than like science.

As a result, I question it like any THINKING individual would.

If you accept this propaganda as truth, it says much about you as it is, almost always, is dishonest, dismissive, distracting, incomplete and misleading.

Again, to doubt the accuracy of your propaganda, all I need to have is questions. To prove it, you, and anybody else, need to have absolute proof.

You do not. Case closed.
Click to expand...

You simply dont understand basic science. You likely have other motivations....probably political. But the science is clear. The predictions made by scientists have come true. No scientist would take one data point from 2000 years ago and compare it to one data point today to make a point about temperature. He would be laughed at.

I see where you get your science from


I will stick with getting mine from the scientists
 
vegas giants said:
You simply dont understand basic science. You likely have other motivations....probably political. But the science is clear. The predictions made by scientists have come true. No scientist would take one data point from 2000 years ago and compare it to one data point today to make a point about temperature. He would be laughed at.

I see where you get your science from


I will stick with getting mine from the scientists
Click to expand...

This is rich coming from you. The only sources of science you reference are not reputable.
 
Lord of Planar said:
This is rich coming from you. The only sources of science you reference are not reputable.
Click to expand...

Yeah....no one thinks NASA is reputable.


Come on dude....that was funny. Lol
 
vegas giants said:
Yeah....no one thinks NASA is reputable.


Come on dude....that was funny. Lol
Click to expand...

We have been over this before. I have never complained about any of the NASA pages except for "climate dot NASA." I have explained my reasons at least a couple dozen dimes now. Are you really that forgetful?

The names listed at the bottom of the link are not experts, and have been given a NASA IP address to do their blogging.
 
Lord of Planar said:
We have been over this before. I have never complained about any of the NASA pages except for "climate dot NASA." I have explained my reasons at least a couple dozen dimes now. Are you really that forgetful?

The names listed at the bottom of the link are not experts, and have been given a NASA IP address to do their blogging.
Click to expand...

To suggest that the head of NASA does not fully support what goes out on all nasa websites is really laughable. You have lost all credibility
 
vegas giants said:
To suggest that the head of NASA does not fully support what goes out on all nasa websites is really laughable. You have lost all credibility
Click to expand...

Please show me where he either micromanages, or endorses that site.
 
code1211 said:
In the case of my root canal, medicine was right. That destroys you 100% projection. You are working with data that is not accurate. Of course, you support CAGW so, your error is to be expected. ;)

My fist dose of CAGW theory was presented by Dr. James Hansen in 1988. I bought it as any good Liberal would. I was on your side until about the start of this century.

Two major bits of actual, real world info snuck into my consciousness and I don't recall which came first and which came second.

George Will on the David Brinkley Sunday morning show mentioned in passing that the world was less than a degree warmer on that day than it was 2000 years earlier. He noted that is "astonishing stability" talking about the global temperature.

Brinkley was absent that day and Sam Donaldson was moderating. He raised his hand to cut Will off who immediately stopped talking. Both what Will said and how Donaldson reacted interested me.

Then I became aware that James Hansen had thrown away the temperature data used previously in favor of completely different data that he liked better.

Ever since, I've been examining the way the CAGW case is stated and it is always stated in a way that is dishonest, dismissive, distracting, incomplete and misleading.

I cannot say with authority that the warnings from the CAGW fanatics is either right or wrong, but I can say that it questionable and is presented more like propaganda than like science.

As a result, I question it like any THINKING individual would.

If you accept this propaganda as truth, it says much about you as it is, almost always, is dishonest, dismissive, distracting, incomplete and misleading.

Again, to doubt the accuracy of your propaganda, all I need to have is questions. To prove it, you, and anybody else, need to have absolute proof.

You do not. Case closed.
Click to expand...

I think you demand more than is reasonable.

No absolute poof will ever happen to anything much.

Reasonable evidence that there is some sort of trouble, just any, will help though.
 
Lord of Planar said:
We have been over this before. I have never complained about any of the NASA pages except for "climate dot NASA." I have explained my reasons at least a couple dozen dimes now. Are you really that forgetful?

The names listed at the bottom of the link are not experts, and have been given a NASA IP address to do their blogging.
Click to expand...

You might actually convince someone other than other denialists if you addressed the contents of "climate dot NASA" instead of just attacking the authors over and over again.
 
Buzz said:
You might actually convince someone other than other denialists if you addressed the contents of "climate dot NASA" instead of just attacking the authors over and over again.
Click to expand...

I have in the past. I don't care to do the same thing more than one. The first time I addressed it a few years ago, I took all those 97% papers and addressed each of them. What they really meant. I have reiterated several times since on some point, but you guys deny the truth.

Why should I think wasting an hour or more again on a comprehensive post with factual references will make any difference with deniers of science like you?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I have in the past. I don't care to do the same thing more than one. The first time I addressed it a few years ago, I took all those 97% papers and addressed each of them. What they really meant. I have reiterated several times since on some point, but you guys deny the truth.

Why should I think wasting an hour or more again on a comprehensive post with factual references will make any difference with deniers of science like you?
Click to expand...

Yes. You should leave. Lol
 
Lord of Planar said:
So...

You have nothing on the NASA director...
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks that people are putting g out websites that the director of NASA has no clue about and has no authority to change is just a denier and should be laughed at
 
vegas giants said:
Anyone who thinks that people are putting g out websites that the director of NASA has no clue about and has no authority to change is just a denier and should be laughed at
Click to expand...

I never said that.

The sub-site was also up and running far before he took over. I have noticed however, that the misdirection of the sub-site are less noticeable, and only someone well versed in those sciences would now see the lies.
 
I thought it would be an interesting exercise to see if NASA GISS's data set supported the idea of strong positive feedbacks,
like I ran with the Harcrut4.
The idea is simple, Climate feedbacks will feedback any warming perturbation, so we can evaluate how the feedbacks worked
on earlier warming perturbations in the data set.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
I take the before 1900 average, -.214C
The warming until the average ending in 1950, .258C
This .258C, is the warming perturbation!
The total warming for the decade ending in 2020 (dec 2019) is .987 C
So between 1950 and 2019 we observed warming of .987 -.258C =.728C
NOAA is good enough to publish a CO2-eq reference of most of the greenhouse gasses.
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
CO2-eq, in 1950 was 335 ppm, while 2018 was 496 ppm.
This means that forcing warming over that period would be (5.35 X ln(496/335) X .3)=.63C
This leaves the unaccounted warming as .728 - .63 =.098C
If the positive climate feedbacks would produce an ECS of 3 C, let's validate how much warming the feedbacks should have caused.
James Hansen, estimates that 60% of the feedbacks, should be complete between 25 and 50 years.
The feedback factor for 3C is 2.72, so the pre 1950 average times the feedback factor times .6,
should tell us if the observed is close to the predicted.
.258 X 2.72 X.6=.422C, this is strange since the observed of unaccounted for warming is only .098C.
perhaps an ECS of 2C would be closer, with it's 1.82 feedback factor.
.258 X 1.82 X .6= .28C, wow even an ECS of 2 C is not supported.
1.5 C has a feedback factor of 1.36, I will try that.
.258 X 1.36 X.6 =.210C still almost double the observed unaccounted for warming.
It should concern any AGW alarmist, that the required feedbacks, cannot be observed in the major data sets,
even taking into account a 50 year latency period of 60% of ECS.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I never said that.

The sub-site was also up and running far before he took over. I have noticed however, that the misdirection of the sub-site are less noticeable, and only someone well versed in those sciences would now see the lies.
Click to expand...

Yep nobody at NASA could see those lies. But hey....we have you. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom