Religion and climate change
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-05-2013, 04:27 AM
RE: Religion and climate change
(19-05-2013 05:22 PM)I and I Wrote:  I am a troll because I insulted you back?

Your a troll cos you ignore valid responses and continue as if nothing was said.

You started out insulting all people at the forum with your blanket statements. You fail to see people as individuals, and treat everyone like they belong to an enemy faction.

How can you act offended when people fight back? You don't have a leg to stand on, and you deserve every hostile reaction and insult you get at this forum.

Like I said, your a troll.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DeepThought's post
26-05-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: Religion and climate change
It's because conservative don't trust government to be honest when it comes to a proposed new tax and the justification for it.

I've actually taken the time to study the data on the climate change. One would think this an important step before forming an opinion.

I'll sum it up for you this way.
In Chicago:
Last year March was 15 degrees F above normal on average
This year it was 14 degrees F below normal on average.

Taking the two year average that means that the climate is warming 0.5 degrees.
Forecasting out 100 years the earth is toast. OMG lets stop driving cars before it's too late.

BUT...
Isn't the averaging of the data a bit misleading?
Isn't the time interval a bit short for making such a forecasts?

I'm exaggerating obviously for effect, but even 100 years of data is too short of a time to make such forecasts. Look at the millions of years of temperature estimations. 50,000 years ago the climate was 15 degrees F above what it is today. Can anyone explain why? No. 50,000 years in nothing compared to 3.5 billion which spans the time of life existing on the planet.

We are told that if the CO2 went from 250ppm to 400ppm it was just about over for the planet. Well we just hit 400ppm. So it's over. Why bother now. That's the problem with dire predictions. When they don't come true you look really stupid.

China is the largest polluter. China says fuck off to the world. They put into service a new coal fired power plant every week. India is catching up and is in third place. India says fuck off as well.

IF the "consensus" of scientists are right, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks or does outside of China and India. The only option is to hope that the "consensus" of scientists is wrong. Just like they were about Heliocentrism in 1515 where the sole denier was correct.

So call it Climate Change or Walleyball it doesn't matter. The fact is we are headed where we are headed. I personally don't think the scientists are correct at this point. If they were they would be showing me "data" to support their claim, not "consensus of opinion" where they include Sociologists , Political Scientists, Economists and Philosophers opinions.

The forecast models are all wrong. CO2ppm contribution to global warming has an admittedly overestimated affect (by the UN) by as much as a factor of 5x. The good news is that we now know more. A whole science of Heliophysics has been born and is doing extensive work on understanding the sun. From this we know that any possible warming considering the noise inthe data (estimated at 0.6C over the last 100 years) has as much as 25% contribution from solar activity change. In short the sun does not rest at a constant temperature.

Global warming is not a hoax. It WAS a reaction by a few scientists to an oh-shit possibility. Everyone wants to be first. Scientific descovery is an extremely competitive game. Grant money is scarce. Now some scientists are stuck with possibly looking like fools. Their careers ended. Their names becoming synonymous with "Chicken Little". They will fight to the end. What else can they do? No one wants to be wrong. No one wants to be humiliated.

The "Holocaust Deniers" as those were called for questioning the "consensus opinion" have flipped the tables with the data. The deniers now are the ones who deny the facts of the current temperature data. Those who deny that the temperature forecast models based on CO2ppm are completely wrong. Those who deny that we jumped the gun on the call. Those who desperately want to save face.

Now you know. Go forth an tell the world.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2013, 04:05 PM
RE: Religion and climate change
Religion causes people to do prayers.
Prayer makes people holy.
When people get holy, they get halos.
Halos discharge electric current that destroys ozone.
Therefore, religion is causing climate change.

(You can't prove it doesn't).
Here is a picture of St. Peter causing climate change.


