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.
You have no right to determine that us "stealing" your tax dollars is worse than our species; extinction, and that entire mentality makes no sense at all.
Humans are not going extinct any time so, and the most likely cause of extinction is an impact by a celestial body like an asteroid or comet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
So...here's a question for the global warming deniers and people who believe global warming is happening, but is not caused by humans:
Why is it that such a huge percentage of western, first world governments say that global warming is man-made?
Governments will seize on any number of things for any number of reasons to create policies for any number of reasons, good or bad, but the fact that they do, does not make it Truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
Why would I care if they survived it or not? Humans also survived the bubonic plague. That doesn't mean it was a good thing.
It was a good thing. It weeded out through Natural Selection the weakest members of the population and strengthened the gene pool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
I don't know if water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than C02 or not...
It is, and you need only to look at the graph to see that H2O causes far more damage than CO2 ever could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends. To address this concern, they have compared the data from remote stations (sites that are nowhere near human activity) to more urban sites.
That's a great example of bad science. UHIs are data outliers and should be excluded in their entirety.
Proper science would have this to say:
Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends. To address this concern, they have totally excluded more urban sites, since they give false readings.
Surely, you can see the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
During the Ordovician, solar output was 4% lower than current levels, and there was a large continent over the South Pole. Consequently, CO2 levels at around 1,000 to 2,300 ppm were actually low enough to promote glaciation in the southern continent of Gondwana.
There's still a large continent over the South Pole. It's called Antarctica.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago. However, solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels.
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
You mean the companies who no doubt despise anything that might result from admitting global warming is man-made, such as carbon taxes or pollution prohibitions?
I was referring to private sector science research facilities and laboratories, the very same facilities that repeatedly have provided warnings about unsafe products and substances.
"The hallmark of science is the ability of others to replicate the results you obtained through experimentation, and it is experimentation coupled with the ability to replicate the results that is the proof.
You can make whatever claims you want, but unless others can replicate your experiment and achieve the same results, it is unproven."
And you just said proof was required.
Proof is always required for science, but not scientific papers, as you can plainly see:
Dr. Michael H. Salamon, a physicist at the University of Utah who had close contact with the researchers, said that the data measured in the laboratory were different from those published in the original scientific paper, which was a pivotal piece of evidence for the claim of cold fusion.
This, and all scientific papers, are published without proof. Peer-review only determines if the scientific methodology is both sound and ethical, not that it is proven. Proof is obtained only when other scientists attempt to replicate the claims made in a scientific paper, and when it cannot be replicated, the theory and hypothesis are rejected, as was the case with cold-fusion.
The sole purpose of scientific papers is to distribute the hypothesis and theories, along with the methodology used to obtain evidence, and the evidence obtained, to other scientists.
Publishing a paper is a means to reach tens of thousands of scientists and non-scientists, and is more cost-effective, quicker and easier than having scientists and others travel at their own expense to your research facility to watch the experiment.
Humans are not going extinct any time so, and the most likely cause of extinction is an impact by a celestial body like an asteroid or comet.
Unless you know of any specific one that's likely on a collision course with Earth now, I'd question that. Even the one that killed the dinosaurs didn't wipe out all life, so we've spent a long, long time without being hit by massively destructive space debris.
I'm not sure why a pandemic wouldn't be at least as much or a risk.
I don't know a huge amount global warming, but if the feedback loops can actually keep making Earth hotter forever, that seems like a pretty big risk to me too.
Quote:
Governments will seize on any number of things for any number of reasons to create policies for any number of reasons, good or bad, but the fact that they do, does not make it Truth.
Oh, I certainly agree with that. I assume that's why Trump claimed global warming was a myth made up by China...or maybe he just has histrionic disorder and feeds off attention or something. I'm not sure which.
Quote:
It was a good thing. It weeded out through Natural Selection the weakest members of the population and strengthened the gene pool.
It might have been a good thing. I think I remember someone saying something about being able to trace our DNA back to about 70,000 years ago or so when the total human population might have numbered under 1,000 people. The thought was that a massive drought nearly drove us to extinction. I watched a tv show where a speaker hypothesized that resulted in the ones who could think the furthest into the future surviving.
That's assuming you perceive modern life as superior to that of ancient humans and their ancestors though. Many people would disagree. I feel like I'd have to live in both environments to know for sure. I'd assume most people's lives are better now...but I'd also assume it would have been better to live out in the woods 30,000 years ago than to live in many of the large cities of the last 2,000 years, where England used to believe bathing was dangerous and the water was...nasty, nasty, nasty.
Quote:
It is, and you need only to look at the graph to see that H2O causes far more damage than CO2 ever could.
Well, I did say I didn't care. Presumably that's why people are so concerned about it helping to heat the earth more.
I don't see any reason why that would make human-made global warming any less plausible though.
Quote:
That's a great example of bad science. UHIs are data outliers and should be excluded in their entirety.
Proper science would have this to say:
Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends. To address this concern, they have totally excluded more urban sites, since they give false readings.
