Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 25 · Next

AuthorMessage
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1485257 - Posted: 6 Mar 2014, 9:18:35 UTC - in response to Message 1485197.  
Last modified: 6 Mar 2014, 9:19:14 UTC

I think they are hoping for a free lesson on thermodynamics. I charge $50 per hour for tutoring, so if they want to pay up I'll oblige.


:) Would you be covering all four laws in the same hour? I'm pretty much ok with the first and the third (even though they're confusingly the Zeroth and the Second) and the first, being as it were, between them, is what I know I'm quite good at from what I can remember... But the fourth third one is quite challenging... Would fifteen minutes be enough do you think? :)

Or instead...I could just throw frustratingly inaccurate stuff around till you start leaking information for free! :)

It would be a law an hour. A girls got to eat you know.



Oh. :) How about a lot of frustratingly inaccurate stuff... :)

\delta Q = \epsilon = \frac {hc}{\gamma} =\frac{6.62 \times 10^{-34}J\cdot s * 3 \times 10^{8} m/s}{0.01 m}=2 \times 10^{-23} J multiplied by T = \frac{\epsilon}{\delta S} = \frac{2 \times 10^{-23}J}{70 \times 10^{-23}J/K} = \frac{1}{35} K whilst inserting oneself into the saucepan
= \delta S = \frac{\delta Q}{T}
thus explaining the WHOOSH. :)
ID: 1485257 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16622
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1485328 - Posted: 6 Mar 2014, 14:54:38 UTC - in response to Message 1485257.  
Last modified: 6 Mar 2014, 14:56:55 UTC

... \delta Q = \epsilon = \frac {hc}{\gamma} =\frac{6.62 \times 10^{-34}J\cdot s * 3 \times 10^{8} m/s}{0.01 m}=2 \times 10^{-23} J multiplied by T = \frac{\epsilon}{\delta S} = \frac{2 \times 10^{-23}J}{70 \times 10^{-23}J/K} = \frac{1}{35} K whilst inserting oneself into the saucepan
= \delta S = \frac{\delta Q}{T}
thus explaining the WHOOSH. :)

Pretty good! Thanks for stirring some fresh air into this dusty old thread.

Never thought I'd get to see LaTeX in these forums!!

So... Welcome to the 'discussions' and some religiously held denial.


So... How do we convince the religiously consciously blind and those ultra-liberal free Marketeers with-no-morals that CO2 really does keep our planet warm and that too much of a good thing will cook us... And soon?

Oh, and for yet another minor detail the Denialists choose to ignore: That of the atmospheric CO2 isotope content clearly showing that it is human industry that has added the excess CO2...


All An Inconvenient Truth?

All on our only one planet!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1485328 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1485336 - Posted: 6 Mar 2014, 15:26:18 UTC - in response to Message 1485328.  
Last modified: 6 Mar 2014, 15:30:47 UTC

... \delta Q = \epsilon = \frac {hc}{\gamma} =\frac{6.62 \times 10^{-34}J\cdot s * 3 \times 10^{8} m/s}{0.01 m}=2 \times 10^{-23} J multiplied by T = \frac{\epsilon}{\delta S} = \frac{2 \times 10^{-23}J}{70 \times 10^{-23}J/K} = \frac{1}{35} K whilst inserting oneself into the saucepan
= \delta S = \frac{\delta Q}{T}
thus explaining the WHOOSH. :)

Pretty good! Thanks for stirring some fresh air into this dusty old thread.

Never thought I'd get to see LaTeX in these forums!!

So... Welcome to the 'discussions' and some religiously held denial.


So... How do we convince the religiously consciously blind and those ultra-liberal free Marketeers with-no-morals that CO2 really does keep our planet warm and that too much of a good thing will cook us... And soon?

Oh, and for yet another minor detail the Denialists choose to ignore: That of the atmospheric CO2 isotope content clearly showing that it is human industry that has added the excess CO2...


All An Inconvenient Truth?

All on our only one planet!
Martin



Hi Martin. Thank you for your lovely welcome!