[Image: saint-peter.jpg]

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
26-05-2013, 04:14 PM
RE: Religion and climate change
(13-05-2013 06:02 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  I&I your grasp on reality is so tenuous I rarely consider it worthwhile to respond to you, but for completeness:

Our carbon dioxide concentration is now at 400 parts per million. This is higher than at any time during the lifetime of our species, and concentrations have not been so high for three million years. We know from basic laws of physics that carbon dioxide levels cause warming by allowing sunlight through on its way to the ground but reflecting longer infrared radiation wavelengths. This allows energy into the system but acts like a blanket for energy escaping the system, and moves the equilibrium temperature higher.

We know that heat energy within our climate system is increasing. We know that most of this heat is going into the oceans and some into the atmosphere. We can see glaciers and even the very poles themselves melting away in front of our eyes. We can isolate other potential causes and show that they are not responsible. We are responsible. Our carbon emissions are responsible. We are running a terraforming experiment on our planet and our best estimates of the effects are that they will be highly negative on our species.

We can act, even now, cheaply to solve this problem. We can drastically reduce new carbon emissions without significant economic impact. The longer we wait the more expensive the transition will be.

Your argument is that some people who care about this issue still use electricity and fly on aeroplanes. The solution here is not for people to stop using electricity or to stop flying on aeroplanes. The solution is to put a price on carbon emissions to ensure that emissions are reduced in the most cost effective manner across the economy. You're holding the tail of an elephant and insisting it is a snake, even when the evidence of your eyes shows plainly what is true.

What was shown in a lab is not happening in the climate. This argument is obsolete. Based on your own statement of 400ppm, where the temperature spike? Not happening. Data matters. CO2 is claimed as an independent variable. The dependent variable is temperature. Can't keep using changes in the independent variable and assuming the model is correct when it has not been proven correct. Science is about proof with empirical data. Hypothesis, testing, accept/reject. The hypothesis is rejected. No global Warming can be shown from CO2 emission increases. Game over. Time to move on. Nothing to see here.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2013, 05:18 PM
RE: Religion and climate change
Lol Thomas, is this a joke? I didn't read all of your posts but are you actually claiming that the models are wrong because tou looked out your living room window and measured temperature for a while noticing no big changes?

Please tell me this is satire!

Also, co2 doesnt have to translate immediately to increases in average global surface temperature. The planet can store huge amounts of energy in various places, like the ocean. Some of it can melt ice. Earth is a massive dynamic system.

The workings of co2 are simple physics. If you have a problem with that you can take it to a physicist.

I can debunk the rest later once I've read it properly and am sure your not pulling my leg.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2013, 02:36 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2013 03:11 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: Religion and climate change
(26-05-2013 04:14 PM)Thomas Wrote:  What was shown in a lab is not happening in the climate. This argument is obsolete. Based on your own statement of 400ppm, where the temperature spike? Not happening. Data matters. CO2 is claimed as an independent variable. The dependent variable is temperature. Can't keep using changes in the independent variable and assuming the model is correct when it has not been proven correct. Science is about proof with empirical data. Hypothesis, testing, accept/reject. The hypothesis is rejected. No global Warming can be shown from CO2 emission increases. Game over. Time to move on. Nothing to see here.

WTF?

What about this study: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

Which shows our projections made by the climate models are in agreement with our observations.

Your two posts in this thread are mostly wrong, and full of fail. If you care to know why you can come back and I can provide more data. Educating you isn't my responsibility.

There is a tonne of data available on the internet so there is no excuse for ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model


Quote:The forecast models are all wrong. CO2ppm contribution to global warming has an admittedly overestimated affect (by the UN) by as much as a factor of 5x. The good news is that we now know more. A whole science of Heliophysics has been born and is doing extensive work on understanding the sun. From this we know that any possible warming considering the noise in the data (estimated at 0.6C over the last 100 years) has as much as 25% contribution from solar activity change. In short the sun does not rest at a constant temperature.

