Well the topic Solar chose was why is Green energy a better source of energy then the alternatives? It would be helpful if he specified on what he considered green energy, but I'll go by the standard assumptions.
The most obvious reason green energy is a preferable alternative is due to climate change. For three years straight the Pentagon has listed climate change as the greatest threat to our survival. (1) The department of defense agreed saying, "the Defense Department already is observing the impacts of climate change in shocks and stressors to vulnerable nations and communities, including in the United States, the Arctic, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America, officials said.(2) And in 2014, again from the DOD, ""We are almost done with a baseline survey to assess the vulnerability of our military's more than 7,000 bases, installations, and other facilities. In places like the Hampton Roads region in Virginia, which houses the largest concentration of US military sites in the world, we see recurrent flooding today, and we are beginning work to address a projected sea-level rise of 1.5 feet over the next 20 to 50 years." This is of course a small sampling. The British Military concurs.(4) As does the entire European Union, as they released a report saying, "climate change – both in Europe and the rest of the world – was continuing, with "climate-related extremes" such as droughts, heatwaves and heavy precipitation increasing in both intensity and frequency across "many regions.'(5) A report by the Israeli government also agrees, "The impacts of climate change are evident across the globe," warning it threatens the very survival of Israel.(6)The Japanese government as well is taking strong steps and firmly believes climate change threatens their existence.(7)Even China.(8) When weighing all of these believers in climate change we should offer the alternative side. Namely, President Trump believes it is a chinese hoax.
Between 90 to 100% of climate scientists believe that climate change is real and caused by human action according to a new peer reviewed study. No no no. Not the old one to which I know you have a response for. This is a new tighter, peer-reviewed study.(9) However, we still must acknowledge Trump's argument that it is a Chinese hoax. This study has since been replicated six times with the same figures, between 90-100%.(10) While a commonly psychotic argument is made that such studies are fraudulently done, which would mean but scientists, and all militarizes around the world for grant money, there is of course as much grant money as disproving climate change as not. The incentive to lie about the climate is much higher for actual oil companies, etc, who make billions off it, not a professor getting a pathetic grant. Even Exxon Mobil now believes in climate change.(11) "Scientists have concluded that most of the observed warming is very likely due to the burning of coal, oil, and gas," according to one study.(12) As does a study by NASA, who also believes in climate change.(13) A 70th study here.(14)Another.(15)Another.(16) One can literally go on and on and on and on and on. New documents released show Exon knew about climate change for 30 years.(17)Oh and the last three years were the hottest three years on record, defeating each other one after the other.(18) Oh and anyone who experiences weather over a 25 year span knows full well it has changed. Even for the remaining skeptic who thinks himself smarter then the rest of the world, it would certainly make sense to err on the side of caution when the planet is at stake, no? Not to mention fossil fuels, aside from climate change, cause sicknesses, cancer, asthma, etc. (19)
The other main reason to favor green energy is to reduce our dies with child raping tyrants like that in Saudi Arabia. There for 50 years, we have given money to brutal dictators who kill innocent people and enslave women. The saudis ideologically are the same as ISIS, fund fundamentalist ideology everywhere, and make the Iranians look like saints. We wont have to give chemical and biolgical weapons to tyrants like Sadaam Hussein while he kills his own people. We dont have to treat the middle east like an imperial playground. We could close up shop our 100 military bases in the region, stop supporting monsters and fighting war after war and instead focus on things that matter. Border protection, education, etc.
Green energy is growing everywhere. The business opportunities will go to who acts the fastest.(20) To deny climate change is to openly accept ignorance. By failing to fully act on climate change the US may go down as the worst country in the history of earth. What worse way to illegal enter anothers borders then to destroy the earth they live in? How dare we threaten the earth? If the US refuses to acknowledge climate change then I hope for the future of man, that one day, our country collapses. No greater justice would ever happen!
Sourcesc
1.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/
2.https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710
3.http://www.newsweek.com/pentagon-report-us-military-considers-climate-change-immediate-threat-could-277155
4.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2013/jul/08/army-conflict-climate-change
5.http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/europe-warns-on-climate-change-as-trump-administration-starts-to-roll-back-us-policies.html
6.http://www.sviva.gov.il/InfoServices/ReservoirInfo/DocLib2/Publications/P0701-P0800/P0739.pdf
7. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/07/30/commentary/japan-commentary/japans-action-plan-to-fight-climate-change/
8.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/world/asia/trump-climate-change-paris-china.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=C950F0F631E1807EAC77621F45315071&gwt=pay
9.http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf
10.ibid
11. http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position
12.http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/threats-to-wildlife/global-warming/global-warming-is-human-caused.aspx
13.https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
14. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-causes/
15.https://phys.org/news/2017-03-deadly-climate.html
16.https://asunow.asu.edu/20170327-arizona-impact-asu-study-shows-effect-climate-change-food-energy-and-water-across-southwest
17.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
18.http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18751
19.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-health-care-burden-of-fossil-fuels/
20.https://www.forbes.com/sites/nishthachugh/2017/01/31/trump-cant-stop-renewables-energy-growth-at-home-or-abroad/#79dfab9323a9
Man-made global warming is a fraud. Why do you fall for scams so easily?
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2017, 02:05:25 PM
Man-made global warming is a fraud. Why do you fall for scams so easily?
Easily? Come on I am falling for like virtually every scientist on earth, every military on earth, my own eyes, thermometers, oil companies. I am just as gullible as everyone else!
Guy thinks he can refute an article with 20 sources in one sentence lol. Go ahead, go into each an argue the science!
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 02:09:25 PM
Easily? Come on I am falling for like virtually every scientist on earth, every military on earth, my own eyes, thermometers, oil companies. I am just as gullible as everyone else!
That's a lie as well. You will believe anything it seems like.
Quote
Guy thinks he can refute an article with 20 sources in one sentence lol. Go ahead, go into each an argue the science!
There is no science in those articles. Like I used to tell you people in the 1990s, no, we won't be under water by the year 2000. Yet, you guys gobbled it up and kept believing it for decades. Smart people don't grasp onto lies and believe scams.
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2017, 02:17:31 PM
That's a lie as well. You will believe anything it seems like.
There is no science in those articles. Like I used to tell you people in the 1990s, no, we won't be under water by the year 2000. Yet, you guys gobbled it up and kept believing it for decades. Smart people don't grasp onto lies and believe scams.
Thats not an argument. Nothing you made was an argument. There is loads of science in that article. Including studies replicated that produce the same results.
You mock what you dont understand.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 02:28:34 PM
Thats not an argument. Nothing you made was an argument. There is loads of science in that article. Including studies replicated that produce the same results.
No there isn't. We're not under water, no matter how much you want to believe it to be so.
Quote
You mock what you dont understand.
You didn't post any science. That's why you have to manipulate climate data and try to pull off scams. For example, CO2 isn't a pollutant, no matter how much you want to believe it is. Why is that?
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 02:09:25 PM
Easily? Come on I am falling for like virtually every scientist on earth, every military on earth, my own eyes, thermometers, oil companies. I am just as gullible as everyone else!
Guy thinks he can refute an article with 20 sources in one sentence lol. Go ahead, go into each an argue the science!
Ok....I invite you to watch a short you tube video that I think you will thoroughly enjoy; I know I did. I've watched it several times. It's an exchange between Senator Ted Cruz and the Sierra Club.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quOw4dI4Apw
Blake ... one thing is for certain ... right now you're entertaining. I'm not sure how much entertainment, I'll be able to handle. :popcorn:
Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 29, 2017, 02:36:58 PM
Blake ... one thing is for certain ... right now you're entertaining. I'm not sure how much entertainment, I'll be able to handle. :popcorn:
Blake isn't good at debating, because he falls for scams. What him become disassembled, and eventually have a melt down (they all do).
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2017, 02:38:03 PM
Blake isn't good at debating, because he falls for scams. What him become disassembled, and eventually have a melt down (they all do).
Ya, but there should come a point in time in one's life when you begin to realize that what you have experienced in life and witness what's going on in your surroundings isn't jiving with what you're being told. It's sort of like realizing that there really isn't a tooth fairy or an Easter Bunny.
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2017, 02:38:03 PM
Blake isn't good at debating, because he falls for scams. What him become disassembled, and eventually have a melt down (they all do).
Next thing ya know he'll be telling us about investing in Bitcoins.
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2017, 02:17:31 PM
That's a lie as well. You will believe anything it seems like.
There is no science in those articles. Like I used to tell you people in the 1990s, no, we won't be under water by the year 2000. Yet, you guys gobbled it up and kept believing it for decades. Smart people don't grasp onto lies and believe scams.
Bsahahhahaha. Yeah the Japanese government, US pentagon and the China, scientists, and NASA are all in collusion.
Read the study on climate scientists. Right up there. 6 separate studies done reproduced the same results. Yeah they are all liars but some random guy on a message board who cant even interpret a peer reviewed study is correct. Even the CEO of exxon Mobil is in on the scam.
Bahahahhahahahahahahaha. Bahahahahahahha.
Oh and the fact the last three years are the hottest on record is just a lucky coincidence for the scammers. Bhahahahhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 01:34:07 PM
Well the topic Solar chose was why is Green energy a better source of energy then the alternatives? It would be helpful if he specified on what he considered green energy, but I'll go by the standard assumptions.
The most obvious reason green energy is a preferable alternative is due to climate change. For three years straight the Pentagon has listed climate change as the greatest threat to our survival. (1) The department of defense agreed saying, "the Defense Department already is observing the impacts of climate change in shocks and stressors to vulnerable nations and communities, including in the United States, the Arctic, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America, officials said.(2) And in 2014, again from the DOD, ""We are almost done with a baseline survey to assess the vulnerability of our military's more than 7,000 bases, installations, and other facilities. In places like the Hampton Roads region in Virginia, which houses the largest concentration of US military sites in the world, we see recurrent flooding today, and we are beginning work to address a projected sea-level rise of 1.5 feet over the next 20 to 50 years." This is of course a small sampling. The British Military concurs.(4) As does the entire European Union, as they released a report saying, "climate change – both in Europe and the rest of the world – was continuing, with "climate-related extremes" such as droughts, heatwaves and heavy precipitation increasing in both intensity and frequency across "many regions.'(5) A report by the Israeli government also agrees, "The impacts of climate change are evident across the globe," warning it threatens the very survival of Israel.(6)The Japanese government as well is taking strong steps and firmly believes climate change threatens their existence.(7)Even China.(8) When weighing all of these believers in climate change we should offer the alternative side. Namely, President Trump believes it is a chinese hoax.
Between 90 to 100% of climate scientists believe that climate change is real and caused by human action according to a new peer reviewed study. No no no. Not the old one to which I know you have a response for. This is a new tighter, peer-reviewed study.(9) However, we still must acknowledge Trump's argument that it is a Chinese hoax. This study has since been replicated six times with the same figures, between 90-100%.(10) While a commonly psychotic argument is made that such studies are fraudulently done, which would mean but scientists, and all militarizes around the world for grant money, there is of course as much grant money as disproving climate change as not. The incentive to lie about the climate is much higher for actual oil companies, etc, who make billions off it, not a professor getting a pathetic grant. Even Exxon Mobil now believes in climate change.(11) "Scientists have concluded that most of the observed warming is very likely due to the burning of coal, oil, and gas," according to one study.(12) As does a study by NASA, who also believes in climate change.(13) A 70th study here.(14)Another.(15)Another.(16) One can literally go on and on and on and on and on. New documents released show Exon knew about climate change for 30 years.(17)Oh and the last three years were the hottest three years on record, defeating each other one after the other.(18) Oh and anyone who experiences weather over a 25 year span knows full well it has changed. Even for the remaining skeptic who thinks himself smarter then the rest of the world, it would certainly make sense to err on the side of caution when the planet is at stake, no? Not to mention fossil fuels, aside from climate change, cause sicknesses, cancer, asthma, etc. (19)
The other main reason to favor green energy is to reduce our dies with child raping tyrants like that in Saudi Arabia. There for 50 years, we have given money to brutal dictators who kill innocent people and enslave women. The saudis ideologically are the same as ISIS, fund fundamentalist ideology everywhere, and make the Iranians look like saints. We wont have to give chemical and biolgical weapons to tyrants like Sadaam Hussein while he kills his own people. We dont have to treat the middle east like an imperial playground. We could close up shop our 100 military bases in the region, stop supporting monsters and fighting war after war and instead focus on things that matter. Border protection, education, etc.
