|
On September 30 2013 01:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The part before the quotation marks says along the lines of. This phrase means that the following part inside of the quotation marks isn't found in that exact way anywhere -- it's just a summary of various bits from you. If I was actually aiming at quoting you verbatim, then I would definitely not preface the quote with that little phrase "along the lines of".
Quotes sure do sound silly when nobody said them and they are just fabricated strawmen designed to be silly. How fun.
On September 30 2013 01:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The loose logic that rich people = smart overrides the fact that climate scientists are the only ones that may opine authoritatively on climate change. Who knew!?
"Rich people" were his words which I left in my fixed version, but maybe this can help with your confusion:
"People who earn $1,000,000+/year are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief."
|
|
|
People who earn over a million a year are also the most likely to have their wealth affected by climate change regulation, and yet you ignore this.
Lol and your primary source material is whatsupwiththat, a hilarious soapbox for a dude with little professional gravitas. At least he has fan here though 
|
On September 30 2013 02:08 farvacola wrote:People who earn over a million a year are also the most likely to have their wealth affected by climate change regulation, and yet you ignore this. Lol and your primary source material is whatsupwiththat, a hilarious soapbox for a dude with little professional gravitas. At least he has fan here though
This was addressed earlier. Read just a couple pages back.
They are also most likely to have their wealth affected by climate change. (yet you ignore this).
|
In the end, it doesn't really matter; general appeals as to the superior decision making skills of the wealthy, particularly when it comes to climate change, are silly and beg further qualification beyond what you are capable of providing. Which rich people are we talking about, and what are their interests?
|
On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:59 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 01:51 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit. Actually it's more like "rich people are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief". Yet the intellectual elite overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Funny how that happens. No they don't.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/ Lol, what the hell is that? You take some dubious attempt to quantify the consensus and use it to show there is no consensus?
Do you not understand why that is a strawman?
One doesn't need such dubious methods of quantifying the consensus when there's a whole host of surveys of scientists, virtually all of them indicating a broad consensus among scientists in favour of anthropogenic global warming.
There's a very helpful graph:
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsieH1FiLKM/UMxzlpM2cKI/AAAAAAAAACA/d36QW32ycuY/s400/Climate_science_opinion2.png) :
|
On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The part before the quotation marks says along the lines of. This phrase means that the following part inside of the quotation marks isn't found in that exact way anywhere -- it's just a summary of various bits from you. If I was actually aiming at quoting you verbatim, then I would definitely not preface the quote with that little phrase "along the lines of". Quotes sure do sound silly when nobody said them and they are just fabricated strawmen designed to be silly. How fun.
It embodies the substance of your statements about income and intelligence. The point of summarizing a batch of quotes into a generalized quote is to avoid the need for picking out each individually. You're avoiding the brunt in order to nitpick over the topic of quotations. Neat.
On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:
"People who earn $1,000,000+/year are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief."
Source? Sounds like the wild hypothesis of one guy with one wild set of opinions, so I'm not sure why it matters at all. But feel free to set me straight and point me in the direction of any respected scholarly papers that agree with this line of reasoning.
|
On September 30 2013 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The part before the quotation marks says along the lines of. This phrase means that the following part inside of the quotation marks isn't found in that exact way anywhere -- it's just a summary of various bits from you. If I was actually aiming at quoting you verbatim, then I would definitely not preface the quote with that little phrase "along the lines of". Quotes sure do sound silly when nobody said them and they are just fabricated strawmen designed to be silly. How fun. It embodies the substance of your statements about income and intelligence. The point of summarizing a batch of quotes into a generalized quote is to avoid the need for picking out each individually. You're avoiding the brunt in order to nitpick over the topic of quotations. Neat.
You didn't summarize anything, you fabricated a strawman. Nothing I said was equivalent to what you said when you decided to fabricate a straw man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Your only contributions to this thread are strawmen and your own stubborn misunderstanding over the use of the word "wealthy" to describe millionaires.