Don't know where you got this information from but it sounds familiar. It's been thoroughly debunked as well. It terms of solar activity, including changes in earths orbit, etc. Right now we are in a slight cooling trend. We have several satellites watching the sun and what it's doing 24/7. Where does this 25% figure come from?

Looks like shit. Smells like shit. Don't tell me it's fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution...r_activity

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2013, 08:04 AM
RE: Religion and climate change
The warming effect from carbon dioxide is a delayed feedback effect. Just because CO2 concentrations reach a certain point it doesn't mean the effect is in anyway immediate. There are a lot of factors that delay the effect. Very little in climate change is an overnight response.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-...ffect.html

Also, day to day local weather is meaningless in measuring climate change, and it's also not just about temperature. It's about trends in temperature, and the effects increased atmospheric energy will have on trends in other weather events like storms, floods, droughts, hurricanes, etc. and change worldwide weather patterns. The effects are going to differ in different areas, due to a huge number of factors in different regions of the world. What happens in Chicago is not what happens in London. And there HAS been overall warming. Worldwide.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...ains1.html

Why is averaging misleading? They're collecting a TON of data points on temperate and CO2 concentration, and you have to do something with it to discern if there are any patterns or not. Averaging over time is a relatively simply way to get a general snapshot of what's going on.

Earth itself is going to be fine. It's been through far worse. Life in itself is probably going to be fine too - a lot of plants/animals can and will adapt (some already are). The question is how this may affect life for those species that may not be able to adapt fast enough, and how it will affect human society as things very gradually change.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2013, 10:00 PM
RE: Religion and climate change
I do not know where I saw it but I did see somewhere that the number of days world wide where record high temperatures occurred in 2012 was significantly higher than any other year of record. I know anecdotally from observing weather reports locally that a surprising number of local record high temperatures occurred last year.

The science is sound and saying otherwise is incorrect. Maybe some of the predictions were over the top that does not negate the science. Do a little research and you will find that initially some scientists thought CO2 increases in the atmosphere might lead to global cooling. No one but quacks or shills for energy companies think that continuing increases in CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing.

I remember having a discussion with a climatologist in the mid to late 80's where I asked how global warming may affect the accuracy of rainfall records. He was uncertain and indicated at that time no one knew for sure. He did offer that many thought that more severe weather might occur. I know many in the field say that the severity of "super storm Sandy" was the result of global warming also many said the same of Katrina.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 12:17 AM
RE: Religion and climate change
Two different threads on two different sections are about to make love and join together. This thread and the "why so many people believe in conspiracy theories" thread.

1. Years ago scientist were caught in a scandal known as climate gate where scientists were caught communicating with each other where they expressed the necessity in making up data to fit the climate change idea. Right here. http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20..._issue.htm

2. The rich few that fund alot of the climate research are living complete opposites of what they portray on tv, they have huge houses and have a very large ecological footprints while they tell poorer people to reduce their expectations of lifestyle.

3. Bill Gates who supposedly believes in climate change, is heavily invested in Monsanto which is by no means an evironment friendly corporation. Monsanto makes suicide seeds in where seeds produce plants that don't produce more seeds due to their patenting of genetic make up of plants. This type of control and manipulation of and destruction of the environment also looks even worse in light of the fact that Monsanto does have seeds that produce seed plants normally however these are kept in a vault and not for common consumption. http://www.globalresearch.ca/doomsday-se...ic-2/23503

Does one have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why people think that climate change is a total piece of shit scare tactic used to control people?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 01:05 AM
RE: Religion and climate change
I and I sometimes you really go overboard. Did climate gate occur yes it did, do scientists sometimes cook the books because it benefits their employment, yes they do. I would point out that it is most common in scientists employed by or dependent on drug companies.

Do many of the wealthy who agree with global warming not act as they should, yes. Even I use the heater more than I should because I can afford it. I also drive places for strictly my enjoyment, something I actually recognize as inappropriate.

Does the above convince any but the most naive that global warming is not a threat. Not unless they are so heavy into conspiracy that they chose to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: