• 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!

Global Warming is Worse than we Thought

iguanaman said:
Wrong. Reducing CO2 emissions now will reduce the impact of human caused warming. Burning every ounce of fossilized carbon will make it much much worse. Putting money in alternative energy now is the only right thing to do. You do know it will be needed eventually so why not now? Like I said the 1st thing we need to do is stop digging this hole. It will end up being our grave if we don't.
Click to expand...

So what's the point of reducing our emissions at the cost of our economy, when the major producers of CO2 are increasing output at a phenomenal rate?
 
Quaestio said:
It matters that you don't have a clue about what a 'reference' is or how to search the literature yet you 'know' all the scientists are wrong.

No-one tried to dispute that Jack's copied and pasted blog post from WUWT pseudoscience conspiracy blog cited a published paper in the first place. Just that's WUWT is a worthless source because it's general modis operandi is to misrepresent the papers it cites.
Click to expand...

Please cite where I said "all the scientist are wrong"?
The problem with your position is that it is wrong,
In post #258 you stated,
"WUWT - no thanks - don't need the High Schooler's biased garbage. "
In response to Jack quoting a published abstract about the uncertainties of the paleoclimatic record.
The logical conclusion to your statement is that anything referenced by WUWT becomes garbage.
Can you see why this might be a problem?
 
longview said:
Please cite where I said "all the scientist are wrong"?
The problem with your position is that it is wrong,
In post #258 you stated,
"WUWT - no thanks - don't need the High Schooler's biased garbage. "
In response to Jack quoting a published abstract about the uncertainties of the paleoclimatic record.
The logical conclusion to your statement is that anything referenced by WUWT becomes garbage.
Can you see why this might be a problem?
Click to expand...

Nope I didn't post "WUWT - no thanks - don't need the High Schooler's biased garbage. " That was someone else. Try actually reading my posts.

I posted that you were wrong in calling that Harvard search engine result you inked to a "Reference by Harvard University", and that you clearly didn't even know what a literature search was.

WUWT often cite published papers then write all sorts of pseudoscience misrepresentations about them. That's the problem and that's why it's not a good science source for anyone to parrot if they want to be taken seriously. Clearly you now don't even know the difference between a WUWT blog post copied and pasted by Jack and a link to a published Journal paper. Are you beginning to understand why no-one takes what you say seriously?
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
Nope I didn't post "WUWT - no thanks - don't need the High Schooler's biased garbage. " That was someone else. Try actually reading my posts.

I posted that you were wrong in calling that Harvard search engine result you inked to a "Reference by Harvard University", and that you clearly didn't even know what a literature search was.

WUWT often cite published papers then write all sorts of pseudoscience misrepresentations about them. That's the problem and that's why it's not a good science source for anyone to parrot if they want to be taken seriously. Clearly you now don't even know the difference between a WUWT blog post copied and pasted by Jack and a link to a published Journal paper. Are you beginning to understand why no-one takes what you say seriously?
Click to expand...

Sorry about that, you just choose to inject yourself into the discussion.
P.S. a reference can be anyone referring to anything, the point was, that WUWT was not the sole source for the paper.
WUWT post quite a few article, and many are simple hypotheses trying to explain the observations.
Creative people with science backgrounds, get lots of idea, and most need to be sanity checked.
This is not new, Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
One way to sanity check an idea is to post it, and allow others to chip away at the idea.
If the idea has merit, what remains after all the chipping away, is likely worth further investigation.
WUWT provides such a platform, a tool for testing ideas, like the scientific method should be.
Other blogs do not allow any post, which do not fully toe the AGW line, and so are not useful for testing new ideas.
New ideas are necessary, because we still do not have a good understanding of how our climate system functions.
The diurnal and seasonal asymmetry alone, have no explanation within the current understanding.
 
longview said:
Sorry about that, you just choose to inject yourself into the discussion.
P.S. a reference can be anyone referring to anything, the point was, that WUWT was not the sole source for the paper.
WUWT post quite a few article, and many are simple hypotheses trying to explain the observations.
Creative people with science backgrounds, get lots of idea, and most need to be sanity checked.
This is not new, Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
One way to sanity check an idea is to post it, and allow others to chip away at the idea.
If the idea has merit, what remains after all the chipping away, is likely worth further investigation.
WUWT provides such a platform, a tool for testing ideas, like the scientific method should be.
Other blogs do not allow any post, which do not fully toe the AGW line, and so are not useful for testing new ideas.
New ideas are necessary, because we still do not have a good understanding of how our climate system functions.
The diurnal and seasonal asymmetry alone, have no explanation within the current understanding.
Click to expand...
Feynman also said:

"The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong" -Richard Feynman
 
Quaestio said:
Feynman also said:

"The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong" -Richard Feynman
Click to expand...
Also not a problem, as the simple erroneous ideas are quickly cast aside, but at least they were tested. if only logically.
It is the unwillingness to consider different ideas that lead to stagnation in progress.
The difference between ignorance and stupidity, is that ignorance, can be corrected with knowledge,
whereas stupidity could be more accurately categorized as an unwillingness to learn.
 
longview said:
Also not a problem, as the simple erroneous ideas are quickly cast aside, but at least they were tested. if only logically.
It is the unwillingness to consider different ideas that lead to stagnation in progress.
The difference between ignorance and stupidity, is that ignorance, can be corrected with knowledge,
whereas stupidity could be more accurately categorized as an unwillingness to learn.
Click to expand...

Denying hard evidence and verifiable trends over 30 years of research is "an unwillingness to learn," or perhaps better said, incapable of learning.
 
calamity said:
Denying hard evidence and verifiable trends over 30 years of research is "an unwillingness to learn," or perhaps better said, incapable of learning.
Click to expand...
So please point to this hard evidence that recent changes in trends is attributable to increases in CO2 levels?
 
longview said:
So please point to this hard evidence that recent changes in trends is attributable to increases in CO2 levels?
Click to expand...

lol...yeah, because that has never been presented here before ad nauseam. :roll:
 
calamity said:
lol...yeah, because that has never been presented here before ad nauseam. :roll:
Click to expand...
Actually, it has never been presented at all.
There appears to be a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but there is no actual hard evidence linking the two events.
If you think such hard evidence exists, then I will ask you again to present it.
 
Lord of Planar said:
So what's the point of reducing our emissions at the cost of our economy, when the major producers of CO2 are increasing output at a phenomenal rate?
Click to expand...

If we don't reduce why would the others? What is the cost of AGW to our economy?
 
The Sound of Silence

Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence
"Fools, " said I, "You do not know
Silence, like a cancer, grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you"
But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells, of silence
And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said, "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls"
And whispered in the sounds of silence


Songwriters: Paul Simon
The Sound of Silence lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]Scientists acknowledge key errors in study of how fast the oceans are ...[/h]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-o...
[/URL]
13 hours ago - “Unfortunately, we made mistakes here,” said Ralph Keeling, a climate ... The study's lead author was Laure Resplandy of Princeton University.

:bomb:
Click to expand...

Not quite a bomb...

From the article:

“The central conclusion of the study — that oceans are retaining ever more energy as more heat is being trapped within Earth’s climate system each year — is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions. And it hasn’t changed much despite the errors”
 
Threegoofs said:
Not quite a bomb...

From the article:

“The central conclusion of the study — that oceans are retaining ever more energy as more heat is being trapped within Earth’s climate system each year — is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions. And it hasn’t changed much despite the errors”
Click to expand...

Yes, they probably are trapping more than the 0.65 W/m^2 imbalance claimed, because they still don't factor in the proper spectral response of the oceans being transparent to shortwave solar energy.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, they probably are trapping more than the 0.65 W/m^2 imbalance claimed, because they still don't factor in the proper spectral response of the oceans being transparent to shortwave solar energy.
Click to expand...

Gosh. You really should submit that as a paper.

LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom