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)
View Poll Results: What is the "perfect" level of atmospheric CO2?
500 ppm 5 18.52%
400 ppm 1 3.70%
300 ppm 5 18.52%
200 ppm 3 11.11%
0 ppm 2 7.41%
we need much higher levels of CO2 to help plant life 11 40.74%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-30-2016, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,513 posts, read 37,061,236 times
Reputation: 13985

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
And it would help if people knew dialogue vs smugness.

Actually, you tried to discredit a nasa and an noaa link I posted a month back because it was in contradiction to your contention. Additionally, you then tried to 'educate' me on feedbacks, etc... Not knowing my background. I find it omicsl. I understand why others take offense and dig in.
LOL....And you call me smug...How ironic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2016, 09:16 PM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 2,730,157 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
LOL....And you call me smug...How ironic.
No irony when one gives respect and is met with 'education'.

Good thing rain ruined opening night for Churchill. Life is once again taking me away from Internet conversations.

Everyone is better off removed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 02:08 AM
 
572 posts, read 279,364 times
Reputation: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
1. Science demands that the null hypothesis is rejected- AGW is the opposite of this

2. Science welcomes questioning- AGW rejects it

3. There is no "settled science"- AGW rejects this to quell futher investigation

4. Actual science does not require manipulation of data- AGW routinely alters data

5. Actual science looks at long term data (the fossil record- AGW rejects it

6. Actual science shows that temp increases follow temp increases- AGW rejects it.

7. Earths temps have not increased in 20 years- AGW rejects it.

8. Marked reduction in man-made CO2 during the depresson resulted in INCREASES TEMPS- AGW ingnores it.

9. The earth has THRIVED with CO2 levels several fold current levels- AGW refuses to accept it.

10. Why were temps 10 degrees higher during the Roman Empire? AGW ignores it.

11. Why did temps not fall during the Great Recession- AGW ingnores it.
1. Rejected due to pure statistics. Null Hypothesis Rejected (99.9) for Contemporary Climate Change via Pure Statistics | Planet3.0

2. Only because there are no other compelling explanations for trends observed.

3. There is plenty of investigation occurring-- ALL of it confirms AGW over and over.

4. Lies.

5. No.

6. ?????

7. WRONG.

8. There are other explanations for this.

9. You just keep saying this over and over. Other factors balanced things out at that time.

10. No it doesn't. A theory can't ignore things. The theory doesn't require that ALL warming be due to human activity!!!! I don't know how you could possibly not understand this after so many have tried so hard to drill that into your head.

11. Not ignored.

You're amazingly ignorant.

It would really help your case if you actually tried to understand how all of this works. I'm not claiming that I have any above-average degree of insight into all of this, but at the very least I have a basic grasp of the theory and every time you post it is very clear that you do not even have a superficial understanding of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 05:21 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,355,673 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
And it would help if people knew dialogue vs smugness.
How's that going for you? How is just smugly stating you find every thread 'comical', dialogue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
Actually, you tried to discredit a nasa and an noaa link I posted a month back because it was in contradiction to your contention.
No, he didn't. And no, the NASA link wasn't a contradiction. It was your misunderstanding and lack of knowledge (or perhaps deliberate dishonest misrepresentation?) that appeared to be the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
Additionally, you then tried to 'educate' me on feedbacks, etc... Not knowing my background. I find it omicsl. I understand why others take offense and dig in.
Perhaps it was because your statements showed such obvious ignorance on the subject? Yes, I'm sure other fake 'skeptics' like yourself and 'Hawkesy' who smugly believe 'you know better than everyone', (including all the real experts in many different fields), take 'offence' when your evidence-free assertions are shown to be wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Toronto, ON
2,339 posts, read 2,064,332 times
Reputation: 1650
Just curious, is anybody here in Florida's Atlantic coast? Would love to hear their opinions on the topic. They probably know almost as much about the threat of melting arctic sea ice as anybody.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 06:28 PM
 
30,024 posts, read 18,600,956 times
Reputation: 20808
Quote:
Originally Posted by STWR View Post
1. Rejected due to pure statistics. Null Hypothesis Rejected (99.9) for Contemporary Climate Change via Pure Statistics | Planet3.0

2. Only because there are no other compelling explanations for trends observed.

3. There is plenty of investigation occurring-- ALL of it confirms AGW over and over.

4. Lies.

5. No.

6. ?????