Green energy is growing everywhere. The business opportunities will go to who acts the fastest.(20) To deny climate change is to openly accept ignorance. By failing to fully act on climate change the US may go down as the worst country in the history of earth. What worse way to illegal enter anothers borders then to destroy the earth they live in? How dare we threaten the earth? If the US refuses to acknowledge climate change then I hope for the future of man, that one day, our country collapses. No greater justice would ever happen!
Sourcesc
1.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/
2.https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710
3.http://www.newsweek.com/pentagon-report-us-military-considers-climate-change-immediate-threat-could-277155
4.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2013/jul/08/army-conflict-climate-change
5.http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/europe-warns-on-climate-change-as-trump-administration-starts-to-roll-back-us-policies.html
6.http://www.sviva.gov.il/InfoServices/ReservoirInfo/DocLib2/Publications/P0701-P0800/P0739.pdf
7. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/07/30/commentary/japan-commentary/japans-action-plan-to-fight-climate-change/
8.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/world/asia/trump-climate-change-paris-china.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=C950F0F631E1807EAC77621F45315071&gwt=pay
9.http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf
10.ibid
11. http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position
12.http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/threats-to-wildlife/global-warming/global-warming-is-human-caused.aspx
13.https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
14. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-causes/
15.https://phys.org/news/2017-03-deadly-climate.html
16.https://asunow.asu.edu/20170327-arizona-impact-asu-study-shows-effect-climate-change-food-energy-and-water-across-southwest
17.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
18.http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18751
19.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-health-care-burden-of-fossil-fuels/
20.https://www.forbes.com/sites/nishthachugh/2017/01/31/trump-cant-stop-renewables-energy-growth-at-home-or-abroad/#79dfab9323a9
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.threadbombing.com%2Fdata%2Fmedia%2F2%2FTHISGONBGUD.gif&hash=cc2ff57ab54db85d5c8fe115380824be80516c31)
Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 29, 2017, 03:12:41 PM
Ya, but there should come a point in time in one's life when you begin to realize that what you have experienced in life and witness what's going on in your surroundings isn't jiving with what you're being told. It's sort of like realizing that there really isn't a tooth fairy or an Easter Bunny.
One would hope, but this kid needs to get past unicorns before we break the news about Santa Claus...
Obviously you didn't watch the video. It really is kind of enlightening.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/#11f9bf3953a5
https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html
http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-hoax-aaron-bandler
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 03:17:15 PM
Bsahahhahaha. Yeah the Japanese government, US pentagon and the China, scientists, and NASA are all in collusion.
What do they say the global temperature should be?
Quote
Read the study on climate scientists. Right up there. 6 separate studies done reproduced the same results. Yeah they are all liars but some random guy on a message board who cant even interpret a peer reviewed study is correct. Even the CEO of exxon Mobil is in on the scam.
What results?
Quote
Bahahahhahahahahahahaha. Bahahahahahahha.
Oh and the fact the last three years are the hottest on record is just a lucky coincidence for the scammers. Bhahahahhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I see why you fail... you're good at it!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/26/warmest-ten-years-on-record-now-includes-all-december-data/
QuoteConclusion
The three hottest years for HadCRUT4.5, HadSST3 and GISS are 2016, 2015 and 2014 in that order. So when people talk about the last three years being the hottest, they are NOT talking about the satellite data. According to the satellite data, 2016 sets a new record with 1998 dropping to second place. However the difference is so small that we could say that 2016 and 1998 are in a statistical tie.
As I indicated in my last post, I had expected HadCRUT4.5 to be very close. As it turned out, HadCRUT4.5 is the only data set of the five that I cover that went up from November to December. The other four went down from November to December. In terms of where December would rank if its anomaly were to hold for 2017, RSS is the odd man out. How long do you think that this will be the case?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Bahahahahsahhaahhahahahahsahha
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2017, 03:31:14 PM
What do they say the global temperature should be?
What results?
I see why you fail... you're good at it!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/26/warmest-ten-years-on-record-now-includes-all-december-data/
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You can read the studies and answer each question you asked. I suspect that you cant understand them.
Every single military on Earth agrees with climate change and that it is man made. Everyone. End of discussion.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 03:42:26 PM
You can read the studies and answer each question you asked. I suspect that you cant understand them.
Why are we not underwater yet? We were supposed to be by now. Don't you remember?
Quote
Every single military on Earth agrees with climate change and that it is man made. Everyone. End of discussion.
No they don't.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
QuoteJohn Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.
Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 03:42:26 PM
You can read the studies and answer each question you asked. I suspect that you cant understand them.
Every single military on Earth agrees with climate change and that it is man made. Everyone. End of discussion.
:lol: I don't think so! :lol:
Quote from: walkstall on March 29, 2017, 03:50:05 PM
:lol: I don't think so! :lol:
He thinks the ice caps are melting... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2017, 03:48:54 PM
http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Thats odd cause on the weather channell website they clearly state climate change is man made, real. Hmm.
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/global-warming-weather-channel-position-statement-20141029
"UH dud hur, I picked one person who doesn't beleive even though the vast majority do."
Again, go through the climate change study on scientists provided, and explain the flaw in all 6 studies methodlology that allowed them to reach the same conclusion.
I'll be waiting.
As for the militaries, China, the US, the EU, Japan,Israel, just a few I picked. ALl agree. ALl links provided. HMMMM!
Yeah, but some nuts on a website say its false and I am supposed to believe.
20 sources go in an demolish them.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 03:56:23 PM
Thats odd cause on the weather channell website they clearly state climate change is man made, real. Hmm.
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/global-warming-weather-channel-position-statement-20141029
The article parrots hoaxes. The founder was right. Keep trying....
Quote
"UH dud hur, I picked one person who doesn't beleive even though the vast majority do."
Nobody believes it. Even those who depend on the funding to keep the hoax going.
Quote
Again, go through the climate change study on scientists provided, and explain the flaw in all 6 studies methodlology that allowed them to reach the same conclusion.
Nothing has been proved, only debunked.
Quote
I'll be waiting.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-05/climategate-2-noaa-whistleblower-claims-world-leaders-fooled-fake-global-warming-dat
QuoteDr John Bates' disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the so-called 'Pausebuster' paper is the biggest scientific scandal since 'Climategate' in 2009 when, as Britain's Daily Mail reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a 'trick' to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote
As for the militaries, China, the US, the EU, Japan,Israel, just a few I picked. ALl agree. ALl links provided. HMMMM!
No they don't.
Quote
Yeah, but some nuts on a website say its false and I am supposed to believe.
You believe CO2 is a pollutant and the ice caps are melting. You're not very bright.
Quote
20 sources go in an demolish them.
All your sources depend on fake manipulated data. Keep trying...
Also, what should the temperature be?
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2017, 04:44:43 PM
The article parrots hoaxes. The founder was right. Keep trying....
Nobody believes it. Even those who depend on the funding to keep the hoax going.
Nothing has been proved, only debunked.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-05/climategate-2-noaa-whistleblower-claims-world-leaders-fooled-fake-global-warming-dat
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
No they don't.
You believe CO2 is a pollutant and the ice caps are melting. You're not very bright.
All your sources depend on fake manipulated data. Keep trying...
Also, what should the temperature be?
This argument style that I know Solar uses as well, is that of a child.
Yes, all the militarizes of the countries are lying. LOL.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 05:18:06 PM
This argument style that I know Solar uses as well, is that of a child.
Yes, all the militarizes of the countries are lying. LOL.
When are we supposed to be underwater?
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2017, 05:18:36 PM
When are we supposed to be underwater?
Thats not how climate change works. But its evident, from that question, you have no clue nor have read one study done on the topic other then perhaps the ceo of the weather channel lol.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 02:09:25 PM
Easily? Come on I am falling for like virtually every scientist on earth, every military on earth, my own eyes, thermometers, oil companies. I am just as gullible as everyone else!
Guy thinks he can refute an article with 20 sources in one sentence lol. Go ahead, go into each an argue the science!
Every scientist on earth?
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 05:29:17 PM
Thats not how climate change works. But its evident, from that question, you have no clue nor have read one study done on the topic other then perhaps the ceo of the weather channel lol.
You are using the same idiocy that I've been debating against since the 90s. Those lemmings thought we'd be underwater in the 2000s. I told them that's stupid, yet they continued to parrot the same idiocy you're parroting this very day. I have 100% accuracy against the "scientists" and lemmings who said otherwise. They are and have been wrong because the ice caps are thicker than ever and we're not under water.
Part of the hoax you believe in involves the sea levels rising. When are we supposed to be underwater? If you don't have enough confidence in your "science", then just say so.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 29, 2017, 05:29:56 PM
Every scientist on earth?
"Virtualy" every, as I wrote. According to a recent study, of 6 seperate studies, between 90-100& of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, as I cited the peer review article, beleive in climate change and attribute it to man made activity.
In part due to emissions, in part due to clearing land.
To be fair, he cited the co-founder of the weather channel, even the the weather channel disagrees.
The debate is over.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 29, 2017, 05:29:56 PM
Every scientist on earth?
I'm trying to get him to tell us when the sea levels are supposed to rise. You and I still have that warehouse stocked full of water wings that we need to sell, but the damn thing hasn't hit yet...
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 05:35:38 PM
"Virtualy" every, as I wrote. According to a recent study, of 6 seperate studies, between 90-100& of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, as I cited the peer review article, beleive in climate change and attribute it to man made activity.
In part due to emissions, in part due to clearing land.
To be fair, he cited the co-founder of the weather channel, even the the weather channel disagrees.
The debate is over.
Wrong. The 97% claim has been dubunked:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2807652
QuoteA number of scholars who have previously undertaken studies on the alleged 'consensus' of the human impact on global warming have recently published a paper (Cook et al. 2016) which they claim confirms and strengthens their previous 97% consensus claims. This author rejects their findings and deconstructs both the premise of the relevance of consensus in the empirical evidence-based world of science and finds the claims are in fact 'nonsensus.' Several of the scholars' consensus claims and those of scientific bodies were published prior to the 2013 IPCC Working Group I report wherein it was reported that there had been a hiatus in global warming for some 15 years (to 2012), despite a significant rise in carbon dioxide from human industrial emissions.
When are we supposed to be under water?
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2017, 05:39:18 PM
Wrong. The 97% claim has been dubunked:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2807652
When are we supposed to be under water?
Debunked? How is that possible? The study you just cited was conducted prior to the study I cited. As I said, it is a newer version with 6 independent studies that all came ot the same result and re-affirmed the first.
