Global Warming Revisited - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-14-2015, 01:03 AM   #136
Refugee
 
nbelcik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,454
Local Time: 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
We need to acknowledge this issue has been used as a political football.

The 97% number has been thrown around and has taken on a life of its own in the media-political realm. My question for you is how did you arrive at 99%?

Point in case State Climatologist is an honorary title given to an academic in each state. George Taylor was a 3%er would debated the "settled science" and succumbed to political pressure to resign his position as the Oregon state climatologist.

Truthfully, when you have outside pressure placed upon honest research and debate there will those who keep their opinions to themselves. I've taken climate courses and the professors (those adults you speak of ) are fascinated by their science and how technology is changing the way we look at climate.

The faculty was more along the lines of a 50-50 split on immediate anthropogenic warming . Climatologists are trying to figure out ten year cycles in Hurricane activity. Let alone how the 50 year cycle comes into play.

With all the talk of Free Speech in society lately with need to uphold that in the scientific community as well.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full This isn't a free speech issue. This is a science issue and the science is all but settled. Climate change deniers love to talk about how they're persecuted and similar to Galileo and other persecuted scientists, but they're wrong. Every year the planet keeps warming and every year CO2 emissions go up. The effects of climate change are being seen all across the planet. You have to be willfully ignorant to ignore all the evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

__________________
nbelcik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2015, 04:22 AM   #137
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbelcik View Post
Science | From AAAS This isn't a free speech issue. This is a science issue and the science is all but settled. Climate change deniers love to talk about how they're persecuted and similar to Galileo and other persecuted scientists, but they're wrong. Every year the planet keeps warming and every year CO2 emissions go up. The effects of climate change are being seen all across the planet. You have to be willfully ignorant to ignore all the evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Your entire response may seem to you to be an exercise in superior intellect, but in the context of a discussion you have cornered yourself into a back alley with no means to extricate yourself from your pervasive Orwellian groupthink. You are but a mere drone in a dystopian kangaroo court Twilight Zone episode repeating the mantra of a faceless bureaucracy. I would have loved to have the great thinkers of the world name dropping links and Folding their arms.

If the Earth has gone through dramatic warming and cooling the Onus lies on Science to prove why this next shifts will be a self-inflicted we can't recover from.

Ten years ago it was predicted Hurricanes would become even more violent a frequent, but in fact the opposite has occurred. My good sir, point of order, but can you provide me with a link of settled science from 2005 on this query?

You say 'the effects of Climate Change can be seen all across the planet' Try to Convince me without a link and only then will I deem you a worthy sparring partner.
__________________

__________________
Oregoropa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2015, 05:41 AM   #138
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
We need to acknowledge this issue has been used as a political football.

The 97% number has been thrown around and has taken on a life of its own in the media-political realm. My question for you is how did you arrive at 99%?

Point in case State Climatologist is an honorary title given to an academic in each state. George Taylor was a 3%er would debated the "settled science" and succumbed to political pressure to resign his position as the Oregon state climatologist.

Truthfully, when you have outside pressure placed upon honest research and debate there will those who keep their opinions to themselves. I've taken climate courses and the professors (those adults you speak of ) are fascinated by their science and how technology is changing the way we look at climate.

The faculty was more along the lines of a 50-50 split on immediate anthropogenic warming . Climatologists are trying to figure out ten year cycles in Hurricane activity. Let alone how the 50 year cycle comes into play.

With all the talk of Free Speech in society lately with need to uphold that in the scientific community as well.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yes it's become a political football, on all sides, but it comes down to science and nothing else. The onus is on science, you have all these friends and colleagues that don't agree but where is their science? The problem is that one side has decided to embrace bad science or anti-science rhetoric as their reasoning, if there are so many that disagree, bigger than 3% than there should be better, or at least more science saying so.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2015, 06:21 AM   #139
Refugee
 
nbelcik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,454
Local Time: 10:16 AM
Global Warming Revisited

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
Your entire response may seem to you to be an exercise in superior intellect, but in the context of a discussion you have cornered yourself into a back alley with no means to extricate yourself from your pervasive Orwellian groupthink. You are but a mere drone in a dystopian kangaroo court Twilight Zone episode repeating the mantra of a faceless bureaucracy. I would have loved to have the great thinkers of the world name dropping links and Folding their arms.



If the Earth has gone through dramatic warming and cooling the Onus lies on Science to prove why this next shifts will be a self-inflicted we can't recover from.



Ten years ago it was predicted Hurricanes would become even more violent a frequent, but in fact the opposite has occurred. My good sir, point of order, but can you provide me with a link of settled science from 2005 on this query?



You say 'the effects of Climate Change can be seen all across the planet' Try to Convince me without a link and only then will I deem you a worthy sparring partner.

So I guess believing the scientific consensus is an example of "Orwellian group think?" Would you say the same for people for people who believe in the theory of gravity? Or for people who believe vaccines are safe? Putting trust in scientists who have spent their whole lives studying a topic doesn't mean I'm a "drone in a dystopian kangaroo court Twilight Zone episode." By denying climate change, I could say you're buying into the faulty research funded by fossil fuel companies who have a vested interest in denying climate change.

The science has proved why this next round of warming will be bad; even if it wasn't human caused it would still be bad, and the science is settled that this current round of warming is human caused, you just reject the evidence.

