global warming

[Eventhorizon]

I've read the article, it says "despite alarmist claims of the Arctic being hotter than ever" backed up with evidence, then adds "Arctic temperatures is actually below normal." backed up with... oh look, nothing.

I'd argue that it's you, that failed to properly read the third hand garbage that this twat spewed out.

True, he did not give a source for that particular argument. But you also did not give a source for the supposed melting and then breaking off of this ice sheet and whether such a thing is considered normal this time of year.
I posted the article for consideration and never used it to imply anything one way or another.
Clearly you despise this person's perspective and discount it based on conclusions you have already subcum to.
Thanks for your perspective.

 

[88chaz88]

True, he did not give a source for that particular argument. But you also did not give a source for the supposed melting and then breaking off of this ice sheet and whether such a thing is considered normal this time of year.

I'm not writing an article though, I shouldn't be required to source anything. From what I read, and this is days ago now, the temperature rising is what caused the ice drift.

I posted the article for consideration and never used it to imply anything one way or another.
Clearly you despise this person's perspective and discount it based on conclusions you have already subcum to.
Thanks for your perspective.

I think "succumb" is the word you're looking for, and of course I'm reading through my own bias, just as you are with yours, but honestly, the article you posted is really weird.

See he reports on claims of one thing, providing evidence that are linked to more reputable sources than his own, but then makes claims of the opposite, with nothing.

Anyway the claim that the arctic will be ice free this summer isn't so far fetched and based off of predictions when the ice reached it's maximum extent on March 7th. This was a record low. Obviously climatologists expect the minimum amount to also reach record lows.

Obviously though, it's just a prediction and predictions can be off. The fact that arctic ice is hitting record lows year after year though should be rather worrying.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I'm not writing an article though, I shouldn't be required to source anything. From what I read, and this is days ago now, the temperature rising is what caused the ice drift.



I think "succumb" is the word you're looking for, and of course I'm reading through my own bias, just as you are with yours, but honestly, the article you posted is really weird.

See he reports on claims of one thing, providing evidence that are linked to more reputable sources than his own, but then makes claims of the opposite, with nothing.

Anyway the claim that the arctic will be ice free this summer isn't so far fetched and based off of predictions when the ice reached it's maximum extent on March 7th. This was a record low. Obviously climatologists expect the minimum amount to also reach record lows.

Obviously though, it's just a prediction and predictions can be off. The fact that arctic ice is hitting record lows year after year though should be rather worrying.

I liken the report to people making fun of global warming in the winter when an exceptionally large snow storm hits an area. "Global warming my ass," is the sentiment normally heard at that time. The fact being that a large snow storm in one area of the earth has nothing to do with overall global tempatures. Still I did find it funny none the less that the team had to be rescued from ice when the prediction was lower than average ice. Sorry, it's funny.
Having said that, I still hold science above all else to include political posturing. I think most people actual interested in the facts understand that there's no science that proves man made global warming. Yes there's a theory and there is evidence to back up the need for more research. I personally am very worried though that we can never get unbias research at this point. Its such a volatile subject at this point.

Thanks for the previous spelling correction.

 

[invisible]

NASA: Climate change: How do we know?

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

Eventhorizon has me on ignore, so if you guys want him to pay attention to this "crap", you will need to post it to him yourselves. Although I don't know why you would bother even talking to him about this. You know. Reminding us that correlation is not causation is one thing. Denying that the vast changes in human activity which cause certain chemical changes in Earth's atmosphere have anything to do with global warming is quite another. That kind of denial is strictly for imbeciles and zealots.

 

[Eventhorizon]

NASA: Climate change: How do we know?


Eventhorizon has me on ignore, so if you guys want him to pay attention to this "crap", you will need to post it to him yourselves. Although I don't know why you would bother even talking to him about this. You know. Reminding us that correlation is not causation is one thing. Denying that the vast changes in human activity which cause certain chemical changes in Earth's atmosphere have anything to do with global warming is quite another. That kind of denial is strictly for imbeciles and zealots.

Oh invisible, if I am an imbecile what does that make you?

Also just so that you know, I did not used to do this but I am being active in reporting posts. I have no concern with you calling me an imbecile. It means absolutely nothing to me because I have no concern with what you think about anything. Others might be hurt though with your casual ability to throw out insults. So in order to keep this a friendly place I want to make sure vitriol like yours is kept at bay.

 

[Stu]

Um, @invisible did not call you an "imbecile" he said that those who deny that the vast changes in human activity since the dawn of the industrial revolution that have caused certain chemical changes in Earth's atmosphere have something to do with global warming, are highly likely to be imbeciles and or zealots. I believe that your position, @Eventhorizon ,is that though those chemicals have been dumped into the atmosphere, there is not enough proof to warrant a dramatic economic shift in the way we power our societies.

What you fail to appreciate is that many global warming alarmist fear that humanity's contribution to the atmosphere's composition is going to be enough to trigger a potentially catastrophic shift in the earth's climate resulting in an astronomically greater change in the global economy. And not a positive one.

Piled on top of that is the known health hazards of mining and burning fossil fuels to humans as well as the degradation of habitats of wild species. These factors heavily contribute to global warming alarmists' passion to alter, in as much as we think we can, humanity's contribution to potentially catastrophic changes in the makeup of the atmosphere.

Dismissing these fears as merely conclusions they

have already subcum[ed] to

is less than sensitive (not to mention impolite).

 

[Eventhorizon]

Um, @invisible did not call you an "imbecile" he said that those who deny that the vast changes in human activity since the dawn of the industrial revolution that have caused certain chemical changes in Earth's atmosphere have something to do with global warming, are highly likely to be imbeciles and or zealots. I believe that your position, @Eventhorizon ,is that though those chemicals have been dumped into the atmosphere, there is not enough proof to warrant a dramatic economic shift in the way we power our societies.

