[split] Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2017, 09:29 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(24-06-2017 05:24 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Nice false equivalence...

There's no False Equivalence.

(24-06-2017 05:31 PM)Anjele Wrote:  How have I missed you? You are a special kind of dipshit, aren't you?

I won't waste the keystrokes to try to explain why.

That's because you have no facts on your side.

(25-06-2017 04:06 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Like you I am quite staggered by his post and as an RN somewhat insulted.

Then read what your own government says:

So far we have discussed art of medicine as a human faculty that has to be based on science. Medicine, however, is not an exact science. It is an applied science, and its practice is an art.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/

You all stand corrected.

The enemy numbered six hundred - including women and children - and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States. -- Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2017, 09:36 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(24-06-2017 08:20 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Typical interglacial periods last about 10,000 years, and we are already near the end of that period for the present interglacial. If it weren't for human influences, we would be faced with global average temperatures beginning to fall again within the next 1000 or 1500 years. As it is, we have pushed off the beginning of the next ice age for at least 41,000 years. Further (if I remember my reading correctly), temperatures typically peak at the beginning of interglacials and very slowly fall thereafter.

10,000 to 12,000 years, and there's evidence that the post-Glacial Period -- the transition between the Glacial Period and the Inter-Glacial Period -- was disrupted.

The age of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet proves that.

Why would you want an Ice Age?

Perhaps you're unaware that Millions of people died of famine and famine-related diseases during the Mini-Ice Age.



(24-06-2017 08:20 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  During previous interglacials, CO2 did not rise above 300 ppm. Today, CO2 is over 400 ppm for the first time in hundreds of thousands of years, and most of that is due to humans burning fossil fuels.

So? CO2 levels are irrelevant.

(24-06-2017 08:20 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Only human influences can explain the climate changes we are now observing.

That is what is claimed, but there is no proof.

(25-06-2017 03:31 AM)morondog Wrote:  Incidentally if you're correct about this interglacial period, why is that not the consensus opinion?

Because the Consensus Opinion is about redistributing Wealth and not about real Science.

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


http://www.investors.com/politics/editor...ing-scare/

The enemy numbered six hundred - including women and children - and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States. -- Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2017, 03:07 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-06-2017 09:29 PM)Mircea Wrote:  
(24-06-2017 05:24 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Nice false equivalence...

There's no False Equivalence.

(24-06-2017 05:31 PM)Anjele Wrote:  How have I missed you? You are a special kind of dipshit, aren't you?

I won't waste the keystrokes to try to explain why.

That's because you have no facts on your side.

(25-06-2017 04:06 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Like you I am quite staggered by his post and as an RN somewhat insulted.

Then read what your own government says:

So far we have discussed art of medicine as a human faculty that has to be based on science. Medicine, however, is not an exact science. It is an applied science, and its practice is an art.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/

You all stand corrected.
The art in medicine is the application of the scientific principles to individual patients who have many variables in a humanitarian manner. So no, I stand uncorrected. Even though medicine is an un exact science that does not render it pseudoscience, it is your sweeping dismissive use of that word with all its negative connotations I'm insulted by more than anything else. Had you used the term un exact science I would have agreed with you 100% but your choice to use an inaccurate and defamatory word is why people are starting to have a problem with you, on the whole you seem like an articulate intelligent person with some controversial viewpoints, now, if you want to be taken seriously and have your posts read and commented on in a respectful and productive manner my suggestion is lose the arrogant attitude and choose your wording and phraseology more carefully otherwise you will be dismissed as a troll or a Poe and no one will take you seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2017, 04:35 AM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2017 05:44 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-06-2017 09:36 PM)Mircea Wrote:  Why would you want an Ice Age?

CO2 levels are irrelevant.

That is what is claimed, but there is no proof.

Because the Consensus Opinion is about redistributing Wealth and not about real Science.

I never said I wanted another ice age.

To say CO2 is irrelevant to climate change is anti-science.

The proofs of man-made climate change include the rate of change, the fact that no other explanations can account for what we are seeing, and the elevated CO2 level, all of which I mentioned. Other proofs include the isotope of the carbon in the atmosphere and the fact that the lower atmosphere has warmed while the upper atmosphere has cooled.

Redistribution of weath is sometimes discussed as a possible solution to climate change, since advanced industrial countries exploited the climate for their own benefit and now developing countries can't do the same. Sharing our innovations and financing their development would help them skip CO2 generating industries.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2017, 04:38 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
Quote:Conclusion

Medicine is both an art and a science. Both are interdependent and inseparable, just like two sides of a coin.

From your link, Mircea, you silly sod.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
26-06-2017, 05:45 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(24-06-2017 05:17 PM)Mircea Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 06:14 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I wouldn't hold your breath mate, not where someone who believes medicine is pseudo science is concerned. Drinking Beverage

Science is universal. That means it's true throughout the entire Universe every time, all the time.

When I add a Base to and Acid, say Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) to Hydrochloric Acid, I get H2O (Water) and a Salt (in this case Sodium Chloride or table salt).

That's true everywhere in the Universe....on Earth, on the Moon, on another planet like Jupiter, in another galaxy like Andromeda and so on.

Not only will I get H2O and a Salt, I can calculate the exact amount of H2O and Salt will be created.

That's chemistry not science. Science is the process that allowed us to figure out how much H2O and salt are created when sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid are combined.

Quote:If real Science was not universal, you'd never be able to land a man on the Moon, or if you did, the astronauts would be marooned there. The Laws of Gravity are universal, applicable everywhere in the Universe, because Physics is real Science.

If Medicine would be universal, then you would only need one anti-depressant instead of the currently existing 50+ anti-depressants on the Market.

If Medicine would be universal, then why do people die? Three people each with pneumonia are given anti-biotics. One person survives, one dies and one lives but with severe damage to the lungs.

If Medicine would be universal, then every treatment would have the exact same out-come, but that isn't the case.

Medicine and Psychiatry are "hit or miss" which isn't real Science. Science is about making predictions with absolute certainty and being correct 100% of the time.

Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It is a process not a set of universal rules. It can tell us how things work, but it is limited by the data that is available for observation. For example the scientific process has allowed us to figure out much about chemistry and physics, but our knowledge of these topics is far from complete.

Our limited knowledge of gravity allows us to use gravity assists to send spacecraft into the outer solar system with a high degree of accuracy, but we don't know everything about it. We don't know if our understanding of how gravity works holds true at very large scales such as black holes. Many suspect it doesn't.

Global warming is about physics. Our understanding of physics tells us adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in warming. If it doesn't your universal laws of physics aren't so universal after all.

Your bitch about global warming seems to be with policy. OK. Policy is a legitimate area of concern. But policy is different than physics, and you don't like the proposed policy instituted to deal with climate change is not a valid reason to reject the physics of why it is changing.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Popeye's Pappy's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: