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.
I don't know why you guys continue to argue with him about climate-change. He doesn't care to have a civil and fact-driven discussion about anything. He barely even reads what you write.
You might as well be talking to a wall. A very rude wall.
I am trying to understand these people. There is no individual thinking, it's all parroting. "It is backed by science, so it's right" is as far the discussion goes. I checked how many comments Matadora made since yesterday, it's 42. In comparison you have made 14, this is my 8th.
I am trying to understand these people. There is no individual thinking, it's all parroting. "It is backed by science, so it's right" is as far the discussion goes.
Really? That all it is? LMAO!
I've been debunking the BS while backing it up the the scientific data that correlates and spoon feeding statistics. Seems as if I'm the only one doing the individual thinking while you post videos of Tim Ball, other's post online news that "Mar's is experiencing global warming according to scientist", and a few have posted some really bizzare flat line graphs that hides the important data. Lot's of climate denier blogs being linked as well as climate denier mouth pieces for the petroleum industry. Absolutely no thinking going while engaging these activities...only parroting the think tank's indoctrination. Then top it off with some like you proclaiming Neil deGrasse Tyson does not understand science yet you don't even understand how a 2 to 3° increase in global temperature will affect life on earth.
In case you missed me debunking those funky graphs.
I just created a couple of plots in Excel from the data in the link above. One graph shows a vertical axis with a range of 0°C to 26°C and the other shows a range of 24°C to 26°C.
The exact same date points are on both graphs. Why do you think they look different even though they share the exact same data points? Since the variation in temperature is about 1°C over that period, of course it's not visible on a graph that doesn't have the appropriate scale to show the change as demonstrated in the graph you posted.
If we plotted on a Kelvin scale starting at zero it would be comparing the mild temperatures of our planet to cold in the deep of space.
A change of only 2 or 3°C is enough to wipe out a significant portion of life on our planet, but it wouldn't even show up on the Kelvin scale graph you posted. It's always important to show data on a scale that correlates with the magnitude of the change or it's just misleading.
You will never see the change in temperature when you plot it on a graph such as the one you and ChrisC posted because the scale of the graph is not appropriate for assessing the data. You will never see the changes over time.
Why do you think you only see a flat line using your graphs pentameters? Answer>>>It will never show the changes due to the limitations set by the graph. It's hiding data not showing data.
It's like trying see an atom with the naked eye. Impossible right? Right...unless you resolve it with an electron microscope. That's exactly what your and ChrisC graphs are doing.
Recall the blogger talking about scientist magnifying the scale? He's using a very disingenuous climate denier tactic to purposely mislead the significance of a 1°C change in temperature. He's used a trick to fool those who are not paying attention to details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelogo
I checked how many comments Matadora made since yesterday, it's 42. In comparison you have made 14, this is my 8th.
Thanks for keeping tabs on how many times I've responded to others. I see I officially have a CD stalker.
Yes the Republican party is anti-science and friends to Oil and Gas.
They are tickled pink that they are can rape and screw over the environment because they know the majority of Americans can't think and lack basic statistics knowledge. They relay on making well established data debatable and misleading. The longer these fools want to debate well established scientific data the more we are neglecting finding a solution.
There is absolutely NO REASON other than people's ignorance that is keeping us from moving forward with a solution.
When dealing with people who are STEM illiterate you have to set standards.
You have to set the standards to first establishing what is objectively true..with scientifically established data...then proceed from there.
Not one single climate denier has been able to do this.
What utter bunk. Your propaganda campaign, however, is no longer gaining traction, try as you might to terrorize them into giving up their freedom and their lifestyle.
Your thoroughly de-bunked scientifically-couched terror campaign has been shown to be that, and nothing more. All the crisis you guys try to terrorize people never are manifested, because they are just the mindless rantings of terrorists (you) with keyboards.
Now go stick a fork in yourself because, pal, you are DONE!
The climate and the earth has been changing for billions of years now, and will still continue to change. Thinking you know everything there is to know about this is laughable. We humans have only been here in a small fraction of time. It can wipe us out, start over again and think nothing of it.
So should we ignore all science because we have been here a short period of time, what does that have to do with the discussion. There have been plenty of scientific discoveries in the last several centuries regarding the earth and sun but you choose to ignore the science behind global warming.
The climate and the earth has been changing for billions of years now, and will still continue to change. Thinking you know everything there is to know about this is laughable. We humans have only been here in a small fraction of time. It can wipe us out, start over again and think nothing of it.
Cancer has been around since the dawn of mankind, so no reason to jettison that 2 pack a day smoking habit, right?
I've been debunking the BS while backing it up the the scientific data that correlates and spoon feeding statistics. Seems as if I'm the only one doing the individual thinking while you post videos of Tim Ball, other's post online news that "Mar's is experiencing global warming according to scientist", and a few have posted some really bizzare flat line graphs that hides the important data. Lot's of climate denier blogs being linked as well as climate denier mouth pieces for the petroleum industry. Absolutely no thinking going while engaging these activities...only parroting the think tank's indoctrination. Then top it off with some like you proclaiming Neil deGrasse Tyson does not understand science yet you don't even understand how a 2 to 3° increase in global temperature will affect life on earth.
In case you missed me debunking those funky graphs.
Thanks for keeping tabs on how many times I've responded to others. I see I officially have a CD stalker.
Look. You are attempting to present facts to people that are completely emotion-based. Facts do not sway them in the least.
Some folks just think their ignorance is better than your knowledge.
Lastly, a lot of them are OLD and just don't give a damn.
Cancer has been around since the dawn of mankind, so no reason to jettison that 2 pack a day smoking habit, right?
Lung cancer is rarely found in non-smokers who are repeatedly exposed to tobacco smoke or other airborne carcinogens.
Your analogy is one of a child, and it shows. Try harder and maybe you'll do better, and then maybe someone would take you seriously on this issue. Until then, well you and the issue are already dismissed as just another left-wing terror attempt.
Look. You are attempting to present facts to people that are completely emotion-based. Facts do not sway them in the least.
Some folks just think their ignorance is better than your knowledge.
Lastly, a lot of them are OLD and just don't give a damn.
You've gotten nothing correct and everything wrong.
We are people of science and fact. But no pseudo-science or pseudo facts.
Recent temperature data can't be trusted because attempts were never made to shield the measuriing equipment from changes in the local area, such as development, that would change the temperatures in the immediate area. Once example was a measuring station that used to be in an Orchard, that was later developed into an airport. Well of course the readings will change due to the changes to the infrastructure.
You simple can't properly assess climate over a relatively short period - it would take may hundreds if not thousands of years from reliable, stable measuring stations in areas not affected by physical change.
I see no evidence that the ocean level has changed to any perceptible degree, and certainly nothing we can't deal with. Our infrastructure doesn't last forever, and as it ages and needs replacement, we will adjust it if and as necessary to cope with the minor change in ocean level.
We will adapt, but we will NEVER shrink our lifestyle and usage of energy. You're side is welcome to, but frankly, I see no evidence they are willing to put their money where their mouth is. On the principle that actions speak louder than words, I can only assess that they don't believe their own bilge any more than anyone else does.
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.