On September 30 2013 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:
"People who earn $1,000,000+/year are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief." Source? Sounds like the wild hypothesis of one guy with one wild set of opinions, so I'm not sure why it matters at all. But feel free to set me straight and point me in the direction of any respected scholarly papers that agree with this line of reasoning.
"The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.
"This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php
|
But the results of that study have absolutely no bearing on the statement: "People who earn $1,000,000+/year are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief."
So try again.
|
On September 30 2013 01:03 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:59 mcc wrote:
But as for the issue we are discussing, scientists are much more qualified to talk about and more likely to be correct. If we are keeping score it seems skeptics have been correct and climatologists wrong over most of the short term predictions. The skeptics are more likely to be correct judging by their track record.
What ? What predictions are you talking about ?
|
On September 30 2013 02:59 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The part before the quotation marks says along the lines of. This phrase means that the following part inside of the quotation marks isn't found in that exact way anywhere -- it's just a summary of various bits from you. If I was actually aiming at quoting you verbatim, then I would definitely not preface the quote with that little phrase "along the lines of". Quotes sure do sound silly when nobody said them and they are just fabricated strawmen designed to be silly. How fun. It embodies the substance of your statements about income and intelligence. The point of summarizing a batch of quotes into a generalized quote is to avoid the need for picking out each individually. You're avoiding the brunt in order to nitpick over the topic of quotations. Neat. You didn't summarize anything, you fabricated a strawman. Nothing I said was equivalent to what you said when you decided to fabricate a straw man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manYour only contributions to this thread are strawmen and your own stubborn misunderstanding over the use of the word "wealthy" to describe millionaires. Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:
"People who earn $1,000,000+/year are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief." Source? Sounds like the wild hypothesis of one guy with one wild set of opinions, so I'm not sure why it matters at all. But feel free to set me straight and point me in the direction of any respected scholarly papers that agree with this line of reasoning. "The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.
"This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php
You understand hopefully that this study has no bearing on people who are such outliers. You cannot conclude anything out of it. Or you might end up with IQs in the range of 1000s
|
On September 30 2013 03:18 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 02:59 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The part before the quotation marks says along the lines of. This phrase means that the following part inside of the quotation marks isn't found in that exact way anywhere -- it's just a summary of various bits from you. If I was actually aiming at quoting you verbatim, then I would definitely not preface the quote with that little phrase "along the lines of". Quotes sure do sound silly when nobody said them and they are just fabricated strawmen designed to be silly. How fun. It embodies the substance of your statements about income and intelligence. The point of summarizing a batch of quotes into a generalized quote is to avoid the need for picking out each individually. You're avoiding the brunt in order to nitpick over the topic of quotations. Neat. You didn't summarize anything, you fabricated a strawman. Nothing I said was equivalent to what you said when you decided to fabricate a straw man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manYour only contributions to this thread are strawmen and your own stubborn misunderstanding over the use of the word "wealthy" to describe millionaires. On September 30 2013 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:
"People who earn $1,000,000+/year are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief." Source? Sounds like the wild hypothesis of one guy with one wild set of opinions, so I'm not sure why it matters at all. But feel free to set me straight and point me in the direction of any respected scholarly papers that agree with this line of reasoning. "The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.
"This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php You understand hopefully that this study has no bearing on people who are such outliers. You cannot conclude anything out of it. Or you might end up with IQs in the range of 1000s Maybe they're like Q from Star Trek: The Next Generation. I heard he has an IQ of a billion!
|
On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:59 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 01:51 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit. Actually it's more like "rich people are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief". Yet the intellectual elite overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Funny how that happens. No they don't.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/ You quoted a trashy blog by a TV "meterologist" without a college degree. That doesn't count as evidence for anything, and he certainly isn't an expert.
|
On September 30 2013 05:48 calgar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:59 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 01:51 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit. Actually it's more like "rich people are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief". Yet the intellectual elite overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Funny how that happens. No they don't.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/ You quoted a trashy blog by a TV "meterologist" without a college degree. That doesn't count as evidence for anything, and he certainly isn't an expert.
