Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 91 of 971 (750647)
02-19-2015 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2015 9:34 AM


Okay, so all the scientists that are saying otherwise...
Do you think they are ignorant, or do you think they are lying?
They have a reason to lie, the oldest reason in the world. Power and money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2015 9:34 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2015 10:03 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2015 8:20 PM marc9000 has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 92 of 971 (750650)
02-19-2015 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by marc9000
02-19-2015 8:49 PM


They have a reason to lie, the oldest reason in the world. Power and money.
Looks like you and a bunch of other denialists got scammed
Ultimate Wealth Report - Ultimate Wealth Report - Real Asset Investing to Fight Inflation
Gotta love those conspiracy theorists and their patsies.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2015 8:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by glowby, posted 02-20-2015 1:58 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 98 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2015 7:23 PM RAZD has replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(1)
Message 93 of 971 (750651)
02-20-2015 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by marc9000
02-19-2015 8:40 PM


glowby writes:
according to you, you'd still be adding to the problem every time you exhaled, belched or farted.
marc9000 writes:
it seems to be according to the scientific studies about it
Show us a study that says (or implies) that human bodily functions have contributed significantly to the enormous amounts of CO2 we now have in our atmosphere. And please, don't just show us another blogger's or celebrity's spin on it.
It seems that all studies, taken together, leave no doubt that we have extra CO2 in the atmosphere because we've dug and pumped carbon out of the ground and burned it. This is carbon that Earth has kept locked away for millions of years, and could never have been put into the air without our burning massive quantities of it.
Ice cores, tree rings, corals, and ocean chemistry all show that beginning with the industrial revolution, when we started burning fossil fuels, more and more of our air contains CO2, and more and more of that CO2 is from fossil fuels.
To demand a full and precise accounting of CO2 generated from each and every natural source, as a condition to accepting that we're generating huge amounts of it unnaturally, like I implied earlier, is just a lame dodge. If it's winter and your house suddenly gets cold, do you deny that an open door or window could be the cause, and insist it might only be a bad gasket on the refrigerator. If your checkbook's balance is heading toward zero, do you demand an detailed accounting of how much salt, pepper, and flour you're using before you accept that it could be those monthly payments on your new sports car?
marc9000 writes:
My reasons for entering this thread are in my first substantial, yet brief, opening Message 8. There were no responses to that particular message, and it's very telling that of all 11, (count em, 11) of my opponents, not a single one of them has agreed with me that "doing something" about global warming involves politics and ethics, not necessarily science.
Well, I agree that "doing something" involves politics and ethics, and it MUST necessarily involve science if we are to deal with the problem effectively. What problem? No problem, according to you. You deny it. You have no sincere interest in dealing with the problem. You seem only interested in dealing with the politics, which themselves are based on denial of the problem. That's why I, personally, avoid replying to the political fluff in your messages.
marc9000 writes:
What you consider to be a denial could just be more a case of priorities...
No. It's plain and simple denial. You deny that global warming is happening. You deny that man is causing it. Global warming is a fact. The evidence of man's involvement is overwhelming.
marc9000 writes:
...Some people, (many millions actually) believe that a U.S. or worldwide financial crash could be much more costly ... Or a germ warfare attack ...
... and there are dozens of other costly and deadly threats to the world as well. Global warming is one of them. Explain how the existence of other threats justifies denying this one. Is it because the other potential threats seem more imminent? Global warming is an inevitable threat if we do nothing. At least we have some control over global warming. We caused it. We can put the brakes on it.
marc9000 writes:
What specifically, (basically, briefly) did Gore do that you don't agree with?
It's hard to be specific and also basic and brief at the same time! Specifically and briefly, he highlighted individual extreme weather events as evidence for global warming. Only extended patterns of extremes are meaningful. Basically, he talks like a politician. I reflexively distrust them.
marc9000 writes:
I posted the following link earlier, there were no comments. ... [list of possible benefits of global warming]... Does something like this get any kind of thoughtful consideration by the scientific community, or is it automatically dismissed, for political reasons?
You deny GW is real. Why do you think its possible benefits could be real?
I'm not saying we should do it, but it would be fun to dissect each of the 10 supposed benefits in that list. I can only identify 3 that aren't fallacious, misleading, miniscule or self-evident.
Anyway, yes, it gets considerable consideration, but it's generally too soon to know how individual (regional) climates will be affected long-term. Whether a region's new climate gets "better" or "worse", adapting to the new system will be costly. And of course, "under water" is an intractable problem for human beings, many of whom live on coasts and none of whom have gills. Either way, Earth's ecosystems and wildlife will take an enormous hit. Yeah sure, they'll get over it eventually if we let them, but not for hundreds or thousands of years or more, if ever.
marc9000 writes:
Just what a "fact" is can be hard to define.
No. It's not that hard to define. That hockey stick you deny - it's facts. It's a picture of data. Data is fact. You deny it. The hard part is justifying denial of it. We see you struggling.
marc9000 writes:
There have always been plenty of scientific predictions about climate change (warming and cooling) that turned out to not be factual.
Predictions and forecasts are by definition never factual. They are estimates of future events. They are always presented with percents of probabilities and ranges of possible outcomes. Most of the IPCC's predictions (from the earliest reports) have turned out to be within forecasted ranges. Some overestimated the warming, melting, and sea level rise. Some underestimated them.
So what's your point? If the weatherman predicts a 90% chance of rain this coming Saturday and Sunday, you'd put off that picnic despite the fact that he predicted only a 30% chance last Tuesday but it rained most of the day.
Be honest. Please.
marc9000 writes:
The scientific community needs to learn that there are consequences to making wrong predictions.
No. You need to learn that there are consequences to ignoring reality by pretending that reasonable estimates of future conditions are "factual" things, and that they must be absolutely right or wrong. If your mechanic tells you that your bald tire will probably blow out in a week or two, but it takes a whole month, was he "wrong" that you needed a new tire? Do you blame him for being in on a conspiracy to sell you tires?
glowby writes:
Yes, you do have a way of knowing [the science]. But it takes time and effort.
marc9000 writes:
I'll try to do that when I get time. But I have no way of knowing just what his part is in the $22 Billion dollars the taxpayers provide annually for this political movement.
You've got the time. You study the political spin religiously. That's how you deliver us these half-assed half-baked political memes, like "$22 Billion dollars ... for this political movement", instead of solid factual knowledge of the subject. Can you explain exactly where each of those $22 billion comes from? Where each one goes? No? If not, doesn't that mean we should deny that any money has changed hands at all? Does it mean you can deny that taxes are collected and spent?
I'm not denying that a lot of money is spent. I don't need to. I'm not a denier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2015 8:40 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by NoNukes, posted 02-20-2015 10:37 AM glowby has seen this message but not replied
 Message 99 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2015 8:18 PM glowby has replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(1)
Message 94 of 971 (750653)
02-20-2015 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
02-19-2015 10:03 PM


There's an amusing dissection of Tom Luongo's scam tactics here: Tom Luongo's multiple lies about climate change

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2015 10:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by marc9000, posted 02-22-2015 8:24 PM glowby has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 971 (750657)
02-20-2015 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by marc9000
02-19-2015 8:40 PM


Not really according to me, but it seems to be according to the scientific studies about it, since there isn't any concrete way to distinguish between certain humans that cause it, (either by their production of products, or their consumption of products), and other humans who do nothing to cause it.
No, we cannot distinguish between the various man made sources by directly analyzing the atmosphere in bulk. But, yes we can quantify the various sources of green house cases. That is enough information to target policy at the actual causes. We don't need to target people who get their electricity from burning dirty coal. Instead we might replace coal burning planets with nuclear power or an alternative, which addresses the problem.
What you consider to be a denial could just be more a case of priorities.
Could be, but that possibility really does not seem to describe you personally. Very little of your response here seems like a difference in priorities.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2015 8:40 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 96 of 971 (750659)
02-20-2015 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by glowby
02-20-2015 1:43 AM


And of course, "under water" is an intractable problem for human beings, many of whom live on coasts and none of whom have gills.
Well one man's drowning under water is new beach property for another man.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by glowby, posted 02-20-2015 1:43 AM glowby has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 97 of 971 (750669)
02-20-2015 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by marc9000
02-19-2015 8:40 PM