What you fail to appreciate is that many global warming alarmist fear that humanity's contribution to the atmosphere's composition is going to be enough to trigger a potentially catastrophic shift in the earth's climate resulting in an astronomically greater change in the global economy. And not a positive one.

Piled on top of that is the known health hazards of mining and burning fossil fuels to humans as well as the degradation of habitats of wild species. These factors heavily contribute to global warming alarmists' passion to alter, in as much as we think we can, humanity's contribution to potentially catastrophic changes in the makeup of the atmosphere.

Dismissing these fears as merely conclusions they is less than sensitive (not to mention impolite).

I dont appreciate you trying to turn this back on me. I certainly deny any proof mankind has any effect on the climate. Is there enough evidence to warrent more scientific study? Absolutely. Is there cureently undeniable proof? No. This categorizes me right into @invisible s definition of imbecile. Something he was well aware of at the time he posted.

As for the rest of it, I am well aware fear drives people into less than rational action. This is part of the reason I am trying to be a rational voice when it comes to the cause of climate change.

 

[Stu]

I certainly deny any proof mankind has any effect on the climate.

Accept my apologies, I retract my statement regarding whether or not you fall into the above mentioned categorizes.

 

[Littlelissa]

The proofs in the pudding, look there.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Accept my apologies, I retract my statement regarding whether or not you fall into the above mentioned categorizes.

Nicely done.
It is here in will invite you to watch the video I posted to your thread. It involves an actual climatologists testimony that aptly trounces the alarmist and fear mongering man made global warming community far better than I ever could. Oh and did I mention she's an actual climatologist? Not a wannabe or anything ime that.

 

[Stu]

I read the transcript, looked up her bio and am now following her on twitter. I do not buy the argument that abandoning fossil fuels is too dramatic of a shift economically. She is in the minority, arguing that those scientist who believe we are on the verge of a cataclysm are too strident is kinda silly, they believe we are on the verge of a cataclysm, why wouldn't they be strident?

 

[Skarekrow]

Watch. Listen. Learn.

One singular climatologist.
At about 1:30 she does not deny that climate change exists and has been made worse by humans...she only really questions the validity of consensus science and how much the human effect has had.
She has little evidence presented otherwise.
"Watch. Listen. Learn.”
All she does is speculate.
Opinions are not facts.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I read the transcript, looked up her bio and am now following her on twitter. I do not buy the argument that abandoning fossil fuels is too dramatic of a shift economically. She is in the minority, arguing that those scientist who believe we are on the verge of a cataclysm are too strident is kinda silly, they believe we are on the verge of a cataclysm, why wouldn't they be strident?

That's really cool that you listened to what she had to say. Perhaps there is hope for you yet.

 

[James]

Whilst I think the level of evidence for climate change is very compelling, I think the answer is the same, even if we knew for certain that was no global warming.

Clean low cost, energy. Investment in science, research, technology. Fossil fuels are old tech, dirty, dangerous, last century.

Investment in science and technology has to be a key priority for the West, before we're left behind. I think sustaining investment isn't good enough, I think we need a large investment, across many areas. But clean energy should be a top priority.

Energy independence alone, makes it a very worthwhile investment.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Whilst I think the level of evidence for climate change is very compelling, I think the answer is the same, even if we knew for certain that was no global warming.

Clean low cost, energy. Investment in science, research, technology. Fossil fuels are old tech, dirty, dangerous, last century.

Investment in science and technology has to be a key priority for the West, before we're left behind. I think sustaining investment isn't good enough, I think we need a large investment, across many areas. But clean energy should be a top priority.

Energy independence alone, makes it a very worthwhile investment.

Would it surprise you to know I am not a fan of fossil fuels?

 

[James]

Would it surprise you to know I am not a fan of fossil fuels?

It doesn't surprise me at all.

I think if you had a choice you'd be pushing for a very increased amount to be spent on science across the board. Providing you know it will be used effectively.

Personally for me if we can manage the energy better, and arrive at functioning quantum computers we will be much better placed to resolve these issues and many others.

I hope that's what's happening.

 

[Stu]

https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3322.html

 

[invisible]

Oh invisible, if I am an imbecile what does that make you?

Also just so that you know, I did not used to do this but I am being active in reporting posts. I have no concern with you calling me an imbecile. It means absolutely nothing to me because I have no concern with what you think about anything. Others might be hurt though with your casual ability to throw out insults. So in order to keep this a friendly place I want to make sure vitriol like yours is kept at bay.

I thought you were kinda like more in the zealot side of things actually. I think I decided this mostly from the time when you said that people who are voting differently from you should be deprived of their vote.You seem to be consistently inflexibly dedicated to right-wing political ideologies.

But you're right, I shouldn't be nasty and call names. It's wrong of me.

I don't know why you're playing the champion though and pretending like you want to keep this place friendly. I wouldn't be the only person you refuse to ever listen to. You comment on articles people post links to without reading the articles, you tell people who disagree with you that they have a good brain but don't use it, that people aren't stupid they are just ignorant, blah blah blah. You're kinda like, no kind of champion at all. So drop the act?

 

[invisible]

That's really cool that you listened to what she had to say. Perhaps there is hope for you yet.

I think that it is cool for you to be talking to others like this sort of sarcastic garbage about how they are refusing to listen to the other side of things, when you start to listen to the other side of things that is presented by others. Because you never do. You just keep on telling others that they are wrong, they are ignorant, they don't use their brain, etc.

 

[Stu]

is it getting hot in here or is it just... the "evil INFJ bitch"?