They seem to be having some communication problems with NASA you see. I know how frustrating such things can be and thought I could help with some relaxing massage whilst everyone is waiting. :) I am learning quite a lot too - possibly of benefit beyond my own kitchen! Like I've been using the wrong kind of pan to heat my milk (I generally just go with the one that falls out the cupboard first) and that I needed to buy a glass disc in the 60's.

Could the latter be of help to the planet do you think? Would it allow us to treble or even quadruple our CO2 emissions and still be able to post messages on this thread? :)
ps I can't take credit for that idea. Chris is the one that sowed that seed in my head. I won't therefore be fighting for any share of the intellectual property rights :) :)

oh...and did we say we like humans too? Well we do :)
ID: 1485336 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1485376 - Posted: 6 Mar 2014, 17:34:50 UTC - in response to Message 1485328.  
Last modified: 6 Mar 2014, 17:35:54 UTC

... \delta Q = \epsilon = \frac {hc}{\gamma} =\frac{6.62 \times 10^{-34}J\cdot s * 3 \times 10^{8} m/s}{0.01 m}=2 \times 10^{-23} J multiplied by T = \frac{\epsilon}{\delta S} = \frac{2 \times 10^{-23}J}{70 \times 10^{-23}J/K} = \frac{1}{35} K whilst inserting oneself into the saucepan
= \delta S = \frac{\delta Q}{T}
thus explaining the WHOOSH. :)

Pretty good! Thanks for stirring some fresh air into this dusty old thread.

Never thought I'd get to see LaTeX in these forums!!

It hurts my head. I like my nice neat symbols.

So... Welcome to the 'discussions' and some religiously held denial.


So... How do we convince the religiously consciously blind and those ultra-liberal free Marketeers with-no-morals that CO2 really does keep our planet warm and that too much of a good thing will cook us... And soon?

Oh, and for yet another minor detail the Denialists choose to ignore: That of the atmospheric CO2 isotope content clearly showing that it is human industry that has added the excess CO2...


All An Inconvenient Truth?

All on our only one planet!
Martin

They are arguing that the added human CO2 is not harmful because..well its CO2. (this is what I can make out from what they are saying anyway) and the air if full of CO2 already.

Of course we are surrounded by radioactivity, so I guess they think that adding more to the atmosphere won't do any harm either. Or that we often drink acidic drinks, so making them more acidic won't do any harm. I hear we need a bit of Vitamin A for our bodies, so I guess eating lots of Vitamin isn't going to be harmful...and so on.

They just can't see to understand that there is now an obvious link between suddenly in a very short time span (they don't understand geological time spans either) pumping a load of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and the acidification of the oceans (which also happens to be where most of the oxygen on the planet comes from so you really don't want to mess with the oceans)and a sudden spike in global temperatures.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1485376 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1485497 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 1:03:19 UTC - in response to Message 1485376.  
Last modified: 7 Mar 2014, 1:05:06 UTC

... \delta Q = \epsilon = \frac {hc}{\gamma} =\frac{6.62 \times 10^{-34}J\cdot s * 3 \times 10^{8} m/s}{0.01 m}=2 \times 10^{-23} J multiplied by T = \frac{\epsilon}{\delta S} = \frac{2 \times 10^{-23}J}{70 \times 10^{-23}J/K} = \frac{1}{35} K whilst inserting oneself into the saucepan
= \delta S = \frac{\delta Q}{T}
thus explaining the WHOOSH. :)

Pretty good! Thanks for stirring some fresh air into this dusty old thread.

Never thought I'd get to see LaTeX in these forums!!

It hurts my head. I like my nice neat symbols.

So... Welcome to the 'discussions' and some religiously held denial.


So... How do we convince the religiously consciously blind and those ultra-liberal free Marketeers with-no-morals that CO2 really does keep our planet warm and that too much of a good thing will cook us... And soon?

Oh, and for yet another minor detail the Denialists choose to ignore: That of the atmospheric CO2 isotope content clearly showing that it is human industry that has added the excess CO2...


All An Inconvenient Truth?