There was always debate over whether hurricanes would get more frequent. Some scientists thought they would, but the data was always inconclusive. But, the increased temperature of the ocean will make them stronger (which we've seen) and sea level rise will make storm surge deadlier (which we saw in Hurricane Sandy).

If you want to see the effects of climate go look at pictures of glaciers 30 years ago and then compare those pictures with pictures of the same glaciers today. Look at the awful drought in California and the increased amount of wildfires. Look at how dry Lake Mead's gotten over the past 30 years. Open your eyes as to what's happening all across the planet.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
nbelcik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2015, 10:43 AM   #140
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
Your entire response may seem to you to be an exercise in superior intellect, but in the context of a discussion you have cornered yourself into a back alley with no means to extricate yourself from your pervasive Orwellian groupthink. You are but a mere drone in a dystopian kangaroo court Twilight Zone episode repeating the mantra of a faceless bureaucracy.


Who exactly is engaging in an exercise in superior intellect?

That's enough of the personal insults.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2015, 02:09 PM   #141
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,375
Local Time: 01:16 PM
It's important to consider things on a geological timescale.

Noting that temperatures are going up above expectation over the last century doesn't mean a whole lot unless you consider things on larger timescales.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2015, 06:41 PM   #142
The Fly
 
Cancer45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 269
Local Time: 01:16 PM
I just find this article with the title saying that Global Warming "Pause" Extends to 17 years 11 months, so I really haven't read the article yet but wanted to share with you guys. I'm going to try and read it tonight at work and do some research. But I would like to see what you guys think.


Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends to 17 Years 11 Months | Climate Depot
__________________
Cancer45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2015, 07:06 PM   #143
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,375
Local Time: 01:16 PM
Question... does anyone know the rate that CO2 should be entering the atmosphere in the present day, human activity aside?
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2015, 07:35 PM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Question... does anyone know the rate that CO2 should be entering the atmosphere in the present day, human activity aside?
That's the $64,000 question
__________________
Oregoropa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2015, 07:53 PM   #145
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,375
Local Time: 01:16 PM
Can you answer it?
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2015, 10:48 PM   #146
Refugee
 
nbelcik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,454
Local Time: 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cancer45 View Post
I just find this article with the title saying that Global Warming "Pause" Extends to 17 years 11 months, so I really haven't read the article yet but wanted to share with you guys. I'm going to try and read it tonight at work and do some research. But I would like to see what you guys think.


Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends to 17 Years 11 Months | Climate Depot

A. Climate Depot is run by Marc Morano, who has worked for Rush Limbaugh and James Inhofe, who are both climate change deniers. He has no scientific background and the funding for the site comes from a think tank that is funded by ExxonMobil and Chevron. It's an incredibly horrible and biased source to use.

B. To specifically refute the claims in the article, here's an article: http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-w...n-16-years.htm. The warming trend has continued, but most of the heat generated is trapped in the ocean. The original article only talks about surface temperatures, which have remained mostly flat over the past 15 years. But the past decade was still the hottest on record for surface temperatures and when you look at ocean temperatures, those continue to rise. All the trapped heat is still continuing to build up in the oceans.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
nbelcik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2015, 05:37 PM   #147
Refugee
 
nbelcik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,454
Local Time: 10:16 AM
I'm gonna leave this here:

New Climate Change Study Just 400 Pages Of Scientists Telling Americans To Read Previous Climate Change Studies

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new...ault:2:Default


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
nbelcik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2015, 11:20 PM   #148
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 15
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moser View Post
I'm not sure where you read your journal articles, but deforestation and erosion are huge topics in climate science.
I guess I was thinking about the politicians being the mechanics (or maybe the media)? From what I can see, they're pretty much focused on global warming over the other two. The pictures of drought and desertification are usually coupled with discussions of global warming, as if THAT'S causing it.

but human-influenced desertification far predates modern fossil emissions. It's caused largely by unsustainable agricultural practices. It's always been worse in drylands , but with the advent of modern technology and fossil fuel powered agricultural technologies , desertification is even creeping into more temperate climates with higher amounts of rainfall.

All the fossil fuels and emissions standards in the world are never going to be enough to compensate for the damage done by farming drylands like California as if they are temperate climates with ample rainfall.

Continue to talk about fossil fuel emissions while pumping aquifers dry, salting the soils, destroying soil structures with over tillage, monocropping, and pesticide use.

How is focusing primarily on fossil fuel emissions helping any of these problems?

Agro chem companies own the federal government on both sides and love that all of the discussion in America is about global warming instead of changing unsustainable agricultural practices. Meanwhile, there are places in the world, sometimes in the Third World, where people are changing the way agriculture is practiced and implemented from the top down.

It's Permaculture. It's a design science Focused on real solutions , which are sustainable , improve soils , reduce human inputs- like pumping in water and chemical fertilizer, reduce human labor. these systems are being implemented on small-scale and on massive scales like the loess plateau in China.

http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P0...roject?lang=en

US politicians are never going to talk about this stuff because they're owned by Monsanto and the like. I guess we can keep obeying them and let
them tell us what the conversation really needs to be about.

But there are real solutions , and they're being used in other places by people groups and nations with nowhere near our modern technologies , education, resources, or capital. Holistic systems designed for sustainability.
__________________
cedarwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 10:41 PM   #149
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 01:16 PM
“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge."

Charles Krauthammer: The myth of ‘settled science’ - The Washington Post
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 10:49 PM   #150
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 10:16 AM
Numbers 35:33-34 NKJV

So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel.’ ”
__________________

__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com