Further, you cited an independent study that wasn't peer reviewed and provided no explanation as to why that study had better methodlogy. WHy? Cause you agree with it cause it fits your pre-conceived notions.
But again, thats irrelevant, cause the study, if one can call it that, you cited, was done prior to the one I did.
What does this tell us? It means you never even read the study I cited. WHich means you deemed it wrong not on any solid grounds, but because you didn't like what it said.
That makes you a joke, the loser of this debate, and someone who imposes ignorance on themselves.
BTW, SOLAR, where did you run off to?
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 05:35:38 PM
"Virtualy" every, as I wrote. According to a recent study, of 6 seperate studies, between 90-100& of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, as I cited the peer review article, beleive in climate change and attribute it to man made activity.
In part due to emissions, in part due to clearing land.
To be fair, he cited the co-founder of the weather channel, even the the weather channel disagrees.
The debate is over.
You do not run this board. :popcorn:
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 05:52:13 PM
Debunked? How is that possible?
You should read it and become familiar with it. Granted, you haven't been keeping up with the topic as long as most of us here have, but that's no excuse to be informed on the topic you post about.
Quote
The study you just cited was conducted prior to the study I cited. As I said, it is a newer version with 6 independent studies that all came ot the same result and re-affirmed the first.
You don't have a study that proves any consensus. There's way too many scientists who know it's a scam: http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/scientists-refute-manmade-global-warming/
Quote
Further, you cited an independent study that wasn't peer reviewed and provided no explanation as to why that study had better methodlogy. WHy? Cause you agree with it cause it fits your pre-conceived notions.
You fail again: http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/04/1000-skeptical-peer-reviewed-climate-papers-in-past-3-years-should-put-un-ipcc-to-shame-says-harvard-astrophysicist/
Quote
But again, thats irrelevant, cause the study, if one can call it that, you cited, was done prior to the one I did.
What does this tell us? It means you never even read the study I cited. WHich means you deemed it wrong not on any solid grounds, but because you didn't like what it said.
That makes you a joke, the loser of this debate, and someone who imposes ignorance on themselves.
Wrong. You continue to say that ~%100 of scientists agree on global warming, but that's a complete debunked lie. The scam, including the entire hockey stick fiasco, has been debunked. You continue to push a lie that nobody credible really believes. Michael Mann, Hansen, and the other fools have been exposed and debunked, yet you cling to their lies.
Are you really worried, for example, about sea ice causing oceans to rise? Or better yet, should we ban carbon?
Quote
BTW, SOLAR, where did you run off to?
His router is broken. He has to buy a new one.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 03:42:26 PM
You can read the studies and answer each question you asked. I suspect that you cant understand them.
Every single military on Earth agrees with climate change and that it is man made. Everyone. End of discussion.
Every single military? That's quite a statement. Are we talking individual military personnel, military units, does this include paramilitary? Armies?
Quite frankly, I believe that the global warming hysteria has affected the part of your brain (prefrontal cortex) that has to do with logical thinking.
You can continue to believe what you want and you can continue to read all the hype, but 'climate change' is cyclical. Our planet earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. There is current data out there that indicates that the earth has been cooling and some scientists believe that we actually may be entering a mini ice age.
Case in point (and I was just a kid) but back in 1974 there was hype from the CIA that global cooling was going to cause terrorism....warp forward now to 2017 ... according to you "all" the military believes in global warming and poses a threat to national security. Got it! :thumbsup: Yes, you are right, end of discussion on this for me!
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/16/flashback-1974-cia-warned-global-cooling-would-cause-terrorism/
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19840-is-global-warming-a-hoax
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/the-global-warming-swindle/
Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 29, 2017, 06:29:07 PM
Every single military? That's quite a statement. Are we talking individual military personnel, military units, does this include paramilitary? Armies?
Quite frankly, I believe that the global warming hysteria has affected the part of your brain (prefrontal cortex) that has to do with logical thinking.
You can continue to believe what you want and you can continue to read all the hype, but 'climate change' is cyclical. Our planet earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. There is current data out there that indicates that the earth has been cooling and some scientists believe that we actually may be entering a mini ice age.
Case in point (and I was just a kid) but back in 1974 there was hype from the CIA that global cooling was going to cause terrorism....warp forward now to 2017 ... according to you "all" the military believes in global warming and poses a threat to national security. Got it! :thumbsup: Yes, you are right, end of discussion on this for me!
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/16/flashback-1974-cia-warned-global-cooling-would-cause-terrorism/
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19840-is-global-warming-a-hoax
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/the-global-warming-swindle/
He believes the polar bears are almost extinct. He's not the brightest bulb in the knife drawer.
This green energy thing is so simply fixed. Fossil fuels will eventually run out. So alternative energy sources are the future. No one with a brain disputes this. The question and the conservative position is and has always been "why not take advantage of all energy uses until alternative energy is viable? Killing coal and oil will not make solar and wind cheaper.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 05:35:38 PM
"Virtualy" every, as I wrote. According to a recent study, of 6 seperate studies, between 90-100& of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, as I cited the peer review article, beleive in climate change and attribute it to man made activity.
In part due to emissions, in part due to clearing land.
To be fair, he cited the co-founder of the weather channel, even the the weather channel disagrees.
The debate is over.
And, just as the first claim about consensus left out the fact that it was 97% of climatologist WHO ATTENDED THE SUMMIT agree with AGW, your claim base on the newer study just HAPPENS to leave out the qualifier that only Climatologist published in IOP journals are the ones polled for agreement. Hmmm, a study performed by the PUBLISHING COMPANY who determines WHO GETS PUBLISHED! Yea, no bias there.....
AGW is a fucking lie, from front to back.1: Ice core samples have been shown time and again to be an inaccurate method of deriving atmospheric composition. Examination of plant stomata shows that CO2 levels vary more than ice core samples show, as well as indicating CO2 levels were actually higher than ice core samples show. The "unprecedented" levels of CO2 being measured today, directly, are not as "unprecedented" as AGW claims, because they use poor research methods to derive their CO2 levels. Here is a good explanation of the problems using ice core samples to determine atmospheric composition, as well as other big gaping holes in AGW, with references to the studies being analyzed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
2: The so-called correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, one of the primary foundations of AGW "theory" is also a hoax. First, everyone who knows statistical science knows that correlation does not indicate cause/effect, yet AGW uses the correlation to claim that increased CO2 increases mean global temperatures. Bad science (or lie - take your pick). Second, it has been very clearly established that rises in CO2 levels come AFTER rise in temperature. Since when does cause precede effect? Third, the correlation completely falls apart when studying climatological data older than 1 million years. Ice core data is limited to 800,000 years.
3: The glaciers started melting and retreating over 20,000 years ago - and they continue to retreat today. Studies of previous glaciation/inter-glaciation cycles show this to be nothing unusual. (use any chart you want - in this case even the AGW charts show this to be true.)
4: The Earth entered the most recent ice age about 2.4 million years ago. We are STILL IN THAT ICE AGE. We just happen to be in what geologists term "period of inter-glaciation" or "Interglacial period." What causes the cycle to get cold, then warm up again? There are many speculations. But there is no real, solid, evidence supported theory why the Earth gets really, really cold on a cycle of every 100,000 to 120,000 years. Nor do we have any solid understanding why it STOPS getting cold and warms up again, melting the glaciers. So, since we do not know what caused the past 7 recorded cycles between glaciation and inter-glaciation, how the HELL can we definitively claim "this time is being caused by humans?"
As for your references, referencing news sites and popular lay magazines is not referencing science. It is referencing laypersons describing science - usually filled with vast errors (or deliberate fabrications) in understanding. Reference the actual scientific studies - IF you can. Have you even SEEN a genuine scientific paper? Or are you like every other AGW idiot who debates the issue who has never read a single genuine study themselves, but are limited to what the media has to say about it.
Try these on for size: REAL science, not rag journalism.
Anklin, M., J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, J. Tschumi, A. Fuchs, J.M. Barnola, and D. Raynaud, CO2 record between 40 and 8 kyr BP from the GRIP ice core, Journal of Geophysical Research, 102 (C12), 26539-26545, 1997.
Wagner et al., 1999. Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. Science 18 June 1999: Vol. 284. no. 5422, pp. 1971 – 1973.
Berner et al., 2001. GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME. American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, February, 2001, P. 182–204.
Kouwenberg, 2004. APPLICATION OF CONIFER NEEDLES IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HOLOCENE CO2 LEVELS. PhD Thesis. Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, University of Utrecht.
Wagner et al., 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quaternary Science Reviews 23 (2004) 1947–1954.
Esper et al., 2005. Climate: past ranges and future changes. Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (2005) 2164–2166.
Kouwenberg et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. GEOLOGY, January 2005.
Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus (2005), 57B, 351–355.
Rundgren et al., 2005. Last interglacial atmospheric CO2 changes from stomatal index data and their relation to climate variations. Global and Planetary Change 49 (2005) 47–62.
Jessen et al., 2005. Abrupt climatic changes and an unstable transition into a late Holocene Thermal Decline: a multiproxy lacustrine record from southern Sweden. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 20(4) 349–362 (2005).
Beck, 2007. 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT. VOLUME 18 No. 2 2007.
Loulergue et al., 2007. New constraints on the gas age-ice age difference along the EPICA ice cores, 0–50 kyr. Clim. Past, 3, 527–540, 2007.
Etheridge et al., 1998. Historical CO2 record derived from a spline fit (75 year cutoff) of the Law Dome DSS, DE08, and DE08-2 ice cores.
NOAA-ESRL / Keeling.
Berner, R.A. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2002-051. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
Kouwenberg et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. GEOLOGY, January 2005.
Lüthi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier, J.-M. Barnola, U. Siegenthaler, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H. Fischer, K. Kawamura, and T.F. Stocker. 2008. High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000 years before present. Nature, Vol. 453, pp. 379-382, 15 May 2008. doi:10.1038/nature06949.
Royer, D.L. 2006. CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 70, pp. 5665-5675. doi:10.1016/j.gca.2005.11.031.
Moberg, A., et al. 2005. 2,000-Year Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2005-019. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
Esper, J., et al., 2003, Northern Hemisphere Extratropical Temperature Reconstruction, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2003-036. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
Mann, M.E. and P.D. Jones, 2003, 2,000 Year Hemispheric Multi-proxy Temperature Reconstructions, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2003-051. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
Alley, R.B.. 2004. GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2004-013. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.As for militaries "agreeing" with AGW hoax: militaries are run by governments. Governments are behind the hoax because they see it as a way to increase their control over people, not to mention an excuse to rape the world's economy of trillions of "carbon tax" dollars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 01:34:07 PM
Well the topic Solar chose was why is Green energy a better source of energy then the alternatives? It would be helpful if he specified on what he considered green energy, but I'll go by the standard assumptions.
The most obvious reason green energy is a preferable alternative is due to climate change. For three years straight the Pentagon has listed climate change as the greatest threat to our survival. (1) The department of defense agreed saying, "the Defense Department already is observing the impacts of climate change in shocks and stressors to vulnerable nations and communities, including in the United States, the Arctic, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America, officials said.(2) And in 2014, again from the DOD, ""We are almost done with a baseline survey to assess the vulnerability of our military's more than 7,000 bases, installations, and other facilities. In places like the Hampton Roads region in Virginia, which houses the largest concentration of US military sites in the world, we see recurrent flooding today, and we are beginning work to address a projected sea-level rise of 1.5 feet over the next 20 to 50 years." This is of course a small sampling. The British Military concurs.(4) As does the entire European Union, as they released a report saying, "climate change – both in Europe and the rest of the world – was continuing, with "climate-related extremes" such as droughts, heatwaves and heavy precipitation increasing in both intensity and frequency across "many regions.'(5) A report by the Israeli government also agrees, "The impacts of climate change are evident across the globe," warning it threatens the very survival of Israel.(6)The Japanese government as well is taking strong steps and firmly believes climate change threatens their existence.(7)Even China.(8) When weighing all of these believers in climate change we should offer the alternative side. Namely, President Trump believes it is a chinese hoax.