All on our only one planet!
Martin

They are arguing that the added human CO2 is not harmful because..well its CO2. (this is what I can make out from what they are saying anyway) and the air if full of CO2 already.

Of course we are surrounded by radioactivity, so I guess they think that adding more to the atmosphere won't do any harm either. Or that we often drink acidic drinks, so making them more acidic won't do any harm. I hear we need a bit of Vitamin A for our bodies, so I guess eating lots of Vitamin isn't going to be harmful...and so on.

They just can't see to understand that there is now an obvious link between suddenly in a very short time span (they don't understand geological time spans either) pumping a load of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and the acidification of the oceans (which also happens to be where most of the oxygen on the planet comes from so you really don't want to mess with the oceans)and a sudden spike in global temperatures.



So sorry about your head - that it hurts I mean. :)

Nice points well put. The "well it's natural so it can't do any harm" train of thought is one that makes my head hurt... a lot.

I was going to post a link here but there were so many to choose from, I couldn't decide which one to use. Everyone may already be familiar with it anyway. Just type "exploding cow shed" into google.

Nothing wrong with methane - it's a natural by-product of life. Nothing wrong with cows, highly exploitable form of natural life. Not quite sure what I think about sheds - probably should leave that to another thread (but note the lovely little advert at the bottom that I assume is attempting to sell the farmer whose shed exploded, another, perhaps non-exploding shed this time)

What is my point I hear you asking? Good question. Lets hope I can remember the answer :) Naturally occurring by-products and elements (etc) can become extremely harmful in even the most well meaning of human hands (it was far better for the cows concerned to be in a nice warm shed because of the unusually harsh weather outside - is something many of us would have agreed on. Others might have agreed that it was good asset management. So what was launching them, toasted, several feet back out into the cold?

Not all hands are well-meaning, and maximising profit has harsh costs that we can't just keep sweeping under the carpet. When human error/stupidity/greed come into play with our "natural" resources - the consequences can be volatile and highly unpredictable. They could well put exploding cowsheds waaaaay down our list of concerns.

For myself, on a personal level, I would rather be stupid for thinking I needed to reduce my carbon footprint and impact on this planet, than wrong to have denied that climate change was happening at all.

My turn to listen now :)

Ps. Thanks Chris for the milk boiler watcher link - apparently there's only three left. Think production might have to be stepped up a tad if it's going to be of any use outside of kitchens. :)
ID: 1485497 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1485502 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 1:11:51 UTC

I've got about three dozen really ticked off Umpa Lumpa's all wanting to speek at the same time! :-(
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1485502 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1485568 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 3:18:38 UTC - in response to Message 1485492.  

Many people argue many different things. Taking one argument, and expanding it to all (both side do it), I do not believe is a correct way to discuss this issue.

Have stated I am an Agnostic regarding the arguments and have many, many questions. Going against MANY of the 'Denier's' claims is easy. But have the following questions of the 'Warmest's' which have NEVER been answered.

#1 - Almost all the Temperature Graphs/Charts, since the 'Little Ice Age' show a gradual increase of Temperature. Since the advent of Industrialization, and increase of co2: The rate of increase of temperature has not increased. WHY?

#2 - The Scientific Predictions regarding Warming over the past 20 Years past years have been incorrect. WHY?

#3 - Since they were incorrect: Have they changed their basic Scientific Assumptions? Why not?

#4 - Agree about 'Pumping a load of greenhouse gases'. Can the 'Warmest's' please provide the Graphs/Charts showing a correlation of ALL the other gasses, Individually AND Collectively, regarding their effect on Global Warming. If not, why not?

#5/6/7 et al: Many, Many, Many more questions.


Hi Clyde. How are you?

Questioning the information we're given for accuracy, agenda, bias is an excellent approach to evaluating whether we can personally opt for one side of an argument or another - or delay a choice by perching on the fence and basking in the warm air that comes from all sides. :)

Twenty years ago the tools with which we could project current data into the future were nothing like the ones available to us now. (Much as the tools that once told us that there was nothing smaller than the atom, have proved that not to be the case.)