Not really according to me, but it seems to be according to the scientific studies about it, since there isn't any concrete way to distinguish between certain humans that cause it, (either by their production of products, or their consumption of products), and other humans who do nothing to cause it.
There is a concrete way to test whether the increased CO2 in our atmosphere is coming from fossil fuels. When photosynthesis takes CO2 out of the air and makes long chain hydrocarbons from them, the process tends to favor 12C over 13C. This means that fossil fuels are richer in 12C than abiotic sources like volcanic eruptions. Guess what? The increase in CO2 over the last 100 years is rich in 12C. The conclusion is obvious. Burning fossil fuels has increased CO2 to 400 ppm, about 30% higher than the natural levels seen in the ice records.
not a single one of them has agreed with me that "doing something" about global warming involves politics and ethics, not necessarily science.
The problem that we have is that people are using political propoganda to hide the facts about what is causing global climate change.
What you consider to be a denial could just be more a case of priorities.
Denying that human activities are increasing levels of greenhouse gases, and therefore increasing global temps, is not a case of priorities. It is a case of dishonesty and a failure to accurately describe the facts.
Just what a "fact" is can be hard to define. There have always been plenty of scientific predictions about climate change (warming and cooling) that turned out to not be factual.
The Greenhouse Effect is not a prediction. It is an observed and known effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2015 8:40 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2015 8:30 PM Taq has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 98 of 971 (750683)
02-20-2015 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
02-19-2015 10:03 PM


Looks like you and a bunch of other denialists got scammed
Ultimate Wealth Report - Ultimate Wealth Report - Real Asset Investing to Fight Inflation
Gotta love those conspiracy theorists and their patsies.
What in the world does this investment guru's advertising have to do with this thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2015 10:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2015 4:35 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 99 of 971 (750684)
02-20-2015 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by glowby
02-20-2015 1:43 AM


Ice cores, tree rings, corals, and ocean chemistry all show that beginning with the industrial revolution, when we started burning fossil fuels, more and more of our air contains CO2, and more and more of that CO2 is from fossil fuels.
Many posters in this thread have indicated that "something must be done", to combat/control global warming. But there have been no examples. What suggestions do you have? Fossil fuels seem to be the target. What steps should be taken to cut back their use? Do any of your proposals NOT involve politics?
To demand a full and precise accounting of CO2 generated from each and every natural source, as a condition to accepting that we're generating huge amounts of it unnaturally, like I implied earlier, is just a lame dodge.
Full and precise accountings will have to be a part of actions to reduce man-made CO2. What actions look attractive to you?
Well, I agree that "doing something" involves politics and ethics, and it MUST necessarily involve science if we are to deal with the problem effectively.
How do you propose we deal with it effectively? How would we measure your proposals effectiveness?
What problem? No problem, according to you. You deny it. You have no sincere interest in dealing with the problem.
I don't see any way of dealing with it that won't cause far more problems than will ever be solved.
You seem only interested in dealing with the politics, which themselves are based on denial of the problem.
So how can the problem be dealt with, without politics being involved?
marc9000 writes:
...Some people, (many millions actually) believe that a U.S. or worldwide financial crash could be much more costly ... Or a germ warfare attack ...
... and there are dozens of other costly and deadly threats to the world as well. Global warming is one of them. Explain how the existence of other threats justifies denying this one.
If there is a financial meltdown, a stop in military pay could cause most all of our soldiers, (overseas, and at our borders) to drop their guns and wander home. It could stop imports of oil to the U.S. stopping diesel trucks that deliver food to our grocery stores. Their shelves would get bare in a matter of days. How do you think the populace would react to that? A LOT more fervently than they would to a temperature increase of 1 DEGREE OVER 50 YEARS!!! HELLO!!!! IS ANYBODY HOME????
You deny GW is real. Why do you think its possible benefits could be real?
I don't deny that it's real, I deny that there's anything humans can do about it. That it could be happening, regardless of its causes, and could be beneficial, isn't related to beliefs about human's ability to control it.
I'm not saying we should do it, but it would be fun to dissect each of the 10 supposed benefits in that list. I can only identify 3 that aren't fallacious, misleading, miniscule or self-evident.
Looks like a pretty quick, knee-jerk dismissal of it. Not very scientific.
No. It's not that hard to define. That hockey stick you deny - it's facts. It's a picture of data. Data is fact. You deny it. The hard part is justifying denial of it. We see you struggling.
I'd like to see you list and justify actions to remedy it.
Predictions and forecasts are by definition never factual. They are estimates of future events. They are always presented with percents of probabilities and ranges of possible outcomes. Most of the IPCC's predictions (from the earliest reports) have turned out to be within forecasted ranges. Some overestimated the warming, melting, and sea level rise. Some underestimated them.
So what's your point?
My point is that "doing something about" or "putting the brakes on" global warming involves actions that ALWAYS have costs. If those actions are based on "estimates of future events" that turn out to be wrong, what assurances do we have that the incorrect estimators will pay those costs? None? Be honest, please.
You've got the time. You study the political spin religiously. That's how you deliver us these half-assed half-baked political memes, like "$22 Billion dollars ... for this political movement", instead of solid factual knowledge of the subject.
I know what 1 degree C. is. I know how long 50 years is. I know some history about how tyrants operate, how factions operate. I know a lot about U.S. foundings, and a lot about how much the U.S. government has grown, only in my lifetime. I also easily see how science is controlled by liberalism and atheism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by glowby, posted 02-20-2015 1:43 AM glowby has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 02-20-2015 8:35 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 108 by Pressie, posted 02-21-2015 7:45 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 118 by glowby, posted 02-22-2015 5:57 PM marc9000 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 100 of 971 (750685)
02-20-2015 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by marc9000
02-19-2015 8:49 PM