Between 90 to 100% of climate scientists believe that climate change is real and caused by human action according to a new peer reviewed study. No no no. Not the old one to which I know you have a response for. This is a new tighter, peer-reviewed study.(9) However, we still must acknowledge Trump's argument that it is a Chinese hoax. This study has since been replicated six times with the same figures, between 90-100%.(10) While a commonly psychotic argument is made that such studies are fraudulently done, which would mean but scientists, and all militarizes around the world for grant money, there is of course as much grant money as disproving climate change as not. The incentive to lie about the climate is much higher for actual oil companies, etc, who make billions off it, not a professor getting a pathetic grant. Even Exxon Mobil now believes in climate change.(11) "Scientists have concluded that most of the observed warming is very likely due to the burning of coal, oil, and gas," according to one study.(12) As does a study by NASA, who also believes in climate change.(13) A 70th study here.(14)Another.(15)Another.(16) One can literally go on and on and on and on and on. New documents released show Exon knew about climate change for 30 years.(17)Oh and the last three years were the hottest three years on record, defeating each other one after the other.(18) Oh and anyone who experiences weather over a 25 year span knows full well it has changed. Even for the remaining skeptic who thinks himself smarter then the rest of the world, it would certainly make sense to err on the side of caution when the planet is at stake, no? Not to mention fossil fuels, aside from climate change, cause sicknesses, cancer, asthma, etc. (19)
The other main reason to favor green energy is to reduce our dies with child raping tyrants like that in Saudi Arabia. There for 50 years, we have given money to brutal dictators who kill innocent people and enslave women. The saudis ideologically are the same as ISIS, fund fundamentalist ideology everywhere, and make the Iranians look like saints. We wont have to give chemical and biolgical weapons to tyrants like Sadaam Hussein while he kills his own people. We dont have to treat the middle east like an imperial playground. We could close up shop our 100 military bases in the region, stop supporting monsters and fighting war after war and instead focus on things that matter. Border protection, education, etc.
Green energy is growing everywhere. The business opportunities will go to who acts the fastest.(20) To deny climate change is to openly accept ignorance. By failing to fully act on climate change the US may go down as the worst country in the history of earth. What worse way to illegal enter anothers borders then to destroy the earth they live in? How dare we threaten the earth? If the US refuses to acknowledge climate change then I hope for the future of man, that one day, our country collapses. No greater justice would ever happen!
Aw Jeez, you really are gullible, aren't you? I know this was before your time, but Agenda 21 is a culmination of years of Communists trying to kill capitalism and this was the first move on their part with the "Green Energy" Lie! Jump to 2:25, that's when Nancy starts her lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUBwIJWH7ew&feature=youtu.be
Forget the lie that is AGW, that's merely the tool to get you to buy their lie that Co2 is a pollutant, aside from O2, Co2 is the most important gas for our existence, without it, the planet would die, the plants can't live without it.
Forget the claims of sea rise, increased hurricanes, tornadoes, all of which never came to fruition, yeah, it's important you focus on the latest lie and forget all the failed warnings of the past.
Remember when Obozo instituted the "Smart Grid", where every home in America was essentially forced to replace their meter with a govt mandated meter, allowing the govt to spy on your every move within your home.
What, you're just now hearing about this? Not surprised, aside from the AGW scam, this was the biggest news to hit the nation in it's existence and yet not a peep from the leftist media, including FOX.
Anyway, did you ever really wonder why energy prices "Sky Rocketed" under the Marxist? Because if they hadn't, no one would have bought the lie of solar being a grid tied system, a total failure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU Cap and Trade, Carbon Credits, are all part of the leftist scam to seize control of our source of production and cripple capitalism.
Are you starting to see the bigger picture yet? I'll let you absorb that for a moment.
You are a joke. Go through the articles, explain the flaw in methodology, or you have to be considered the loser.
You were giving 20 sources. Show me how they are scams. Explain how the Israeli, chinese, Brritish, EU, American military, are part of the scam, including the scientists.
Show the flaws in the studies.
If you cant, you lose.
Keep in mind more people are reading this exchange then you think.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 06:51:23 AM
You were giving 20 sources. Show me how they are scams. Explain how the Israeli, chinese, Brritish, EU, American military, are part of the scam, including the scientists.
zewazir already answered that question:
« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2017, 09:00:26 PM » As for militaries "agreeing" with AGW hoax: militaries are run by governments.
Governments are behind the hoax because
they see it as a way to increase their control over people,
not to mention an excuse to rape the world's economy of trillions of "carbon tax" dollars.
Quote from: zewazir on March 29, 2017, 09:00:26 PM
And, just as the first claim about consensus left out the fact that it was 97% of climatologist WHO ATTENDED THE SUMMIT agree with AGW, your claim base on the newer study just HAPPENS to leave out the qualifier that only Climatologist published in IOP journals are the ones polled for agreement. Hmmm, a study performed by the PUBLISHING COMPANY who determines WHO GETS PUBLISHED! Yea, no bias there.....
AGW is a fucking lie, from front to back.
1: Ice core samples have been shown time and again to be an inaccurate method of deriving atmospheric composition. Examination of plant stomata shows that CO2 levels vary more than ice core samples show, as well as indicating CO2 levels were actually higher than ice core samples show. The "unprecedented" levels of CO2 being measured today, directly, are not as "unprecedented" as AGW claims, because they use poor research methods to derive their CO2 levels. Here is a good explanation of the problems using ice core samples to determine atmospheric composition, as well as other big gaping holes in AGW, with references to the studies being analyzed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
2: The so-called correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, one of the primary foundations of AGW "theory" is also a hoax. First, everyone who knows statistical science knows that correlation does not indicate cause/effect, yet AGW uses the correlation to claim that increased CO2 increases mean global temperatures. Bad science (or lie - take your pick). Second, it has been very clearly established that rises in CO2 levels come AFTER rise in temperature. Since when does cause precede effect? Third, the correlation completely falls apart when studying climatological data older than 1 million years. Ice core data is limited to 800,000 years.
3: The glaciers started melting and retreating over 20,000 years ago - and they continue to retreat today. Studies of previous glaciation/inter-glaciation cycles show this to be nothing unusual. (use any chart you want - in this case even the AGW charts show this to be true.)
4: The Earth entered the most recent ice age about 2.4 million years ago. We are STILL IN THAT ICE AGE. We just happen to be in what geologists term "period of inter-glaciation" or "Interglacial period." What causes the cycle to get cold, then warm up again? There are many speculations. But there is no real, solid, evidence supported theory why the Earth gets really, really cold on a cycle of every 100,000 to 120,000 years. Nor do we have any solid understanding why it STOPS getting cold and warms up again, melting the glaciers. So, since we do not know what caused the past 7 recorded cycles between glaciation and inter-glaciation, how the HELL can we definitively claim "this time is being caused by humans?"
As for your references, referencing news sites and popular lay magazines is not referencing science. It is referencing laypersons describing science - usually filled with vast errors (or deliberate fabrications) in understanding. Reference the actual scientific studies - IF you can. Have you even SEEN a genuine scientific paper? Or are you like every other AGW idiot who debates the issue who has never read a single genuine study themselves, but are limited to what the media has to say about it.
Try these on for size: REAL science, not rag journalism.
Anklin, M., J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, J. Tschumi, A. Fuchs, J.M. Barnola, and D. Raynaud, CO2 record between 40 and 8 kyr BP from the GRIP ice core, Journal of Geophysical Research, 102 (C12), 26539-26545, 1997.
Wagner et al., 1999. Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. Science 18 June 1999: Vol. 284. no. 5422, pp. 1971 – 1973.
Berner et al., 2001. GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME. American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, February, 2001, P. 182–204.
Kouwenberg, 2004. APPLICATION OF CONIFER NEEDLES IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HOLOCENE CO2 LEVELS. PhD Thesis. Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, University of Utrecht.
Wagner et al., 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quaternary Science Reviews 23 (2004) 1947–1954.
Esper et al., 2005. Climate: past ranges and future changes. Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (2005) 2164–2166.
Kouwenberg et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. GEOLOGY, January 2005.
Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus (2005), 57B, 351–355.
Rundgren et al., 2005. Last interglacial atmospheric CO2 changes from stomatal index data and their relation to climate variations. Global and Planetary Change 49 (2005) 47–62.
Jessen et al., 2005. Abrupt climatic changes and an unstable transition into a late Holocene Thermal Decline: a multiproxy lacustrine record from southern Sweden. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 20(4) 349–362 (2005).
Beck, 2007. 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT. VOLUME 18 No. 2 2007.
Loulergue et al., 2007. New constraints on the gas age-ice age difference along the EPICA ice cores, 0–50 kyr. Clim. Past, 3, 527–540, 2007.
Etheridge et al., 1998. Historical CO2 record derived from a spline fit (75 year cutoff) of the Law Dome DSS, DE08, and DE08-2 ice cores.
NOAA-ESRL / Keeling.
Berner, R.A. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2002-051. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
Kouwenberg et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. GEOLOGY, January 2005.
Lüthi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier, J.-M. Barnola, U. Siegenthaler, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H. Fischer, K. Kawamura, and T.F. Stocker. 2008. High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000 years before present. Nature, Vol. 453, pp. 379-382, 15 May 2008. doi:10.1038/nature06949.
Royer, D.L. 2006. CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 70, pp. 5665-5675. doi:10.1016/j.gca.2005.11.031.
Moberg, A., et al. 2005. 2,000-Year Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2005-019. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
Esper, J., et al., 2003, Northern Hemisphere Extratropical Temperature Reconstruction, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2003-036. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
Mann, M.E. and P.D. Jones, 2003, 2,000 Year Hemispheric Multi-proxy Temperature Reconstructions, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2003-051. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
Alley, R.B.. 2004. GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2004-013. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
As for militaries "agreeing" with AGW hoax: militaries are run by governments. Governments are behind the hoax because they see it as a way to increase their control over people, not to mention an excuse to rape the world's economy of trillions of "carbon tax" dollars.
No sorry child. Whatsupwith that isn't a source.
Please cite peer-reviwed studies and recent ones.
You think that I think you know more then 90% of climate scientists?
For the guy who said militaries are run by governments you are essentially asserting that every government is involved in the hoax. If you had read the articles, you would notice these studies were conducted by the military, not the civilian government and they claim to their own conclusion, including the pentagon.
Clearly, nobody here is a christian. Cause the evidence for Jesus is a pittance of the evidence for climate change.
As for militaries "agreeing" with AGW hoax: militaries are run by governments. Governments are behind the hoax because they see it as a way to increase their control over people, not to mention an excuse to rape the world's economy of trillions of "carbon tax" dollars.
Bahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahha. Can you please provide evidence when all these governments came together to agree to that?
Essentially, you are left with NWO type of conspiracy. You are no better then the people who think Sandy hook was false.
Take what you wrote below for example. Nobody doubts there are weather patterns outside of our control. Its the speed and brevity of this one combined with its correlation to fossil fuels, now replicated in studies so many times its boring.
I Live in New york. I am 27. The difference between climate in my life is so utterly obvious.