Should we all have stopped believing in the atom?

Or maybe the mess of stuff we found inside the atom?

Scientists were predicting climatic problems ahead, more than thirty years ago (I know because I listened) but very few people took any notice. When they finally did, less than twenty years ago, those that came out against it, for reasons of profit or vested interest, whatever, selected those early projections that were not showing up in the prevailing data of the time (data recorded, again, without technology as sophisticated as it is today) and, having selected their target theories (those of the "Warmists" I believe is the favoured term deniers use) they leapt upon them with the flat-footed fervour of the church when it was first suggested our earth was round... and they have been banging that drum ever since.

Did these "alarmists" start shouting IS in ever louder voices at those shouting IS NOT? I'm not aware of any that did but I'm sure if I'm wrong, someone will tell me :)

What they did in fact do, like any good scientist is supposed to do was to re-examine the theory, and that is what has been going on ever since, helped along the way with better data collection, computer analysis and projection tools.

Between the era of the "Warmists" and now, evermore refined models of the future of our planet have emerged. Each has benefitted from being scrutinised by successive scientific teams... and "climate change" is where we are now. The environmental evidence is all around for those who are prepared to open their eyes and look. The scientific data is too, but it's not always easy for us to interpret, and that does leave us vulnerable to persuasive arguments, rhetoric and hidden agendas.

Some are easier to spot than others. "Warmist" is one of the easier ones. I would urge anyone who fervently believes that CO2 emissions and the like are of no concern and/or nothing to do with human activity, to rigorously examine the source behind any organisation that uses the term, and to adopt another term of reference themself, because that one is the "if we keep stamping long enough on the same spot, the earth WILL be flat". It potentially devalues what may be perfectly good arguments otherwise.

You used the term "almost all" in your first question. I am curious that you're not more curious about why you have to say "almost". Or perhaps you were once, and have jumped off the fence on that one. :) (though if it's the chart/graph we've all been waiting for from NASA, do please let us know. :) It has been causing a bit of an hiatus in here. :)

I apologise if my attempt to answer your questions has not been as organised as the questions themselves were. And I know I haven't scraped the surface of the ones you still feel need answering, but may I end with a question of my own? You do not have to answer it if you don't want to. :)

I cannot seem to get climateprediction to work on my system, so had to detach. I notice that you (and other contributors to this thread) used to offer your cpu time to that project but now don't. I am curious as to why you stopped. Might a project such as that not help prove your case?

Best wishes :) My turn to listen now! :)

PS aren't you all happy we weren't shut out of seti for too long tonight!?

oh...and did we say we like humans too? Well we do :)
ID: 1485568 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1485706 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 10:18:49 UTC - in response to Message 1485593.  

Nor have they shown that their Models are correct. Continually 'Tweaking' Models, because of past failure's, is a 'Red Flag' to me.

Yeah but isn't that the sign of good science? Changing circumstances or new evidence forces and allow them to update and improve their models so they can be more accurate.

The real red flag should be when 'scientists' refuse to update their models despite getting access to new data or evidence.
ID: 1485706 · Report as offensive
Profile The Simonator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 5700
Credit: 3,855,702
RAC: 50
United Kingdom
Message 1485707 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 10:22:00 UTC - in response to Message 1485706.  

Nor have they shown that their Models are correct. Continually 'Tweaking' Models, because of past failure's, is a 'Red Flag' to me.

Yeah but isn't that the sign of good science? Changing circumstances or new evidence forces and allow them to update and improve their models so they can be more accurate.

The real red flag should be when 'scientists' refuse to update their models despite getting access to new data or evidence.

Precisely this. Science knows it doesn't know everything, if it thought it did it would be a religion.
Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.
ID: 1485707 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1485721 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 12:07:38 UTC - in response to Message 1485593.  

Hi annett. How are you.



I'm fine thank you! :)


Answering some your observations regarding your Post.