7. WRONG.

8. There are other explanations for this.

9. You just keep saying this over and over. Other factors balanced things out at that time.

10. No it doesn't. A theory can't ignore things. The theory doesn't require that ALL warming be due to human activity!!!! I don't know how you could possibly not understand this after so many have tried so hard to drill that into your head.

11. Not ignored.

You're amazingly ignorant.

It would really help your case if you actually tried to understand how all of this works. I'm not claiming that I have any above-average degree of insight into all of this, but at the very least I have a basic grasp of the theory and every time you post it is very clear that you do not even have a superficial understanding of it.
You guys are so priceless. If nothing else it is good for a laugh.

#1 was so laughable I don't even need to refute your other absurd retorts. Obviously you know nothing about science or what actually constitutes "refuting the null hypothesis", which is the cornerstone of science.

This is from your "source". You and Ceist have no idea what constitutes a good study vs internet trash.

"In a paper enticingly titled “Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming,” Shaun Lovejoy can’t prove a negative – that humans aren’t ruining our planet."

................... that was from your crappy source, which refutes your absurd notion anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 06:32 PM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 2,730,157 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
How's that going for you? How is just smugly stating you find every thread 'comical', dialogue?
No, he didn't. And no, the NASA link wasn't a contradiction. It was your misunderstanding and lack of knowledge (or perhaps deliberate dishonest misrepresentation?) that appeared to be the issue.
Perhaps it was because your statements showed such obvious ignorance on the subject? Yes, I'm sure other fake 'skeptics' like yourself and 'Hawkesy' who smugly believe 'you know better than everyone', (including all the real experts in many different fields), take 'offence' when your evidence-free assertions are shown to be wrong.
You're replies are priceless. I need say more.

Please keep them coming. And again, your credentials? Lacking
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 06:38 PM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 2,730,157 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
How's that going for you? How is just smugly stating you find every thread 'comical', dialogue?
No, he didn't. And no, the NASA link wasn't a contradiction. It was your misunderstanding and lack of knowledge (or perhaps deliberate dishonest misrepresentation?) that appeared to be the issue.
Perhaps it was because your statements showed such obvious ignorance on the subject? Yes, I'm sure other fake 'skeptics' like yourself and 'Hawkesy' who smugly believe 'you know better than everyone', (including all the real experts in many different fields), take 'offence' when your evidence-free assertions are shown to be wrong.
Btw... Evidence free assertions? Find what I have claimed besides this simple statement: climate changes. We have very little clue as to why. We don't know enough or have enough credible evidence to support any substantiated conclusion. Therefore, no legislation should be enacted...

So, non expert and very poor sophist, what is not ideologogicalolitical, motive wise in what I state vs you? Flipping know nothing since you are an all seer. Hit a nerve? Good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,108,889 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
The study, published in Nature Climate Change and led by Delphine Deryng, an environmental scientist at the University of Chicago’s Computation Institute, Columbia University’s Center for Climate Systems Research and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, finds that higher atmospheric CO2 will increase the water productivity of staple crops, including wheat, maize, rice and soybean. Modeling data found that in 2080 the elevated CO2 would improve agricultural water efficiency and increase crop yield—but not enough to completely offset the expected decline from climate change.

Higher CO2 levels could offset some crop losses from climate change | UChicago News

Here's one of the several studies I mentioned showing higher CO2 levels means crops require less water.

The "expected decline from climate change" will never materialize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 12:46 AM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,182,912 times
Reputation: 12100
Quote:
Originally Posted by zortation View Post
I live in the country where this is happening, you complete genius. It's on the news here, it's in the public consciousness, and the people who live there say they've never experienced anything like it. We see the evidence of it quite plainly. I know it's hard when you live in a country full of stupid, but what can I do? Believe what you want because it is happening.

What's happening? The public consciousness? Most people are worried about not getting stuff. Not about a nebulous theory.

What evidence? You go into arm waving hysteria shrieking about something you can't change just to feel better about yourself.

Climate change will happen and no amount of doomsday predictions, hand wringing whining will change one iota of human behaviour.

But those that shriek the loudest should do their part so start walking.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:49 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