But even if you chooose to be a moron and pretend you know half a shit what you are saying, I ask, do you not believe fossil fuels cause cancer, asthma, etc? Is it not best to err on the side of caution when the planet is at stake?
What about reliance to the middle east?
Carbon tax dollars? In America, oil companies get subsidies. You are an absolute joke and the pathetic things you posted in no way have any bearing on what I did, not to mention none of yours are within the last 6 or 7 years.
4: The Earth entered the most recent ice age about 2.4 million years ago. We are STILL IN THAT ICE AGE. We just happen to be in what geologists term "period of inter-glaciation" or "Interglacial period." What causes the cycle to get cold, then warm up again? There are many speculations. But there is no real, solid, evidence supported theory why the Earth gets really, really cold on a cycle of every 100,000 to 120,000 years. Nor do we have any solid understanding why it STOPS getting cold and warms up again, melting the glaciers. So, since we do not know what caused the past 7 recorded cycles between glaciation and inter-glaciation, how the HELL can we definitively claim "this time is being caused by humans?"
Many of the articles you cited were cited in the studies I posted. Thats how scientists work. You simply did not read through all my sources and cant be taking seriously.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 06:51:23 AM
You are a joke. Go through the articles, explain the flaw in methodology, or you have to be considered the loser.
You were giving 20 sources. Show me how they are scams. Explain how the Israeli, chinese, Brritish, EU, American military, are part of the scam, including the scientists.
Show the flaws in the studies.
If you cant, you lose.
Keep in mind more people are reading this exchange then you think.
Do you need a timeout so you can finally grasp the fact that we use the quote function on this forum?
Use it, I won't tell you again!!!
Now to address your bull shit, this thread was supposed to be about the green energy scam, not the AGW shit they used to force it down our throats.
I showed you, starting with Fuglosi's UN Agenda 21 designed to kill off capitalism, a concerted effort by global communists.
Refute it, prove me wrong, show me how our country can thrive off of weak, unreliable energy, come on, that's what this challenge was all about.
Quote from: Solar on March 30, 2017, 07:28:28 AM
Do you need a timeout so you can finally grasp the fact that we use the quote function on this forum?
Use it, I won't tell you again!!!
Now to address your bull shit, this thread was supposed to be about the green energy scam, not the AGW shit they used to force it down our throats.
I showed you, starting with Fuglosi's UN Agenda 21 designed to kill off capitalism, a concerted effort by global communists.
Refute it, prove me wrong, show me how our country can thrive off of weak, unreliable energy, come on, that's what this challenge was all about.
You showed me nothing. You posted a video akin to a sandy hook conspiracy theorist. You can refute my sources and then we can move on to yours. You made me go first. Rebut them, and go through them. Prove you read them.
Calling Obama a communist is so utterly ignorant that I actually feel sorry for you. You dont know what a communist is.
Obama is an utterly avowed supporter of the free market. The ACA proves it. At the time of the ACA he let insurance and pharma write the bill, didn't push for a public option or single payer though he had the majority of America behind him.
He barely imposed any regulations on banks who destroyed the economy.
Actual socialists thinks hes a neo-liberal.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/14/Obama.socialist/
I assume you cant refute the methodology of the sources. Your argument tactics would get you an F in a basic college course. I am starting to link other then posting a link to a youtube video you simply aren't smart enough to speak at a level where we study research and find flaws in it or accept it.
You are not smarter then most climate scientists, military researchers, etc. There is no conspiracy and you have failed to prove it in any meaningful way. You have failed to explain why you dismiss the billions in profits made by fossil fuels as an incentive over that of a grant. I will not say anything to you on this topic other then refute the methodology of the studies. Until then, myself, and the 200 people I have watching tis exchange will continue to view you as not just the loser of this debate, but someone who is incapable of participating in it.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 07:39:36 AM
You showed me nothing. You posted a video akin to a sandy hook conspiracy theorist. You can refute my sources and then we can move on to yours. You made me go first. Rebut them, and go through them. Prove you read them.
I posted in another thread already and thanked you for proving our point.
QuoteCalling Obama a communist is so utterly ignorant that I actually feel sorry for you. You dont know what a communist is.
Obama is an utterly avowed supporter of the free market. The ACA proves it. At the time of the ACA he let insurance and pharma write the bill, didn't push for a public option or single payer though he had the majority of America behind him.
That's a whole other thread, one I'll be more than happy to educate you on and prove he's a Marxist.
QuoteHe barely imposed any regulations on banks who destroyed the economy.
Does QE Infinity mean nothing to you?
QuoteActual socialists thinks hes a neo-liberal.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/14/Obama.socialist/
Do you even know what a Neosocialist is? A Fabian socialist. That was lesson #1, which I'll expand on when you come back from your one day suspension.
QuoteI assume you cant refute the methodology of the sources. Your argument tactics would get you an F in a basic college course. I am starting to link other then posting a link to a youtube video you simply aren't smart enough to speak at a level where we study research and find flaws in it or accept it.
You are not smarter then most climate scientists, military researchers, etc. There is no conspiracy and you have failed to prove it in any meaningful way. You have failed to explain why you dismiss the billions in profits made by fossil fuels as an incentive over that of a grant. I will not say anything to you on this topic other then refute the methodology of the studies. Until then, myself, and the 200 people I have watching tis exchange will continue to view you as not just the loser of this debate, but someone who is incapable of participating in it.
In research, one doesn't hire people to prove a theory correct, or in this case, support an agenda. No they hire researchers to find the answers, and to date, despite the billions wasted, they don't have conclusive proof of their claims.
With that said, there will only be one AGW thread running at a time on Poli, it is not topical, nor is it even remotely plausible that man can effect climate, though no one disputes "Climate Change" a naturally occurring cycle of earth's atmosphere.
But the sky isn't falling today, next week, nor a century from now, so drop it and keep it all in one thread.
Quote from: Solar on March 30, 2017, 07:58:03 AM
I posted in another thread already and thanked you for proving our point.
That's a whole other thread, one I'll be more than happy to educate you on and prove he's a Marxist.
Does QE Infinity mean nothing to you?
Do you even know what a Neosocialist is? A Fabian socialist. That was lesson #1, which I'll expand on when you come back from your one day suspension.
In research, one doesn't hire people to prove a theory correct, or in this case, support an agenda. No they hire researchers to find the answers, and to date, despite the billions wasted, they don't have conclusive proof of their claims.
With that said, there will only be one AGW thread running at a time on Poli, it is not topical, nor is it even remotely plausible that man can effect climate, though no one disputes "Climate Change" a naturally occurring cycle of earth's atmosphere.
But the sky isn't falling today, next week, nor a century from now, so drop it and keep it all in one thread.
Again, until you can go through the methodology of these sources and provide the flaws in it, this is nothing but a bad joke.
This one line argument tactic you use, is akin to a child.
You are getting dominated and you know it.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 07:24:38 AM
As for militaries "agreeing" with AGW hoax: militaries are run by governments. Governments are behind the hoax because they see it as a way to increase their control over people, not to mention an excuse to rape the world's economy of trillions of "carbon tax" dollars.
Bahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahha. Can you please provide evidence when all these governments came together to agree to that?
Essentially, you are left with NWO type of conspiracy. You are no better then the people who think Sandy hook was false.
Take what you wrote below for example. Nobody doubts there are weather patterns outside of our control. Its the speed and brevity of this one combined with its correlation to fossil fuels, now replicated in studies so many times its boring.
I Live in New york. I am 27. The difference between climate in my life is so utterly obvious.
But even if you chooose to be a moron and pretend you know half a shit what you are saying, I ask, do you not believe fossil fuels cause cancer, asthma, etc? Is it not best to err on the side of caution when the planet is at stake?
What about reliance to the middle east?
Carbon tax dollars? In America, oil companies get subsidies. You are an absolute joke and the pathetic things you posted in no way have any bearing on what I did, not to mention none of yours are within the last 6 or 7 years.
4: The Earth entered the most recent ice age about 2.4 million years ago. We are STILL IN THAT ICE AGE. We just happen to be in what geologists term "period of inter-glaciation" or "Interglacial period." What causes the cycle to get cold, then warm up again? There are many speculations. But there is no real, solid, evidence supported theory why the Earth gets really, really cold on a cycle of every 100,000 to 120,000 years. Nor do we have any solid understanding why it STOPS getting cold and warms up again, melting the glaciers. So, since we do not know what caused the past 7 recorded cycles between glaciation and inter-glaciation, how the HELL can we definitively claim "this time is being caused by humans?"
Many of the articles you cited were cited in the studies I posted. Thats how scientists work. You simply did not read through all my sources and cant be taking seriously.
Living in NY and 27. That explains much about your lack of understanding reality.
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 30, 2017, 08:06:24 AM
Living in NY and 27. That explains much about your lack of understanding reality.
Yeah NYC, there is nothing to see here. Everyone from NYC is stupid I guess. All 8 million of us.
Solar, sounds like childish comment to me?
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 08:02:31 AM
Again, until you can go through the methodology of these sources and provide the flaws in it, this is nothing but a bad joke.
This one line argument tactic you use, is akin to a child.
You are getting dominated and you know it.
So you refuse to address the facts and like a child run off and claim victory? I said the thread was to be about energy, not AGW as you'd prefer, so let's address the real issue at hand, can America run a productive society when it has to pay a 100% increase on its energy bill?
Why is it only Western nations were forced to deal with this nonsense?
Quote from: Solar on March 30, 2017, 08:12:45 AM
So you refuse to address the facts and like a child run off and claim victory? I said the thread was to be about energy, not AGW as you'd prefer, so let's address the real issue at hand, can America run a productive society when it has to pay a 100% increase on its energy bill?
Why is it only Western nations were forced to deal with this nonsense?
China is currently leading the climate change battle with Trumps rollbacks. Third world countries suffer heavily from it, more then from others.
Now, until you explain the flawed methodology, which you cant, this debate is over. I dont run this forum, but I run how I repsond. If you respond to that, I will then respond to your claims and sources(a youtube video lol)
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 08:07:28 AM
Yeah NYC, there is nothing to see here. Everyone from NYC is stupid I guess. All 8 million of us.
Solar, sounds like childish comment to me?
Ah ... now things make sense. Blake is a NYC liberal. I should have guessed.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 08:17:15 AM
China is currently leading the climate change battle with Trumps rollbacks. Third world countries suffer heavily from it, more then from others.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
QuoteNow, until you explain the flawed methodology, which you cant, this debate is over. I dont run this forum, but I run how I repsond. If you respond to that, I will then respond to your claims and sources(a youtube video lol)
Zewazir was right, you wear your ignorance like a badge of honor.
Son, I'm an expert in the field of alternative energy, have been for nearly 30 years. In that time I observed a leftist push to take over my industry, and yes they did succeed, they used a crony formula once owned by the GOP and usurped by the dim party under Bill Clinton.
If you were to write a plan on destroying capitalism and our culture, you couldn't write a better plan.
Think Solyndra and all those other leftist endeavors under the Marxist, all the money paid out to his crony capitalists/Fabian Socialists that scammed our treasury to line their pockets.
No, they never planned on being successful in business, that was not the goal, the goal was to bilk taxpayers, run up the debt and build the coffers of communists.
Fact is, we warned about it decades ago and no one took it seriously, and here we are today fighting for our very existence.
Point is, Green energy was just a front to kill our Nations ability to produce cheaply with cheap energy.
Why would anyone in their right mind inflict this much restriction on industry if they truly loved this country?