The problem with MOST 'Denier's' is, I believe, an illogical belief that all 'the stuff' we have been putting into the Atmosphere, Water, Ground, since Industrialization: Will have little, or no effect. So I tend to dismiss MOST of their arguments.

However (you knew I would say that):

I don't believe the 'Warmest's' have either proven that co2 is a primary reason for Global Warming. As I've said 'Show the World the Graphs/Charts and why some other, or combination of other man-made gasses, are not having the same, or greater effect'.


Which accounts for your fourth question. I do understand that. But it's not good policing to delay "interviewing" a prime suspect until the day you've worked out who all their partners in crime might be surely? You have to start somewhere. My point was simply that if we want answers to the kind of questions you are asking, it would be more helpful if they didn't get overshadowed by "Warmist-isms" (is that a word? It is now :))


Nor have they shown that their Models are correct. Continually 'Tweaking' Models, because of past failure's, is a 'Red Flag' to me.



Мишель has commented on this point very succinctly (Hi Мишель!) I can honestly say that if scientists had not "tweaked" - I would be asking you to budge-up a bit so that I could perch right next to you :) In fact, I might have actually hopped over to the other side and tried to drag you with me. :)


The accusation of 'not believing in an atom', to someone saying 'PROVE your Models', only hurts the cause.



I'm truly sorry if that is how my analogy came across. It was not my intention. :( I thought the answer was so obviously a unanimous "no, of course not" that it didn't need to be put down. I hope that I have done no harm to your cause. Or indeed anyone elses.


One can only 'sit on a fence', when BOTH sides are yelling at each other.



Indeed - but how much of the yelling is being orchestrated and how much is genuine? It is getting increasingly hard to hear ourselves think at times. Sitting on the fence whilst weighing up the source each different racket is spewing from, is much wiser than hurling yourself onto the wrong side and never thinking for yourself again. It was not meant as a derogatory term, promise. :)


I don't know how to quote from more than one post at a time, so I have copied and pasted the Simonator's response in case he thinks I'm ignoring him :) (Hi Simonator!)


Science knows it doesn't know everything, if it thought it did it would be a religion.


It's an excellent point and the one I will end on, if that is okay? :)

Looking forward to another chat soon. Best wishes in the meantime!

oh...and did we say we like humans too? Well we do :)
ID: 1485721 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1485731 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 13:09:44 UTC - in response to Message 1485706.  

Nor have they shown that their Models are correct. Continually 'Tweaking' Models, because of past failure's, is a 'Red Flag' to me.

Yeah but isn't that the sign of good science? Changing circumstances or new evidence forces and allow them to update and improve their models so they can be more accurate.

The real red flag should be when 'scientists' refuse to update their models despite getting access to new data or evidence.

The problem is that they don't seem to get new data or evidence, they merely tweak the way the models process the SOS and call that "evidence".

Also, in the manner of other "end of the worlders", they also conveniently forget when when their "predictions" fail to eventuate, (such as the link I posted in the old thread about 2.5 billion people dying by the end of 2012 due to "climate change") and just move the date forward.

I get the feeling that if the second coming ever occurs, it will be blamed on AGW.....

T.A.
ID: 1485731 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1485738 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 14:09:59 UTC - in response to Message 1485731.  
Last modified: 7 Mar 2014, 14:20:11 UTC

The problem is that they don't seem to get new data or evidence, they merely tweak the way the models process the SOS and call that "evidence".


Hi Terror Australis! How are you? Apologies for butting in. I know this isn't a reply to my posting, and I'm not sure whether I'm seriously lacking in elegance and etiquette when I do these messages (but Chris S did tell me people would let me know - and I haven't heard anything yet :)))

Re the above extract from your message. I've noticed that the noise level seems to go up quite dramatically at times. It tends to make me drop what I'm doing to see what it's about. What I've noticed is that it seems to happen every time there is new evidence. It may be pure coincidence I know, and we won't know for sure without a graph and some trustworthy measuring devices,:) but is it possible that you might have blinked and inadvertently missed something. It happens to me all the time... usually involving balls being lobbed in my direction, but thats too far off topic to go into here. :)

Having said that, re the extract below...

