Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-15-2013, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,954,445 times
Reputation: 5661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
I like to wear my Green is the new Stupid T-shirt.
That doesn't make any sense. Resources are not unlimited. So what's the case for using them as if they were?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-15-2013, 11:57 AM
 
20,462 posts, read 12,387,859 times
Reputation: 10259
Catistrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.... the only area of science in the history of humanity to be "settled"...

anyone get the irony of that? LOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 12:01 PM
 
20,462 posts, read 12,387,859 times
Reputation: 10259
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
That doesn't make any sense. Resources are not unlimited. So what's the case for using them as if they were?
It makes perfect sense. It doesnt mean actual good conservation efforts and/or environmentally sound decisions are not warrented.

It speaks to the stupidity that has creeped into the "green" issue. We got rid of incandecent lightbulbs in favor of mercury filled CFLs because it was "green" but the "green" move is now causing landfills to be full of mercury that will one day seep into the water table. Yea us!

We have poured billions down green holes in the ground in places like Solindra (sp?). I could go on for days.

"Green" has become an excuse for really stupid things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 12:04 PM
 
1,140 posts, read 1,301,696 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
The current secular change in global temperatures cannot be accounted for any (and in fact flies in the face of several) of the cosmic/geological mechanisms you cite in that post. That is probably the most compelling reason we know it's anthropogenic. It is happening on a temporal scale that none of those mechanisms operates at, and in the opposite direction to many of them.

But thank you for a fairly comprehensive list of most of the mechanisms that earth scientists have explored and rejected to explain what we are currently experiencing.
Right...

And this:

How many tornadoes took place in the 24 hour period on April 24, 1988?

A person of honesty and integrity would answer the question with total truthfulness, like this:

There were X number of tornadoes reported via human observation.

You did not have Doppler radar all over the freaking US at that time (or any time before that) so you have no freaking idea how many tornadoes were formed on a given day.

This whole statement...

The outbreak has also helped smash the record for most tornadoes in the month of April with 770 tornadoes, more than double the prior record (267 in April 1974).

...is a lie....and you bought into the lie hook, line and sinker and sucked it up.

Not only did you not have any Doppler radar installed, you didn't even have wind shear radars at FAA airports yet (and it won't be until 1985 that you start installing them).

That's why I used to fail students for using Pukipedia. Gotta expect lies like that.



And this:



All you had to do is read Roman trade documents to know that the Romans imported wine from England.

Grapes? In England? How bizarre! No, how warm. It was freaking hot back then.

Or, you could read English medical texts.

It got cold, but then it warmed up again, and in the Medieval Period, England was plagued by...

....mosquitoes and malaria.

That's right. When you're reading these texts you'll see references to certain types of fevers called tertiary fevers and quaternary fevers. That is descriptive of the number of days before the fever breaks. So if you have a quaternary fever, you have a fever for four days, and then it breaks for four days and then right back into four days of fever. You can read about that in works by William Lilly and others from the 1650s.

That was due to the different strains of malaria.

At one point 1 in 3 Britons had malaria or were carriers.

What happened? The Little Ice Age came in the late 1600s and killed off all of the mosquitoes.

They never came back to England.

But yeah, the global warming pukes are just total morons. It would just kill them to make an attempt to understand the words "cycle" or "cyclical."

If they could do that, then maybe there's hope I can get them to comprehend the meaning of the phrase...

...."Inter-Glacial Warming Period."

Anyway, when the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean gets to be 100°F on a regular basis, like it was 50 Million years ago, someone let me know, and maybe I'll actually think about getting worried.


And this:






That is the UN's own data showing cyclical temperature variations over the last 400,000 years.

Guess what? It's cyclical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 12:06 PM
 
20,462 posts, read 12,387,859 times
Reputation: 10259
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post

1. The earth's climate is changing in a specific direction and at a pace that is unprecedented in all of earth history, outside of the major cosmic catastrophe of asteroid impact.

uhm... no. climate has not changed as an unprecedented rate.
the rate of surface level temperature rise from 1979 to 1998 was not statistically different from the pre-CAGW period of the 1920s temperature rise.

the rate of change downward going into the little Ice Age was faster and the rise out of it was equal to the modern warm period.