Quote from: Solar on March 30, 2017, 09:41:29 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Zewazir was right, you wear your ignorance like a badge of honor.
Son, I'm an expert in the field of alternative energy, have been for nearly 30 years. In that time I observed a leftist push to take over my industry, and yes they did succeed, they used a crony formula once owned by the GOP and usurped by the dim party under Bill Clinton.
If you were to write a plan on destroying capitalism and our culture, you couldn't write a better plan.
Think Solyndra and all those other leftist endeavors under the Marxist, all the money paid out to his crony capitalists/Fabian Socialists that scammed our treasury to line their pockets.
No, they never planned on being successful in business, that was not the goal, the goal was to bilk taxpayers, run up the debt and build the coffers of communists.
Fact is, we warned about it decades ago and no one took it seriously, and here we are today fighting for our very existence.
Point is, Green energy was just a front to kill our Nations ability to produce cheaply with cheap energy.
Why would anyone in their right mind inflict this much restriction on industry if they truly loved this country?
You have a very interesting background ... now I get where the name 'Solar' comes from. :thumbup:
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 08:07:28 AM
Yeah NYC, there is nothing to see here. Everyone from NYC is stupid I guess. All 8 million of us.
Solar, sounds like childish comment to me?
The city elected DeBlasio. I guess you voted for him. Case closed.
BTW, how much time have you spent in the heartlands of the USA?
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 07:24:38 AM
As for militaries "agreeing" with AGW hoax: militaries are run by governments. Governments are behind the hoax because they see it as a way to increase their control over people, not to mention an excuse to rape the world's economy of trillions of "carbon tax" dollars.
Bahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahha. Can you please provide evidence when all these governments came together to agree to that?
Essentially, you are left with NWO type of conspiracy. You are no better then the people who think Sandy hook was false.
Take what you wrote below for example. Nobody doubts there are weather patterns outside of our control. Its the speed and brevity of this one combined with its correlation to fossil fuels, now replicated in studies so many times its boring.
I Live in New york. I am 27. The difference between climate in my life is so utterly obvious.
But even if you chooose to be a moron and pretend you know half a shit what you are saying, I ask, do you not believe fossil fuels cause cancer, asthma, etc? Is it not best to err on the side of caution when the planet is at stake?
What about reliance to the middle east?
Carbon tax dollars? In America, oil companies get subsidies. You are an absolute joke and the pathetic things you posted in no way have any bearing on what I did, not to mention none of yours are within the last 6 or 7 years.
4: The Earth entered the most recent ice age about 2.4 million years ago. We are STILL IN THAT ICE AGE. We just happen to be in what geologists term "period of inter-glaciation" or "Interglacial period." What causes the cycle to get cold, then warm up again? There are many speculations. But there is no real, solid, evidence supported theory why the Earth gets really, really cold on a cycle of every 100,000 to 120,000 years. Nor do we have any solid understanding why it STOPS getting cold and warms up again, melting the glaciers. So, since we do not know what caused the past 7 recorded cycles between glaciation and inter-glaciation, how the HELL can we definitively claim "this time is being caused by humans?"
Many of the articles you cited were cited in the studies I posted. Thats how scientists work. You simply did not read through all my sources and cant be taking seriously.
Bull fucking shit on a stick. You posted ZERO scientific studies. You posted links to NEWS ARTICLES, MAGAZINE ARTICLES, and OPs written by the publishing company of a number of scientific journals. There is not a single scientific study in your list. You are a fracking liar - which is 100% typical for humanist progressives. Lying is the only way they can support their retarded agenda. The closest you come to referencing an actual scientific study is the "poll" conducted by OPI Publishers, in which they limited the respondents to climatologists who had published in one of their journals. And challenging "whatsupwiththat" as a source while using the New York fucking Times as one of yours is pure hypocrisy - another common trait amongst progressives.
OTOH, there is a list of 22 actual studies at the end of my post - as in referencing the genuine scientific papers which contain scientific evidence and conclusions derived from that data. (Did you even try to look any of them up? Or were you too scared to challenge your progressive paradigm?) The referenced studies include the FACT that analysis of plant stomata is a far more accurate indicator of atmospheric composition, and the data from studying plant stomata shows the calculations of atmospheric CO2 concentrations using ice core samples results in an underestimation of CO2 concentrations - which in turn belies the claim that current levels are "unprecedented."
The "whatsupwiththat" link was just handy to show the graphs which disprove AGW's CO2/Temperature claims. Those graphs and other data were accumulated from the scientific publications which are also referenced.
As for how scientists work, you have been hammering all along with exactly how REAL scientists do NOT work: "Consensus" proving the veracity of an hypothesis; Debate is over because a lie about how many scientists agree says so; etc. etc. etc. Sorry, but REAL science NEVER assumes the questions are answered. They're still testing aspects of Einstein's general and special theories of relativity. Current theory of anything simply defines the most reasonable explanation available from the evidence. AGW does not do that because they use questionable data, not to mention many of the data sets have been since proven to be altered to support their BS, along with the fact that they do their best to ostracize anyone who does not follow their agenda.
And you really are grabbing at air when you claim the military came up with their conclusions on their own. They were told to conduct their studies by the governments. (DUH!)
As for governments meeting to conspire - how many international climate change summits have their been now? So yes, one could definitely say governments have gathered to discuss AGW.
Quote from: zewazir on March 30, 2017, 10:53:00 AM
Bull fucking shit on a stick. You posted ZERO scientific studies.
And you really are grabbing at air when you claim the military came up with their conclusions on their own. They were told to conduct their studies by the governments. (DUH!)
As for governments meeting to conspire - how many international climate change summits have their been now? So yes, one could definitely say governments have gathered to discuss AGW.
Exactly! :thumbsup:
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 08:17:15 AM
China is currently leading the climate change battle with Trumps rollbacks. Third world countries suffer heavily from it, more then from others.
Now, until you explain the flawed methodology, which you cant, this debate is over. I dont run this forum, but I run how I repsond. If you respond to that, I will then respond to your claims and sources(a youtube video lol)
Paging Joe Wilson, paging Joe Wilson ...clean up in aisle 5 please.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 30, 2017, 10:27:40 AM
You have a very interesting background ... now I get where the name 'Solar' comes from. :thumbup:
:cool:
Yes, it's one of the reasons of many, why I so despise the communist Dim party.
They stole my industry with the help of the GOP and ruined it as a reputable business.
Quote from: zewazir on March 30, 2017, 10:53:00 AM
Bull fucking shit on a stick. You posted ZERO scientific studies. You posted links to NEWS ARTICLES, MAGAZINE ARTICLES, and OPs written by the publishing company of a number of scientific journals. There is not a single scientific study in your list. You are a fracking liar - which is 100% typical for humanist progressives. Lying is the only way they can support their retarded agenda.
I bet you this fruitcake learned how to have sex with his girlfriend or boyfriend from Cosmopolitan magazine....... :thumbsup:
Quote from: zewazir on March 30, 2017, 10:53:00 AM
Bull fucking shit on a stick. You posted ZERO scientific studies. You posted links to NEWS ARTICLES, MAGAZINE ARTICLES, and OPs written by the publishing company of a number of scientific journals. There is not a single scientific study in your list. You are a fracking liar - which is 100% typical for humanist progressives. Lying is the only way they can support their retarded agenda. The closest you come to referencing an actual scientific study is the "poll" conducted by OPI Publishers, in which they limited the respondents to climatologists who had published in one of their journals. And challenging "whatsupwiththat" as a source while using the New York fucking Times as one of yours is pure hypocrisy - another common trait amongst progressives.
OTOH, there is a list of 22 actual studies at the end of my post - as in referencing the genuine scientific papers which contain scientific evidence and conclusions derived from that data. (Did you even try to look any of them up? Or were you too scared to challenge your progressive paradigm?) The referenced studies include the FACT that analysis of plant stomata is a far more accurate indicator of atmospheric composition, and the data from studying plant stomata shows the calculations of atmospheric CO2 concentrations using ice core samples results in an underestimation of CO2 concentrations - which in turn belies the claim that current levels are "unprecedented."
The "whatsupwiththat" link was just handy to show the graphs which disprove AGW's CO2/Temperature claims. Those graphs and other data were accumulated from the scientific publications which are also referenced.
As for how scientists work, you have been hammering all along with exactly how REAL scientists do NOT work: "Consensus" proving the veracity of an hypothesis; Debate is over because a lie about how many scientists agree says so; etc. etc. etc. Sorry, but REAL science NEVER assumes the questions are answered. They're still testing aspects of Einstein's general and special theories of relativity. Current theory of anything simply defines the most reasonable explanation available from the evidence. AGW does not do that because they use questionable data, not to mention many of the data sets have been since proven to be altered to support their BS, along with the fact that they do their best to ostracize anyone who does not follow their agenda.
And you really are grabbing at air when you claim the military came up with their conclusions on their own. They were told to conduct their studies by the governments. (DUH!)
As for governments meeting to conspire - how many international climate change summits have their been now? So yes, one could definitely say governments have gathered to discuss AGW.
Duncecap, if you read the article yoiu wil find a study linked to every single one, including the one showin beyond a doubt 90-100 percent of clinmate scientists agree with man made clinate change.
Such a moron you are.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 06:51:23 AM
You are a joke. Go through the articles, explain the flaw in methodology, or you have to be considered the loser.
We already know the methodology. For some reason, you don't. They manipulate data to fit their objective. 100% of people agree with that.
Quote
You were giving 20 sources.
You've been given sources on debunking your scam and exposing your hoax, but you ignore them and continue to post debunked articles.
Quote
Show me how they are scams. Explain how the Israeli, chinese, Brritish, EU, American military, are part of the scam, including the scientists.
American military? You seem to be posting out of frustration now. Take a deep breath.
Quote
Show the flaws in the studies.
I did. You ignored them.
Quote
If you cant, you lose.
I've been winning on this topic since the 90s. You are recycling the same BS they have for decades.
Quote
Keep in mind more people are reading this exchange then you think.
We know. That's why you're here, so we can unravel you.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 08:02:31 AM
Again, until you can go through the methodology of these sources and provide the flaws in it, this is nothing but a bad joke.
This one line argument tactic you use, is akin to a child.
You are getting dominated and you know it.
You say we're getting dominated, but we've been telling you and those whose data you're unknowingly recycled that says we're supposed to be underwater that you're wrong. We've won 100% of the time, and your side has lost 100% of the time. That makes you dumb.
And no, the polar bears are not almost extinct, no matter how much you want to pretend they are.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 29, 2017, 05:29:17 PM
Thats not how climate change works.
Your side is based on the ice caps melting and flooding the Earth. We've been telling your side that's stupid and won't happen, even through the failed predictions, yet here you are in 2017 trying to hand us the same BS.
Quote
But its evident, from that question, you have no clue nor have read one study done on the topic other then perhaps the ceo of the weather channel lol.
He's not the CEO. He founded it. Did you not know that?
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 07:24:38 AM
I Live in New york. I am 27. The difference between climate in my life is so utterly obvious.
Between climate "in my life"? Take 10 seconds and breathe, then tell us what you're trying to say. You have to understand, even at your young age, it's obvious that your intellect is a few levels short of where it should be. Please don't take offense to that, but understand I'm willing to work through it with you.
What do you do for a living, may I ask?
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 08:07:28 AM
Yeah NYC, there is nothing to see here. Everyone from NYC is stupid I guess. All 8 million of us.
No, not everyone. I love NYC, but when I go there, I have to take a shower twice per day to get the gunk off my skin. It's very noticable when you're from out of town from a nice, clean city.