Also, in the manner of other "end of the worlders", they also conveniently forget when when their "predictions" fail to eventuate, (such as the link I posted in the old thread about 2.5 billion people dying by the end of 2012 due to "climate change") and just move the date forward.


You sound a little disappointed... I also have days like that. :) Anyway, it appears that I may have blinked (possibly during an interaction with a ball) and missed that one for which I sincerely apologise and will look into for you. :)

I get the feeling that if the second coming ever occurs, it will be blamed on AGW.....

T.A.


Well anything is possible. @.@ The recent flooding in the UK was apparently the fault of us legalising same sex marriage. Not sure how many people had insurance cover for that. :/

All the best T.A.! I'm off to Elephant and Castle now so will root out that link when I get back. Hope you're having a nice day:)

oh...and did we say we like humans too? Well we do :)
ID: 1485738 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1485745 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 15:06:34 UTC - in response to Message 1485731.  
Last modified: 7 Mar 2014, 15:07:08 UTC

The problem is that they don't seem to get new data or evidence, they merely tweak the way the models process the SOS and call that "evidence".

How do you know? Are you an expert or do you have an active interest in the field? Do you follow the scientific research closely? Subscribed to any peer reviewed journals?

Also, in the manner of other "end of the worlders", they also conveniently forget when when their "predictions" fail to eventuate, (such as the link I posted in the old thread about 2.5 billion people dying by the end of 2012 due to "climate change") and just move the date forward.

Heh, I found one claiming it would be 4.5 billion people dead by 2012 due to methane release into the atmosphere as a result of melting permafrost. I also found that it was claimed on a blog called 'The Canadian' from back in 2007. And it is literally one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. It is also a source that is by no means reliable. And there is the problem. The media quite often has no clue what the actual science is, so they end up telling half of the story and sketching a far more sensational picture. Or worse, they start speculating and you end up with ridiculous end of the world predictions like that. That does not mean that the scientists made such a prediction or are responsible for it.
ID: 1485745 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1485842 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 18:58:47 UTC
Last modified: 7 Mar 2014, 19:04:26 UTC

@ Мишель

Eh, how exactly? As far as I'm aware quantum computing is different from 'normal' computing and is still in its infant stage.


I was not talking about 'quantum computing'. I was talking about the 'normal' electronics of today. 'Solid-state' electronics, especially the tiny transistors on today's 'computer chips', depend on some effects from QM to even function.

I suggest you read the book 'Merchants of Doubt'. It closely details how a group of scientists have derailed things like global warming with 'counter science'. You will find that this group of scientists has close links to the military and conservative think tanks, and how they managed to set back the discussion on various topics, including global warming by several decades, by simply creating doubt in the minds of the masses.


I do not deny the existence of the 'Deniers', nor do I dispute your version of the methods they use. It matches pretty well with my own understanding of the situation. Later you mention

paid handsomely by certain economic and political interests


Yes, some industries, elites, and politicians have an interest in maintaining the status quo, and use their pet scientists to 'Deny' the possibility of CO2 having a role in the observed climate change that is happening. The Deniers.

What you seem to have trouble accepting and understanding is that the same thing is happening on the Warmist side of things.

No, I am not defending the 'Deniers' and yes, I am also attacking the 'Warmists'. Both sides have done a LOT of naughtiness. Both sides have distorted the science. It is time that BOTH sides shut up and went away and let the scientists advance knowledge without interference. A plague on BOTH their houses.

@ whoever it was that wanted to keep politics out of this discussion:

This discussion *IS* political. Political interference from both of the extreme positions. Politics MUST be part of the discussion.

@ Clyde re: that graph you keep asking for:

Man, just give up on that graph. No Warmist propaganda site is ever gonna show it to you. While that graph (yes, I have see a few of them) strongly supports a strong correlation between spikes in temperature and spikes of concentration of CO2, it does not make the case about CO2 concentration spikes being the cause of the temperature spikes. In fact, the CO2 spikes appear to lag behind (happen after) the temperature spikes. Yes, there is a correlation, but which one of the spikes caused the other? So, that graph you ask for won't be shown to you by a Warmist (unless, of course, they indulge themselves in one of their favorite passtimes, and doctor the data).