Surely, you can see the difference.
Maybe you're right. I don't know. I haven't looked into that much yet.
Quote:
There's still a large continent over the South Pole. It's called Antarctica.
I agree completely. Also, you're going to have to elaborate on your intended meaning or I'm just going to assume you enjoy stating random geography facts
Quote:
B]NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE[/b] Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
Note that the date of publication of that web page was 2003. Also note the disclaimer at the top of the page:
Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers. Visit NASA.gov for current information
The following is also from the NASA website. It's dated 2017:
How do we know that changes in the sun aren’t to blame for current global warming trends?
Since 1978, a series of satellite instruments have measured the energy output of the sun directly. The satellite data show a very slight drop in solar irradiance (which is a measure of the amount of energy the sun gives off) over this time period. So the sun doesn't appear to be responsible for the warming trend observed over the past several decades.
Longer-term estimates of solar irradiance have been made using sunspot records and other so-called “proxy indicators,” such as the amount of carbon in tree rings. The most recent analyses of these proxies indicate that solar irradiance changes cannot plausibly account for more than 10 percent of the 20th century’s warming. https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
Note also that the 2003 article just mentions that since 1970 there's been increases in the amount of solar radiation the sun emits during times of low sunspot activity. The 2017 article, on the other hand, talks about the amount of solar irradiance generally speaking.
Quote:
I was referring to private sector science research facilities and laboratories, the very same facilities that repeatedly have provided warnings about unsafe products and substances.
Well, your exact statement was:
Cut-off government funding. It there's any truth, then the private sector will pick up the tab.
That means less research grants, and therefore less research. I see climate change as something that effects everyone, so that kind of research is something worthy of tax dollars. You haven't shown that kind of research as being biased, so I'm thinking less of that kind of research would mean a greater percentage of "research" done by the oil companies.
The thing about most unsafe products is that companies that produce them can merely do a recall and the company loses money, but they might have had even worse results if they continued to sell a hazardous product without people's knowledge anyway.
You can't. of course, merely recall oil. It's our nations life blood at this time, and trying to hinder the flow of that life blood is basically threatening to make everyone's life in the country a little harder, so there's going to be more opposition.
Also, global warming appears to be the kind of thing people desperately need more data on as soon as possible. I don't see less research as being a particularly good thing.
I am in southern Missouri. All our high temp records were set in 1954.
Thanks for your reply. I visited relatives in the Ozarks in Missouri for a month in 2008 and drove all over that whole state seeing the sights. It's such a beautiful state and I had planned to stay longer but my big mistake was in going there at the beginning of July which is the hottest time of year there. Coming from the cooler Pacific coastal area of Canada I found I was not able to acclimate to the summer heat and humidity of Missouri and within a week it was making me lethargic and sick. I'd actually planned on being there for three months but was forced to leave and return home after a month when it became evident by the third week that the constant temperatures in the mid to upper 90's F. and exceptionally high humidity was causing my kidneys to malfunction. So I reluctantly left before my health situation got worse.
If I ever go back to visit Missouri again I'll make sure to do it in spring or autumn, not in summer. But even with getting sick, it was still worth the visit and I got some fantastic photographs of stunning scenery and wildlife in that state. During that month I witnessed several spectacular lightning storms that were stationary and just hung in place for hours and hours without moving on and they lit up the entire night sky like non-stop fireworks shows. We don't ever get stationary lightning storms like that here and I could have sat up all night just watching the display. It was a really amazing force of nature to see and I will never forget that.
Thanks for your reply. I visited relatives in the Ozarks in Missouri for a month in 2008 and drove all over that whole state seeing the sights. It's such a beautiful state and I had planned to stay longer but my big mistake was in going there at the beginning of July which is the hottest time of year there. Coming from the cooler Pacific coastal area of Canada I found I was not able to acclimate to the summer heat and humidity of Missouri and within a week it was making me lethargic and sick. I'd actually planned on being there for three months but was forced to leave and return home after a month when it became evident by the third week that the constant temperatures in the mid to upper 90's F. and exceptionally high humidity was causing my kidneys to malfunction. So I reluctantly left before my health situation got worse.
If I ever go back to visit Missouri again I'll make sure to do it in spring or autumn, not in summer. But even with getting sick, it was still worth the visit and I got some fantastic photographs of stunning scenery and wildlife in that state. During that month I witnessed several spectacular lightning storms that were stationary and just hung in place for hours and hours without moving on and they lit up the entire night sky like non-stop fireworks shows. We don't ever get stationary lightning storms like that here and I could have sat up all night just watching the display. It was a really amazing force of nature to see and I will never forget that.
.
Next time, check out the caves. We have hundreds of them. And the Lake of the Ozarks, it has almost as much shoreline as Florida.
And the heat bothers me too now. I had a heat stroke one time working in a house with no A/C and the windows painted shut.
Did I say you were a denier? What is a leftist? In case you don't know global warming exists and is what causes the climate to change. Climate change is a problem that transcends your petty politics.
Climate fundamentalism is what I call a secular religion. There is no God in this religion, but there is blind faith and obstinate dedication to the proposition that anything that conflicts with confirmed bias cannot be correct and must be discounted. Underlying this faith is hatred of achievement and envy for the progress of others. And under this, is hatred of one’s own incompetence and insecurity. The Climate Baptists are one sect. The blindest of faith, the most strident expressed bias. Climate Baptists are also usually social justice warriors and are always against freedom and Capitalism. Be very wary and cautious of the Climate Baptists. Destruction of humanity is their final goal.
Thanks for your reply. I visited relatives in the Ozarks in Missouri for a month in 2008 and drove all over that whole state seeing the sights. It's such a beautiful state and I had planned to stay longer but my big mistake was in going there at the beginning of July which is the hottest time of year there. Coming from the cooler Pacific coastal area of Canada I found I was not able to acclimate to the summer heat and humidity of Missouri and within a week it was making me lethargic and sick. I'd actually planned on being there for three months but was forced to leave and return home after a month when it became evident by the third week that the constant temperatures in the mid to upper 90's F. and exceptionally high humidity was causing my kidneys to malfunction. So I reluctantly left before my health situation got worse.
If I ever go back to visit Missouri again I'll make sure to do it in spring or autumn, not in summer. But even with getting sick, it was still worth the visit and I got some fantastic photographs of stunning scenery and wildlife in that state. During that month I witnessed several spectacular lightning storms that were stationary and just hung in place for hours and hours without moving on and they lit up the entire night sky like non-stop fireworks shows. We don't ever get stationary lightning storms like that here and I could have sat up all night just watching the display. It was a really amazing force of nature to see and I will never forget that.
.
Yeah, I like the hills, and the many creeks, and the woods. We do have soup air though. I went to Colorado for a couple weeks in July and came back and it felt like I was swimming through the air.
Thanks for your reply. I visited relatives in the Ozarks in Missouri for a month in 2008 and drove all over that whole state seeing the sights. It's such a beautiful state and I had planned to stay longer but my big mistake was in going there at the beginning of July which is the hottest time of year there. Coming from the cooler Pacific coastal area of Canada I found I was not able to acclimate to the summer heat and humidity of Missouri and within a week it was making me lethargic and sick. I'd actually planned on being there for three months but was forced to leave and return home after a month when it became evident by the third week that the constant temperatures in the mid to upper 90's F. and exceptionally high humidity was causing my kidneys to malfunction. So I reluctantly left before my health situation got worse.
If I ever go back to visit Missouri again I'll make sure to do it in spring or autumn, not in summer. But even with getting sick, it was still worth the visit and I got some fantastic photographs of stunning scenery and wildlife in that state. During that month I witnessed several spectacular lightning storms that were stationary and just hung in place for hours and hours without moving on and they lit up the entire night sky like non-stop fireworks shows. We don't ever get stationary lightning storms like that here and I could have sat up all night just watching the display. It was a really amazing force of nature to see and I will never forget that.
.
Yeah, I like the hills, and the many creeks, and the woods. We do have soup air though. I went to Colorado for a couple weeks in July and came back and it felt like I was swimming through the air. Colorado felt somehow cleaner too. I have an aunt who lives in Arizona who refuses to come anywhere near this state in the summertime. I've never had any problems with it. I haven't used an air conditioner for the last two summer's either. I guess you just kind of adapt to your environment. I do sleep with a fan constantly blowing on me though.
Climate fundamentalism is what I call a secular religion. There is no God in this religion, but there is blind faith and obstinate dedication to the proposition that anything that conflicts with confirmed bias cannot be correct and must be discounted. Underlying this faith is hatred of achievement and envy for the progress of others. And under this, is hatred of one’s own incompetence and insecurity. The Climate Baptists are one sect. The blindest of faith, the most strident expressed bias. Climate Baptists are also usually social justice warriors and are always against freedom and Capitalism. Be very wary and cautious of the Climate Baptists. Destruction of humanity is their final goal.
Congratulations, I rarely see a single post with so many assertions get every singe one of them wrong.....A psychic you are not.
Climate fundamentalism is what I call a secular religion. There is no God in this religion, but there is blind faith and obstinate dedication to the proposition that anything that conflicts with confirmed bias cannot be correct and must be discounted. Underlying this faith is hatred of achievement and envy for the progress of others. And under this, is hatred of one’s own incompetence and insecurity. The Climate Baptists are one sect. The blindest of faith, the most strident expressed bias. Climate Baptists are also usually social justice warriors and are always against freedom and Capitalism. Be very wary and cautious of the Climate Baptists. Destruction of humanity is their final goal.
You are unintentionally hilarious. You cast compete and utter skepticism on actual science and likely consider yourself a “man of faith” who puts his trust in God.
If I’m correct, you are, as previously stated, hilarious, albeit not intentionally. Thanks for the laugh.
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.