That aside, I'm still curious on why you're evading the question of when we're supposed to be underwater. Or, to ask a more meaningful way, why are we not already underwater? I've been telling your side for decades that we're not going to be underwater, but they'd just stomp their feet and hunker down, saying we'd be underwater by 2000, 2010, etc. We're not. Your side was wrong.
What is your excuse for your side being wrong about us being under water?
Quote from: taxed on March 30, 2017, 01:29:28 PM
You say we're getting dominated, but we've been telling you and those whose data you're unknowingly recycled that says we're supposed to be underwater that you're wrong. We've won 100% of the time, and your side has lost 100% of the time. That makes you dumb.
And no, the polar bears are not almost extinct, no matter how much you want to pretend they are.
What were we just talking about yesterday?
Here he is, broken nose, blood pouring down his face, two black eyes, and he claims victory because you cut your knuckles on the teeth you just knocked down his throat.
Yes, this is lib math at work.
Quote from: Solar on March 30, 2017, 02:01:33 PM
What were we just talking about yesterday?
Here he is, broken nose, blood pouring down his face, two black eyes, and he claims victory because you cut your knuckles on the teeth you just knocked down his throat.
Yes, this is lib math at work.
He's posting articles from people who think we're going to be underwater and that polar bears are going extinct. Notice he won't debate them and keeps posting articles for a smokescreen and keeps running. He's trying to run and evade, but he needs to come here and discuss the topic he thought he could debate.
Quote from: taxed on March 30, 2017, 02:05:11 PM
He's posting articles from people who think we're going to be underwater and that polar bears are going extinct. Notice he won't debate them and keeps posting articles for a smokescreen and keeps running. He's trying to run and evade, but he needs to come here and discuss the topic he thought he could debate.
Once again I am reminded of a commercial from years ago " A mind is a terrible thing to waste" . Of course in this instance there ain't much there to waste.
Quote from: s3779m on March 30, 2017, 02:12:40 PM
Once again I am reminded of a commercial from years ago " A mind is a terrible thing to waste" . Of course in this instance there ain't much there to waste.
Notice he won't commit to a simple point, like if we're going to be underwater, or if the polar bears are going extinct.
Quote from: taxed on March 30, 2017, 02:05:11 PM
He's posting articles from people who think we're going to be underwater and that polar bears are going extinct. Notice he won't debate them and keeps posting articles for a smokescreen and keeps running. He's trying to run and evade, but he needs to come here and discuss the topic he thought he could debate.
If he had a clue, he wouldn't have taken up the challenge, all he's posted is pretty much opinion pieces to studies that amount to nothing more than glorified opinion pieces by scientists paid to trick as many people as possible using fudged data.
He has yet to debate the merits of so called "Green Energy" and how it's very existence cost everyone 100%+ on their energy bills.
What the idiots like him don't understand, is all the money stolen from our treasury to front this scam, from development to rebates from the govt. they stole money to front it.
That's right, even the govt knows no one could afford it, so they robbed taxpayers so others could get a kickback for installing it.
Quote from: taxed on March 30, 2017, 02:15:58 PM
Notice he won't commit to a simple point, like if we're going to be underwater, or if the polar bears are going extinct.
Well, Zewazir did kick his butt pretty bad, I suspect he's still dizzy and don't know if polar bears are north of here or south of here.
Quote from: Solar on March 30, 2017, 02:19:01 PM
If he had a clue, he wouldn't have taken up the challenge, all he's posted is pretty much opinion pieces to studies that amount to nothing more than glorified opinion pieces by scientists paid to trick as many people as possible using fudged data.
He has yet to debate the merits of so called "Green Energy" and how it's very existence cost everyone 100%+ on their energy bills.
What the idiots like him don't understand, is all the money stolen from our treasury to front this scam, from development to rebates from the govt. they stole money to front it.
That's right, even the govt knows no one could afford it, so they robbed taxpayers so others could get a kickback for installing it.
I think that's way beyond him right now. Economics are clearly not his realm of expertise, so I'm trying to get him to answer some very basic, simple questions:
1. Are the polar bears going extinct?
2. Are we going to be underwater? (or, as an alternative, are the polar ice caps melting away?)
He worked "for an hour" to gather up data, but he won't go anywhere near these simple questions.
Quote from: taxed on March 30, 2017, 02:24:27 PM
I think that's way beyond him right now. Economics are clearly not his realm of expertise, so I'm trying to get him to answer some very basic, simple questions:
1. Are the polar bears going extinct?
2. Are we going to be underwater? (or, as an alternative, are the polar ice caps melting away?)
He worked "for an hour" to gather up data, but he won't go anywhere near these simple questions.
Did you ever get an answer on "Optimum Temperature" for the planet? :lol:
Quote from: Solar on March 30, 2017, 02:29:30 PM
Did you ever get an answer on "Optimum Temperature" for the planet? :lol:
They never touch that one.... which should be an easy one for them.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 06:51:23 AM
You are a joke. Go through the articles, explain the flaw in methodology, or you have to be considered the loser.
You were giving 20 sources. Show me how they are scams. Explain how the Israeli, chinese, Brritish, EU, American military, are part of the scam, including the scientists.
Show the flaws in the studies.
If you cant, you lose.
Keep in mind more people are reading this exchange then you think.
www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/03/30/tell-climate-change-really-favor-department-energy/
Funny how politics plays a role in how governments work. But surly that would not apply to any of the groups you listed.
Quote from: taxed on March 30, 2017, 02:32:19 PM
They never touch that one.... which should be an easy one for them.
Blake hard at work. :lol:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi951.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad359%2FKc_lion%2FFunny%2520Stuff%2Ffaceplant.gif&hash=ebfbe20e5994f3e7c2d7c037064480f8582013fe)
Quote from: taxed on March 30, 2017, 02:24:27 PM
I think that's way beyond him right now. Economics are clearly not his realm of expertise, so I'm trying to get him to answer some very basic, simple questions:
1. Are the polar bears going extinct?
2. Are we going to be underwater? (or, as an alternative, are the polar ice caps melting away?)
He worked "for an hour" to gather up data, but he won't go anywhere near these simple questions.
Heeeeeeeeeeere blakey blakey blakey.... you can run but you can't hide...
Quote from: taxed on March 30, 2017, 04:27:56 PM
Heeeeeeeeeeere blakey blakey blakey.... you can run but you can't hide...
He's taking a 24hr dirt nap at the moment.
Quote from: Solar on March 30, 2017, 04:29:24 PM
He's taking a 24hr dirt nap at the moment.
That should give him time to research and answer these two difficult questions.
Quote from: Solar on March 30, 2017, 04:29:24 PM
He's taking a 24hr dirt nap at the moment.
See I said you were the nice one. :lol:
When he comes back he needs to answer my simple questions.
Quote from: blake allyn on March 30, 2017, 12:52:59 PM
Duncecap, if you read the article yoiu wil find a study linked to every single one, including the one showin beyond a doubt 90-100 percent of clinmate scientists agree with man made clinate change.
Such a moron you are.
I did read your article. Which is how I am able to point out the "study" from IOP Science, about how many climatologists agree with AGW, is statistically invalidated by the fact that they limited responders to climatologists who had published in IOP Science journals. Just as the original figure came from climatologists who attended the AGW summit (a fact conveniently left out by AGW reports), you can get any number you want when the "study" deliberately limits the sample. I could do a poll asking registered Republicans if they support Clinton, and the claim "99% of voters hate Clinton." My claim would be a lie because I deliberately limited my sample to people I already know will answer the way I desire. IOW, all you have is a lie. The so-called consensus does not exist.
Of course, arguing consensus is moot, since consensus is not science in the first place. History is chock full of instances where consensus among leading scientists were proven wrong. Not all that long ago the consensus was that we balance our diet according to a food pyramid with a heavy use of grains and other high carb foods. We've discovered since then that model makes people fat. Consensus only makes sheeple feel good about being part of the flock.
And you did NOT link to a scientific study for each one of your points. You linked to news reports or popular magazine articles which describe the results of a study (usually inaccurately.) You also fail to account for the fact that those studies have been thoroughly debunked.
You have yet to address the studies (which I actually referenced, instead of links to news articles) which show the ice core results which AGW depends on are inaccurate.
Kouwenberg, 2004. APPLICATION OF CONIFER NEEDLES IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HOLOCENE CO2 LEVELS. PhD Thesis. Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, University of Utrecht.
Wagner et al., 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quaternary Science Reviews 23 (2004) 1947–1954.You have yet to address the fact that paleo-climatological studies show the so-called correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperatures is limited to the most recent 800,000 years.
Moberg, A., et al. 2005. 2,000-Year Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2005-019. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.You haven't commented on the study which proves CO2 levels in the past reached much higher concentrations than indicated by the ice core studies, thus invalidating the claim that current CO2 levels are "unprecedented."
Rundgren et al., 2005. Last interglacial atmospheric CO2 changes from stomatal index data and their relation to climate variations. Global and Planetary Change 49 (2005) 47–62.Neither have you tried to counter the study which shows that CO2 levels have, indeed changed as rapidly, or even more rapidly than the current changes which AGW claims proves "this time is different" due to human activity.
Jessen et al., 2005. Abrupt climatic changes and an unstable transition into a late Holocene Thermal Decline: a multiproxy lacustrine record from southern Sweden. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 20(4) 349–362 (2005).The real facts are every single factor used by AGW supporters to "prove" their "theory" can be shown to be inaccurate or just plain wrong. Your sources are nothing more than popular tripe and/or deliberate lies.
Quote from: zewazir on March 30, 2017, 05:03:55 PM
I did read your article. Which is how I am able to point out the "study" from IOP Science, about how many climatologists agree with AGW, is statistically invalidated by the fact that they limited responders to climatologists who had published in IOP Science journals. Just as the original figure came from climatologists who attended the AGW summit (a fact conveniently left out by AGW reports), you can get any number you want when the "study" deliberately limits the sample. I could do a poll asking registered Republicans if they support Clinton, and the claim "99% of voters hate Clinton." My claim would be a lie because I deliberately limited my sample to people I already know will answer the way I desire. IOW, all you have is a lie. The so-called consensus does not exist.
Of course, arguing consensus is moot, since consensus is not science in the first place. History is chock full of instances where consensus among leading scientists were proven wrong. Not all that long ago the consensus was that we balance our diet according to a food pyramid with a heavy use of grains and other high carb foods. We've discovered since then that model makes people fat. Consensus only makes sheeple feel good about being part of the flock.
And you did NOT link to a scientific study for each one of your points. You linked to news reports or popular magazine articles which describe the results of a study (usually inaccurately.) You also fail to account for the fact that those studies have been thoroughly debunked.
You have yet to address the studies (which I actually referenced, instead of links to news articles) which show the ice core results which AGW depends on are inaccurate.
Kouwenberg, 2004. APPLICATION OF CONIFER NEEDLES IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HOLOCENE CO2 LEVELS. PhD Thesis. Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, University of Utrecht.
Wagner et al., 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quaternary Science Reviews 23 (2004) 1947–1954.
You have yet to address the fact that paleo-climatological studies show the so-called correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperatures is limited to the most recent 800,000 years.
Moberg, A., et al. 2005. 2,000-Year Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2005-019. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
You haven't commented on the study which proves CO2 levels in the past reached much higher concentrations than indicated by the ice core studies, thus invalidating the claim that current CO2 levels are "unprecedented."