@ Byron Leigh Hatch:

That piece of propaganda from the US Government is absolutely full of holes. So many that they actually harm the case they are trying to build. I can show them to you all, as well as totally impeach the source... Later. For now, let me concentrate on one point in particular that it makes prominently. In a sidebar on the right about 1/3 of the way down from the top, labeled 'Scientific Consensus':

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.


Notice what they directly said. First, 'are very likely due to'. Weasel words. Also: 'human activities'. They did NOT say ' are due to human large-scale emission of CO2', which is what a lot of uninformed people are going to assume when they read it. But 'human activities'.

That statement is virtually bullet-proof. There are a variety of things that humans do that can (and do) have effects on the climate. Two that stand out on that list are urbanization and deforestation. Urbanization in an area will make that area warmer. Deforestation in an area will disrupt rainfall patterns in a somewhat larger area. Both activities have been going on throughout human history, but have been VERY prevalent throughout the world over the 'last century' time-frame the statement mentions. Two key components of the climate, temperature and rainfall. So... human activity -> climate change. QED

The great majority of scientists (not just climate scientists), are going to agree with that statement. 97% sounds about right. There are always going to be a few kooks. And yet, the statement made NO mention whatsoever of CO2...

This is why I call B.S. anytime someone mentions the supposed 97% 'scientific consensus' on CO2 emissions causing climate change.
ID: 1485842 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1485850 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 19:12:40 UTC - in response to Message 1485842.  

..

This is why I call B.S. anytime someone mentions the supposed 97% 'scientific consensus' on CO2 emissions causing climate change.

ok. I see a bit better where you are coming from. I believe charts have been posted here about where the greenhouse gases are coming from. The way we produce our food is one of the big problems. Seeing as how upset people are when I suggest that we need to cut CO2 emissions (Which ARE a significant factor) can you imagine how upset they are going to be when I suggest that you all need to give up eating meat? Or at least cut down dramatically, because that is what you are going to have to think about doing.

Lets see how much everyone freaks out over that observation.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1485850 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1485855 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 19:17:07 UTC - in response to Message 1485738.  

...

I'm off to Elephant and Castle....

I'm sorry to hear that anniet. I lived not far from there for nearly 20 years before moving to Canada. Has it improved lately?
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1485855 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 21006
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1485860 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 19:25:50 UTC

Somewhat cleaner than it was when I was a student at QMC back in the early '70s...
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1485860 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1485879 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 19:50:07 UTC - in response to Message 1485860.  

Somewhat cleaner than it was when I was a student at QMC back in the early '70s...

I thought QMC was only in the East End, or are you talking about a different college?
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1485879 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 21006
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1485881 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 19:53:56 UTC
Last modified: 7 Mar 2014, 19:54:27 UTC

Same place, but I did roam around a bit.....
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1485881 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1485888 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 20:03:31 UTC - in response to Message 1485855.  

...

I'm off to Elephant and Castle....

I'm sorry to hear that anniet. I lived not far from there for nearly 20 years before moving to Canada. Has it improved lately?


Thank you Es99. May I ask? Are you sure that's far enough away? Have you considered Australia?

Because... I must say... I'm beginning to appreciate why the person responsible for designing the roundabout in the first place, then committed suicide on it.

I mean, there are some designs that once they've been put down on paper should then just go straight in the bin.

What truly worries me, is that there are people in the tunnels beneath it who entered them on the day they were opened - but have yet to get to the other side of the road.

They have built a new building... across from the pinkest elephant you're likely to see outside of a barrel of gin, and it is quite appealing to the eye... but only if you still have some. @.@

Hi there!
:) Lovely response Es! Made me snort like a loon:) Need to sort out something to eat and then planning on returning. Was wondering if you have a particular sauce or side salad you could recommend with $50 notes? :)
ID: 1485888 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 25 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.