All the article does is quote scientists. You don't need a degree or some kind of scientific cred to quote someone.
|
On September 30 2013 01:24 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is. If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions. Show nested quote +All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make. Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble) The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit.
CO2 is hugely important for life on earth, no one said it isn't. It isn't important at all in the climate in the part that we've released 0.030% of the 0.0380 of it.
So you are just imagining stuff that no one ever said. I was very clear that CO2 is already miniscule at .0.380 and adding 0.030 doesn't have any influence.
Your "scientists"; which actually global warming was first global cooling in the 70's where they said we are headed towards an ice age and then of course it got warmer and warmer and they had to lie again and say its getting warmer and we are heading for such warm period that by 2000 most of the continents will be under water, the lush forests would become deserts, bla, bla, bla, lies after lies after lies.
Of course when they found out it wasn't even getting warmer in about 2000 they started slowly shifting from global warming to "climate change". Now everything that ever happened, rain, snow, warm, cold, increase in temperature, decrease, more snow, less snow would be humans fault for releasing CO2 and we would obviously need to pay carbon taxes and buy carbon credits from Al-Gore and the Rothschilds family for them to magically save us from the global cooling/warming/climate change.
Of course big oil funds all this crap since coal is their main competition. BP was one of the first supporters and funders of man made global warming.
|
On September 29 2013 13:34 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 04:59 YumYumGranola wrote:
<insert tired idea already disproven/can be disproven with 10 minutes research, eg we haven't warmed in last 15 years, etc> Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:
Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts".
It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is.
Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:
So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 10:24 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Additionally, its totally untrue that we've had cooling in the past decade; the top 10 warmest years on record, have all been in the last 15. This fiery rhetoric is especially jarring in light of the fact that it is simply wrong. Don't be so dogmatic. The OP study itself agrees with the fellow you all are lambasting. Show nested quote +What the Climate Report Concedes
In all sorts of ways, the report climbs down from what was said six years ago, yet like any bureaucratic committee, it does its utmost to disguise these retreats. Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University, an economist and forecaster who has made a specialty of examining and challenging the IPCC’s pronouncements, summarizes the latest proclamation thus: “Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
So here are some of the things the IPCC has now conceded:
- Global average temperatures did not rise at all for the last 15 years. “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” This was a fact skeptics were vilified for pointing out just two years ago. [emphasis added]
- Climate sensitivity (the amount of warming likely to be caused eventually, if carbon dioxide levels double) can no longer even be calculated. “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” The bottom end of the range of probable climate sensitivity has been lowered, however, from 2 degrees Celsius to 1.5 degrees Celsius, while the top end remains the same: 4.5 degrees Celsius. This broadens the range of possible outcomes—that is, increases the uncertainty.
- Transient climate response (the actual warming likely to be experienced by around 2080 if carbon dioxide levels have doubled from pre-industrial levels by that time) is now thought to be less than they thought four years before. It is now thought to be in the range 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.
- Antarctic sea ice increased, instead of decreasing as predicted: “Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations.” This is awkward. If the models get the Antarctic wrong, then maybe they got the Arctic right by accident.
- The big concession is the one the one IPCC cannot quite bring itself to be explicit about: the failure of the models to match reality. The text of the summary released today says: “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.” Yet a chart in the draft of its full report, due out on Monday, tells a very different story, of actual temperature measurements over the past 23 years falling below the projections made on each of four previous occasions. Its own chart says, in other words, that it is unlikely that the models are right.
It’s a shame the climate debate remains so heated. Perhaps someday the rhetoric surrounding climate change can cool down to reflect the modesty of the predictions we’re actually able to make.http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/
You, and the guy who published this article, should learn to actually read your carefully selected quotes.
The line in the report is:
"Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
What this means, is that Earth's surface temperatures have not been increasing as fast over the last 10-15 years, than previously. It does not mean that the Earth's temperature has not been increasing, as you and this guy are claiming, it just means that Earth's temperature is not increasing as fast as previously. If you look at the data, you will see that over the last decade, Earth's temperature has in fact been increasing, and your claim of the contrary is completely spurious. His claim that the Earth has been cooling is completely false, as is your claim that the OP supports his reasoning.
|
On September 30 2013 06:14 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:24 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is. If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make. Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble) The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit. CO2 is hugely important for life on earth, no one said it isn't. It isn't important at all in the climate in the part that we've released 0.030% of the 0.0380 of it. So you are just imagining stuff that no one ever said. I was very clear that CO2 is already miniscule at .0.380 and adding 0.030 doesn't have any influence. Your "scientists"; which actually global warming was first global cooling in the 70's where they said we are headed towards an ice age and then of course it got warmer and warmer and they had to lie again and say its getting warmer and we are heading for such warm period that by 2000 most of the continents will be under water, the lush forests would become deserts, bla, bla, bla, lies after lies after lies. Of course when they found out it wasn't even getting warmer in about 2000 they started slowly shifting from global warming to "climate change". Now everything that ever happened, rain, snow, warm, cold, increase in temperature, decrease, more snow, less snow would be humans fault for releasing CO2 and we would obviously need to pay carbon taxes and buy carbon credits from Al-Gore and the Rothschilds family for them to magically save us from the global cooling/warming/climate change. Of course big oil funds all this crap since coal is their main competition. BP was one of the first supporters and funders of man made global warming.
I don't know where you pull your figures from, since they are completely wrong. Pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 were at 280 ppm, and the current level of CO2 sits at slightly over 400 ppm, which is more than a 40% increase. As to your crazy conspiracy theories about oil companies inventing climate change, I have nothing to say that basic logic couldn't cover.
|
On September 30 2013 06:14 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:24 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is. If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make. Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble) The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit. CO2 is hugely important for life on earth, no one said it isn't. It isn't important at all in the climate in the part that we've released 0.030% of the 0.0380 of it. So you are just imagining stuff that no one ever said. I was very clear that CO2 is already miniscule at .0.380 and adding 0.030 doesn't have any influence.
I'm not imagining, you just repeated it. You say in one sentence that CO2 is "hugely important", and then next sentence you call it "miniscule". And then, by your logic, you deduce that since there is only a miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to begin with, adding more miniscule amounts "doesn't have any influence". This is faulty, dishonest, sloppy, biased reasoning on so many levels.
You've latched onto this numerical figure without any context for what it actually means. Your logic is simply 0.38 + 0.03 = some other small number, so obviously it's all a hoax and the scientists are lying.
I guess it's a theory, but a better theory might be that you're scientifically illiterate.
|
On September 30 2013 06:31 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 06:14 BillGates wrote:On September 30 2013 01:24 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is. If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make. Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble) The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit. CO2 is hugely important for life on earth, no one said it isn't. It isn't important at all in the climate in the part that we've released 0.030% of the 0.0380 of it. So you are just imagining stuff that no one ever said. I was very clear that CO2 is already miniscule at .0.380 and adding 0.030 doesn't have any influence. I'm not imagining, you just repeated it. You say in one sentence that CO2 is "hugely important", and then next sentence you call it "miniscule". And then, by your logic, you deduce that since there is only a miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to begin with, adding more miniscule amounts "doesn't have any influence". This is faulty, dishonest, sloppy, biased reasoning on so many levels. You've latched onto this numerical figure without any context for what it actually means. Your logic is simply 0.38 + 0.03 = some other small number, so obviously it's all a hoax and the scientists are lying. I guess it's a theory, but a better theory might be that you're scientifically illiterate.
That fact that you have no clue what the 0.0380% number is, proves that you are clueless, uninformed, easily mislead and propagandized little boy with no clue about reality.
The number is how much CO2 there is in the global atmosphere, its the percentage of it. We humans have added 0.0030% to 0.0350% which is why its increased from 0.0350 to 0.0380% over the past 50 years.
It is completely insignificant regarding to the global temperature.
|
According to whom is that figure insignificant, and how does their general reputation stand up against others who disagree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