They have a reason to lie, the oldest reason in the world. Power and money.
How do you know that those guys aren't the ones who are lying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2015 8:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2015 8:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 101 of 971 (750686)
02-20-2015 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Taq
02-20-2015 1:44 PM


There is a concrete way to test whether the increased CO2 in our atmosphere is coming from fossil fuels. When photosynthesis takes CO2 out of the air and makes long chain hydrocarbons from them, the process tends to favor 12C over 13C. This means that fossil fuels are richer in 12C than abiotic sources like volcanic eruptions. Guess what? The increase in CO2 over the last 100 years is rich in 12C. The conclusion is obvious. Burning fossil fuels has increased CO2 to 400 ppm, about 30% higher than the natural levels seen in the ice records.
You're using a computer, it rode on a diesel truck at one time, either whole or in parts. You probably ate today, that food rode on a diesel truck at one time or another. So you're not completely innocent. What action(s) do YOU propose to "put the brakes on" global warming?
The problem that we have is that people are using political propoganda to hide the facts about what is causing global climate change.
Lets see your non-political propaganda on what to do about it.
marc9000 writes:
What you consider to be a denial could just be more a case of priorities.
Denying that human activities are increasing levels of greenhouse gases, and therefore increasing global temps, is not a case of priorities. It is a case of dishonesty and a failure to accurately describe the facts.
No, it's really priorities. I believe that a financial crisis could have an exponentially more serious consequence to human life and survival than 1 or 2 degrees in temperature over an entire generation's lifespan.
(the question is bound to come) "What action do I propose to "do something" about my fear of a future financial crisis? And here's my answer - THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP BORROWING MONEY. Do you have any answers to global warming that are that direct and simple?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 02-20-2015 1:44 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2015 2:02 AM marc9000 has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34058
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 102 of 971 (750687)
02-20-2015 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by marc9000
02-20-2015 8:18 PM


steps to take
The steps we should take is address the US contributions.
Continue to legislate reducing emissions from both corporate and individual usage.
Continue to legislate more fuel efficient vehicles.
Continue to legislate more efficient appliances.
Increase the cost of gasoline and diesel fuels by adding an additional tax that will be set aside to use only to mitigate harmful effects of global warming and rebuilding infrastructure.
Place a moratorium on any new coastal construction and tax existing coastal industry and corporations.
Work on plans to move people away from potential flood areas.
Continue laughing at the silly global warming deniers.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2015 8:18 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2015 8:47 PM jar has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 103 of 971 (750688)
02-20-2015 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2015 8:20 PM


How do you know that those guys aren't the ones who are lying?
Expenditures on global warming studies, by the U.S. and much of the world, is all over the internet. It's a big business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2015 8:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2015 8:48 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 109 by Theodoric, posted 02-21-2015 9:23 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 104 of 971 (750689)
02-20-2015 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by jar
02-20-2015 8:35 PM


Re: steps to take
The steps we should take is address the US contributions.
Continue to legislate reducing emissions from both corporate and individual usage.
Continue to legislate more fuel efficient vehicles.
Continue to legislate more efficient appliances.
Increase the cost of gasoline and diesel fuels by adding an additional tax that will be set aside to use only to mitigate harmful effects of global warming and rebuilding infrastructure.
Place a moratorium on any new coastal construction and tax existing coastal industry and corporations.
Work on plans to move people away from potential flood areas.
In other words, elect Democrats! Surrender freedom! Ignore the 10th amendment!
How will the successes of all these increases in government be measured?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 02-20-2015 8:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by jar, posted 02-20-2015 8:54 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 971 (750690)
02-20-2015 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by marc9000
02-20-2015 8:42 PM


How do you know that those guys aren't the ones who are lying?
Expenditures on global warming studies, by the U.S. and much of the world, is all over the internet. It's a big business.
Yeah but if it is real then it makes sense that people are spending money to stop it.
I was asking how you know that the people that are saying that the scientists are lying aren't the ones who are lying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2015 8:42 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by marc9000, posted 02-22-2015 8:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024