Rundgren et al., 2005. Last interglacial atmospheric CO2 changes from stomatal index data and their relation to climate variations. Global and Planetary Change 49 (2005) 47–62.
Neither have you tried to counter the study which shows that CO2 levels have, indeed changed as rapidly, or even more rapidly than the current changes which AGW claims proves "this time is different" due to human activity.
Jessen et al., 2005. Abrupt climatic changes and an unstable transition into a late Holocene Thermal Decline: a multiproxy lacustrine record from southern Sweden. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 20(4) 349–362 (2005).
The real facts are every single factor used by AGW supporters to "prove" their "theory" can be shown to be inaccurate or just plain wrong. Your sources are nothing more than popular tripe and/or deliberate lies.
Well saID.
Not to mention the fact that Co2 increases have always followed warming, but as warming increased, the oceans released even more Co2.
Yet there's no evidence this rapid rise played a part in rising temperatures.
Quote from: Solar on March 30, 2017, 05:45:41 PM
Well saID.
Not to mention the fact that Co2 increases have always followed warming, but as warming increased, the oceans released even more Co2.
Yet there's no evidence this rapid rise played a part in rising temperatures.
Yeah, I mentioned the timing of CO2 increase vs. temperature increase in my first response. But the OP is clearly not interested in facts.
Quote from: Solar on March 30, 2017, 05:45:41 PM
Well saID.
Not to mention the fact that Co2 increases have always followed warming, but as warming increased, the oceans released even more Co2.
Yet there's no evidence this rapid rise played a part in rising temperatures.
Not to mention CO2 is the gas plants breathe.
Hmmmmm, with the amounts of CO2 those scientist are claiming is causing the greenhouse effect, why aren't all plants thriving. According to the climate change crowd, there's so much CO2 in the atmosphere I'm surprised Earth doesn't look like Endor in Star Wars
Quote from: zewazir on March 30, 2017, 06:47:06 PM
Yeah, I mentioned the timing of CO2 increase vs. temperature increase in my first response. But the OP is clearly not interested in facts.
We haven't even started on the actual subject of energy yet. :laugh:
Quote from: Ghoulardi on March 30, 2017, 07:15:51 PM
Not to mention CO2 is the gas plants breathe.
Hmmmmm, with the amounts of CO2 those scientist are claiming is causing the greenhouse effect, why aren't all plants thriving. According to the climate change crowd, there's so much CO2 in the atmosphere I'm surprised Earth doesn't look like Endor in Star Wars
I was thinking of that Will Smith flick, "I Am Legend" after humanity ended and he was the only one left and plants had taken over NY City.
One can dream, right? :thumbsup:
Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 29, 2017, 02:36:58 PM
Blake ... one thing is for certain ... right now you're entertaining. I'm not sure how much entertainment, I'll be able to handle. :popcorn:
:biggrin:
Quote from: Bronx on March 30, 2017, 12:25:19 PM
I bet you this fruitcake learned how to have sex with his girlfriend or boyfriend from Cosmopolitan magazine....... :thumbsup:
Has he ever had a girlfriend he did not have to inflate?
Quote from: Solar on March 30, 2017, 07:29:57 PM
I was thinking of that Will Smith flick, "I Am Legend" after humanity ended and he was the only one left and plants had taken over NY City.
One can dream, right? :thumbsup:
Don't you mean taken over by what today we'd call zombies? Plants taking over sounds like "Day of the Triffids." Unless you're talking Cheech and Chong.
Quote from: Solar on March 30, 2017, 07:25:27 PM
We haven't even started on the actual subject of energy yet. :laugh:
That's because even he knows "green" energy is a boondoggle.
The only way to defend using outrageously expensive and inefficient energy sources is to use the scare tactic that all other sources are leading us to catastrophe.
Quote from: quiller on March 30, 2017, 08:17:22 PM
Don't you mean taken over by what today we'd call zombies? Plants taking over sounds like "Day of the Triffids." Unless you're talking Cheech and Chong.
Cheech and Chong... Mexican Americans like flowers and music ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLqqZmNFa_A
Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 30, 2017, 08:31:15 PM
Cheech and Chong... Mexican Americans like flowers and music ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJIsEWsquPI&index=14&list=PLgix623PjPMBDkahrnvo9Wv2hkr1wI7jm
Quote from: zewazir on March 30, 2017, 08:25:15 PM
That's because even he knows "green" energy is a boondoggle.
The only way to defend using outrageously expensive and inefficient energy sources is to use the scare tactic that all other sources are leading us to catastrophe.
I don't think that's it, rather he knows zero about our energy production outside of electricity comes from outlets.
But now that you mention it, he's starting to ask little questions in his own mind as he ponders "expensive and inefficient energy", why would we do that?
These are the questions they never asked, they just swallowed the lies they were taught in school without question, until today, when you made it clear that we were being forced to pay more.
Like so many his age, still thinking babies come from a cabbage patch until someone sets them straight. :biggrin:
Quote from: taxed on March 30, 2017, 04:34:19 PM
When he comes back he needs to answer my simple questions.
I have noticed a tendency not to answer questions. We should not let him get away that.
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 31, 2017, 05:14:39 AM
I have noticed a tendency not to answer questions. We should not let him get away that.
I'm kind of bored with Blake's approach. I think most of you are just playing with him at this point - a ball of yarn in front of a kitten comes to mind. You've given him enough rope and he's hung himself about a hundred times. He doesn't seem to be getting into a mode where he wants to genuinely consider the case and contribute. There is one thing he's dominated ... the attention of this site for a couple days. I vote that it's enough - he should just rationally contribute his point (with backup) and then listen. If not, he should be forced to just listen for awhile.
To choose one example, he was quick to site scientific reports as backup for man-made climate change. But there are also several facts that are obviously legitimate (even more so from my viewpoint) against the evidence of man-made climate change. He will not rationally deal with the evidence that doesn't fit his position. That's ingenuine and such thinking can't be allowed to dominate the site. The opinion should not be regulated, but it shouldn't dominate the forum.
Quote from: topside on March 31, 2017, 06:14:14 AM
I'm kind of bored with Blake's approach. I think most of you are just playing with him at this point - a ball of yarn in front of a kitten comes to mind. You've given him enough rope and he's hung himself about a hundred times. He doesn't seem to be getting into a mode where he wants to genuinely consider the case and contribute. There is one thing he's dominated ... the attention of this site for a couple days. I vote that it's enough - he should just rationally contribute his point (with backup) and then listen. If not, he should be forced to just listen for awhile.
To choose one example, he was quick to site scientific reports as backup for man-made climate change. But there are also several facts that are obviously legitimate (even more so from my viewpoint) against the evidence of man-made climate change. He will not rationally deal with the evidence that doesn't fit his position. That's ingenuine and such thinking can't be allowed to dominate the site. The opinion should not be regulated, but it shouldn't dominate the forum.
Its more like couple of pit bulls with a chew toy and tossing it around. We do love pounding on Leftist snowflakes. But sometimes useful information can be had from such basement dwelling trolls. Their latest "Issues" and "new data" to support their insane positions are often revealed as well as new up an coming irrational leftist "stars" and 'Icon's
Once again,
know your enemy, know all you can about him, his sources of information, his strategy of attack etc etc
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on March 31, 2017, 07:02:23 AM
Its more like couple of pit bulls with a chew toy and tossing it around. We do love pounding on Leftist snowflakes. But sometimes useful information can be had from such basement dwelling trolls. Their latest "Issues" and "new data" to support their insane positions are often revealed as well as new up an coming irrational leftist "stars" and 'Icon's
Once again, know your enemy, know all you can about him, his sources of information, his strategy of attack etc etc
I agree with understanding your opponent. I think Blake is representative of the Dims that feign logic and shot-gun crap as if it were wisdom. I also know Dims who can carry on a exploratory dialogue and work calmly through the midst of disagreement - although some of the attack-banter from some on this site might drive them away. I'd encourage a Dim join the conversation that could hold emotions back enough to state and defend a position (and it's weaknesses) than what I've seen in these discussions with Blake.
We probably have some that would contribute constructively that are lurking? Some that are not galvanized in their positions and would admit that they would change their position if substantial facts warranted it. I'm certainly in that position - for me, some aspects are pretty settled, e.g., we should act as a Republic under the Constitutional intent, but other positions not-so-much, e.g., how best to deal with the homeless at a federal / state / local level.
We could use some seasoned counterparts that cause us to question and sharpen our positions a bit.
Quote from: topside on March 31, 2017, 06:14:14 AM
I'm kind of bored with Blake's approach. I think most of you are just playing with him at this point - a ball of yarn in front of a kitten comes to mind. You've given him enough rope and he's hung himself about a hundred times. He doesn't seem to be getting into a mode where he wants to genuinely consider the case and contribute. There is one thing he's dominated ... the attention of this site for a couple days. I vote that it's enough - he should just rationally contribute his point (with backup) and then listen. If not, he should be forced to just listen for awhile.
To choose one example, he was quick to site scientific reports as backup for man-made climate change. But there are also several facts that are obviously legitimate (even more so from my viewpoint) against the evidence of man-made climate change. He will not rationally deal with the evidence that doesn't fit his position. That's ingenuine and such thinking can't be allowed to dominate the site. The opinion should not be regulated, but it shouldn't dominate the forum.
Actually he did not site scientific reports. Did you read his list of references? News sites, popular magazines which, though science oriented, are far from reading an actual study. Not one genuine research paper was referenced, just journalists' versions of studies. The closest that came to actual referenced studies are the NASA link (which is actually their public affairs site) and the so-called poll of AGW published climatologists, using that to show that most climatologists support AGW theory.
This is typical of lay supporters of AGW theory. They read media accounts of this report and that study - all of which are biased - and think they're "well read" on the topic. But hen it comes to taking a critical look at the actual data and methodology, they let reporters who wouldn't know an ice core from a snow cone do the critical thinking for them.
I only dug into a few of his references - none of the AGW references. It was apparent that he wasn't listening to anything. You've just further discredited Blake and those who use his irrational, unreasoned style.
I did stumble on the home page forum reference though and enjoyed a few reads. Thanks to whomever put that up.
https://realclimatescience.com/ (https://realclimatescience.com/)
I don't think we have to worry about Blake. I think he was a recent college graduate who is a product of the liberal educational system or was still in college. He probably thought he was going to swoop in and dazzle us with all his brilliance and was sorely disappointed when he realized his b.s. wasn't going to fly.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 31, 2017, 01:43:53 PM
I don't think we have to worry about Blake. I think he was a recent college graduate who is a product of the liberal educational system or was still in college. He probably thought he was going to swoop in and dazzle us with all his brilliance and was sorely disappointed when he realized his b.s. wasn't going to fly.
He has a 24hr. timeout. We will see, he has a big ego to fill as he need to justify wasting all that money in college. When he could have had a good education from this board and saved mom and dad 100.000$. :popcorn:
Quote from: walkstall on March 31, 2017, 02:49:38 PM
He has a 24hr. timeout. We will see, he has a big ego to fill as he need to justify wasting all that money in college. When he could have had a good education from this board and saved mom and dad 100.000$. :popcorn:
Hey ... we're here to help, right? :thumbsup:
You would think with Solar's background he would have at least considered what he had to say ... you know the old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".
Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 31, 2017, 01:43:53 PM
I don't think we have to worry about Blake. I think he was a recent college graduate who is a product of the liberal educational system or was still in college. He probably thought he was going to swoop in and dazzle us with all his brilliance and was sorely disappointed when he realized his b.s. wasn't going to fly.
One item he did learn, if you can't impress them with intelligence, baffle them with bull shit.