There is tons of science that suggests the MWP and the Roman Warm perod and the Miocene Warm Perod were all warmer than the Modern Warm period.

The only way you get to such a statement is to lean on the debunked work of Michael Mann or Keith Brifa's single tree in Yamal.... Brifa I believe has distanced himself from his Yamal bristlecone...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 12:07 PM
 
20,187 posts, read 23,861,848 times
Reputation: 9283
The global warming authors and writers could come down and tell everyone that global warming isn't true (AND THEY HAVE) and people would still believe (WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE TODAY)....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 12:11 PM
 
20,462 posts, read 12,387,859 times
Reputation: 10259
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
Why wouldn't the government and EPA fund the research? Of course there is an agenda and quite frankly, I approve of it. I certainly am not stupid enough to support the polluters that have everything to lose, which is a pretty strange thing to say considering that they already have a the money in the world.. the greedy piggish reptiles that they are.
I am for the funding of research. However, you clearly argue that funding from places like the Fossil Fuel industry taints the research because of the preconcieved agenda of the funders.

Are you really suggesting that the same is not the case for the EPA? They clearly have a preconcieved agenda and they are spending vastly more money on research than the FF industry combined.

odd aint it? only the people you disagree with could possibly be influenced by the source of their funding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,083,461 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
uhm... no. climate has not changed as an unprecedented rate.
the rate of surface level temperature rise from 1979 to 1998 was not statistically different from the pre-CAGW period of the 1920s temperature rise.
Wow... so much cherry picking in a single sentence. But of course it is standard for AGW deniers to cite the noise and not the secular trend. If you pick any ten year period, you can show anything you want to show as you did here, and it doesn't even need to be true.

This is what the actual secular trend looks like, using consecutive decades to reduce the noise to signal ration:



And if you want to persist in the deceptive assertion that this is "not statistically different" then your argument is not with me, but the single best statistician of the present generation; Ezra Klein.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
the rate of change downward going into the little Ice Age was faster and the rise out of it was equal to the modern warm period.
Your problem is first and foremost that the available data cannot possible support that assertion. They are not at the level of resolution necessary to determine how fast or slow the changes were. In fact, the data is so bad that climatologists and historians working with local records no longer even pretend to agree on when it started or ended.

But more to the point, there are actual natural reasons for the Little Ice Age that account for the events, most directly a series of volcanic eruptions in 1258, 1268, 1275, and 1284 that caused the initial cooling, and a 1452–53 eruption of Kuwae that triggered a second round.

No similar natural explanations can be identified for what we are currently experiencing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
There is tons of science that suggests the MWP and the Roman Warm perod and the Miocene Warm Perod were all warmer than the Modern Warm period.
A complete red herring. No one is pretending that any specific average temperature is unprecedented or "bad." The issue is the rate of change. We are speaking of a rate of change that outstrips the capacity of ecosystems to track the change, as well as imposes effects on human habitation that cannot be accounted for without significant dislocation of populations and economies.

Understand... the planet does not give a **** about whether it is warmer or cooler. The only reason to care about climate change is because it's going to be very expensive to relocate people from the flooded coastal communities, completely reconfigure our agriculture to accommodate changes in rainfall and temperature relevant to specific crops, and establish an entirely new water distribution infrastructure. It would have been far less expensive to reduce the emissions in the first place, but thanks to the effectiveness of petroleum industry propaganda, that window may have very well already closed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
The only way you get to such a statement is to lean on the debunked work of Michael Mann or Keith Brifa's single tree in Yamal.... Brifa I believe has distanced himself from his Yamal bristlecone...
Well... there you go. Anyone who asserts that Michael Mann's work has been "debunked" is simply not paying attention to anything other than their own echo chamber.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 03:38 PM
 
1,140 posts, read 1,301,696 times
Reputation: 478
bump
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 03:44 PM
 
Location: WA
4,242 posts, read 8,777,238 times
Reputation: 2375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy View Post
bump
Thread 11. This is getting tedious. I hope you guys are at least getting paid decently for making us slog through this bs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:16 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top