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.
No, it isn't a case of "either or". Talk about a strawman!
I'm not saying that he give up travel versus climate legislation (which wouldn't do much anyway, but that's another argument)
What I am saying is that he and the others pushing this should lead by example.
So basically you're saying he should lead by example but it doesn't matter since legislation wouldn't be effective.... Lolz...
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
Not it doesn't match up.
None of the "consensus" or the computer models predicted the slowdown or pause we have been experiencing for the past 16 years DESPITE the fact that we have been pumping the same amount or more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Obviously there's something they didn't take into account but again... We are still warming. We are still trending upwards... Which is why we keep studying it.... Remember when you crying over tree rings and claiming we should be focusing 100% on renewable energy?
How about admitting there is no pleasing you.... Climate legislation won't work, we should stop studying climate change, and people aren't green enough for you.... Geeze make up your mind....
ROFLMAO!! Talk about doing backflips to try to justify his hypocrisy.
The president has access to Camp David, a private retreat that is probably far beyond what 90% of Americans have experienced in a vacation destination.
You truly believe he shouldn't sacrifice going to Hawaii while he is president and it requires a minimum of 6 large jets to accomplish this?
If you say he shouldn't sacrifice going to Camp David or any number of fantastic places on the east coast, why should I sacrifice having a smaller vehicle to haul around the family when my lifetime use of it probably won't offset just one of those 747's making a single trip to Hawaii.
This is what I keep talking about. Not a single real thing will be done about climate change, because not even a person who went to the marches will even say Obama should not be taking an armada of aircraft nearly halfway around the globe to sit on that "special" beach.
I'd wager that half of those who marched will be upgrading their phones in the next two years, because they like having a cause but not actually doing anything about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
Yeah! I really loved seeing the protesters at the climate march who were protesting against capitalism with their iPhones and Starbucks cups littering the streets.
So instead of talking science... All you got is complaining people aren't green enough....ok.
Instead of talking policy... You just assume nothing will work.
So yes... All yall have are strawman and assumptions while bashing the otherside. Pathetic.
Utterly laughable.
Your theories and predications are failing to match up to reality and your side is scrambling for excuses to figure out where the missing heat has gone.
In any other scientific endeavor, this would call for a rigorous and thorough reexamination of the underlying theory, not a doubling down on it with an arrogant dismissal of skeptics.
Further proof that this is an always was nothing but DOGMA.
Actually you deniers are the ones working with dogma just like creationists do, because it is all you have....The problem is your dogma lacks evidence and most are untrue myths....
Utterly laughable.
Your theories and predications are failing to match up to reality and your side is scrambling for excuses to figure out where the missing heat has gone.
In any other scientific endeavor, this would call for a rigorous and thorough reexamination of the underlying theory, not a doubling down on it with an arrogant dismissal of skeptics.
Further proof that this is an always was nothing but DOGMA.
Did you miss this post, or just dismiss it because you have no response?
Quote:
One thing is melting ice....Do you know how much heat it takes to melt ice? Once you have ice at 0 degrees C you want to melt it so you end up with water at 0 degrees C. To do this you need to supply A LOT more heat. For water, this "latent heat of fusion" is 335,000 Joules/kg. (335000 joules converts to 176.4 Celsius heat units.)
Let's see...It takes 176 Celsius heat units to turn one Kg. of ice at 0 degrees to one Kg. of water at 0 degrees....The Antarctic alone is melting at a rate of over 350 billion tons per year....Do the math.
So basically you're saying he should lead by example but it doesn't matter since legislation wouldn't be effective.... Lolz....
Well Obama doesn't think the legislation would be ineffective now does he? He obviously believes it is the right course and he obviously believes this is a big crisis so I am asking him to make an EFFORT at leading by example. Another poster mentioned vacationing at Camp David. Jimmy Carter used to at least wear a sweater in the White House. Leadership means willing to inconvenience yourself as well if you are asking others to make sacrifices for the cause. My personal opinion over whether the legislation would work or not is moot to the issue.
Obama and the Dems are the ones who do believe in this and asking others to make sacrifices while they continue to live as they always have.
The hypocrisy is sickening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Obviously there's something they didn't take into account but again... We are still warming. We are still trending upwards... Which is why we keep studying it.... Remember when you crying over tree rings and claiming we should be focusing 100% on renewable energy?
No, it's more than "something they didn't take into account". When a scientific theory fails the test of reality for sixteen years in row, when your so called 97% consensus and your computer simulations failed to predict what is now happening, the proper course ISN'T to keep proceeding as if that theory is an immutable fact. The proper course is a rigorous and through REEXAMINATION of that theory, but that will never happen because we are dealing with dogma, not science!
Tree rings and ice cores? Do I really have to explain this one again? I'll try and make it as simple as possible...
- Your side claims that we have a dire emergency on our hands and we need to act fast before it's too late.
- Your side also claims that the science is settled and the debate is over.
Proceeding from those two positions, for the sake of argument, I don't see how we have the luxury of more
ice core studies of tree studies that invariably claim that man in the cause of AGW.
If we proceed from that position, all of the money, time and effort we expend on climate change should be towards minimizing the damage and finding alternatives to fossil fuels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
How about admitting there is no pleasing you.... Climate legislation won't work, we should stop studying climate change, and people aren't green enough for you.... Geeze make up your mind....
How is climate legislation going to work? Do we live in a bubble? Can we legislate the behavior of the rest of the world, like China and India where an entire new middle class now wants their share of the cheap energy lifestyle that we've enjoyed for decades? Do seriously think the people in India who now have cars are going to willingly go back to rickshaws? All climate legislation does is raise taxes here and drive industry overseas to places where they care EVEN LESS about the environment. Typical feel good green 'logic' that fails in reality.
I have no problem with studying climate change as long as it's done from a position where AGW is not considered immutable gospel or dogma. I'm open to studying the climate with an open mind, no matter where it leads, even if it leads down a path that refutes AGW.
People aren't green enough? Yeah when you preach saving the environment and lecture the rest of us on our carbon footprint, I'd expect you to walk the walk as well.
Actually you deniers are the ones working with dogma just like creationists do, because it is all you have....The problem is your dogma lacks evidence and most are untrue myths....
Your "science is settled" 97% consensus and computer simulations failed to account for the slowdown of warming over the past sixteen years while CO2 emissions have remained the same or increased.
How does that happen? How does more CO2 equal less warming?
So instead of talking science... All you got is complaining people aren't green enough....ok.
Instead of talking policy... You just assume nothing will work.
So yes... All yall have are strawman and assumptions while bashing the otherside. Pathetic.
I'm just pointing out reality.
If nobody calls out the president or all the people clamoring to buy new phones, do you really think change will happen? It won't.
You might as well be talking about the science of terraforming a planet 5 million light years away. Sure, we can discuss the science of it all day, but in the end, nothing will happen.
We are talking policy. If nobody is willing to do anything, there is no purpose in passing legislation that will only harm the poor. Is your policy proposal to move all manufacturing to places like China and India, because that's all these propositions by the UN will do.
Your "science is settled" 97% consensus and computer simulations failed to account for the slowdown of warming over the past sixteen years while CO2 emissions have remained the same or increased.
How does that happen? How does more CO2 equal less warming?
Why do you not address my post regarding the heat required to melt ice if you are so open minded?
The latent heat of ice melting is the energy required to change a unit mass of ice into liquid water at the melting point temperature. The latent heat of ice is among the highest of all substances on earth that can change from solid to liquid.
Why do you not address my post regarding the heat required to melt ice if you are so open minded?
The latent heat of ice melting is the energy required to change a unit mass of ice into liquid water at the melting point temperature. The latent heat of ice is among the highest of all substances on earth that can change from solid to liquid.
What does that have to do with explaining how the 97% consensus and the computer simulations completely missed the fact that the warming has "slowed" for the past 16 years despite equal or greater emissions of CO2?
You and your ilk immediately latched onto the theory that is was being hidden in the deep ocean and as the thread title references, that has been shown false.
You are the one who is dodging here.
What does that have to do with explaining how the 97% consensus and the computer simulations completely missed the fact that the warming has "slowed" for the past 16 years despite equal or greater emissions of CO2?
You and your ilk immediately latched onto the theory that is was being hidden in the deep ocean and as the thread title references, that has been shown false.
You are the one who is dodging here.
I suggest that you stop assuming what me and "my ilk" think or "latch onto". I merely try to keep up with the science......So because science hasn't yet figured out where the heat is going this means to you that there is no heat being added?
So, if the heat isn’t going into the deep oceans, where is it going? Sea levels are still rising according to predictions. Sea levels rise both because of melting arctic ice adding to the overall amount of liquid water, and because water expands slightly as it warms. The questions isn’t really whether the Earth is warming, but how, specifically that warming is playing out.
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.
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.
