Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When you had options....who?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
    Climate change is influenced by excess CO2 in the atmosphere. It's not wise to trust Big Oil telling you there isn't a problem.
    It's unwise to believe that scientists can accurately predict long term climate change when they have only short term data and haven't been doing this for more than a few decades out of the roughly 4.5 billion years the planet's been here.

    As I've previously pointed out, just the only recent interest of aircraft contrails as a potential alternate cause shows that there are viable alternate explanations for part or all of climate change. That's a reasonable position. Saying it's anthropogenic CO2 and nothing else. and the science is settled is a nonsense position.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

      It's unwise to believe that scientists can accurately predict long term climate change when they have only short term data and haven't been doing this for more than a few decades out of the roughly 4.5 billion years the planet's been here.

      As I've previously pointed out, just the only recent interest of aircraft contrails as a potential alternate cause shows that there are viable alternate explanations for part or all of climate change. That's a reasonable position. Saying it's anthropogenic CO2 and nothing else. and the science is settled is a nonsense position.
      Wrong. CO2 levels and temperatures can be observed going back 100's of thousands of years. Just because Big Oil and it's shills tell you their pollution is harmless, doesn't make it so.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

        Wrong. CO2 levels and temperatures can be observed going back 100's of thousands of years. Just because Big Oil and it's shills tell you their pollution is harmless, doesn't make it so.
        No, they can't be observed. Nobody has a time machine. We can make indirect estimates from things like tree rings, ice cores, and other measurements but we cannot observe the past directly.

        Oh, question.... Are you for or against nuclear power as a way to fix the CO2 issue?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

          No, they can't be observed. Nobody has a time machine. We can make indirect estimates from things like tree rings, ice cores, and other measurements but we cannot observe the past directly.

          Oh, question.... Are you for or against nuclear power as a way to fix the CO2 issue?
          You haven't done basic elementary research on the topic. You can measure CO2 of the past compared to temperature fluctuations. Today, the temperature is rising much faster than what is normal climate cycles.
          You say the reason is some global conspiracy for govt funds. I side with the scientific consensus.
          I don't typically have issues with Nuclear, I have issues with the corporations doing everything they can to save a buck and not dispose of nuclear waste in the safest way possible.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
            You haven't done basic elementary research on the topic. You can measure CO2 of the past compared to temperature fluctuations. Today, the temperature is rising much faster than what is normal climate cycles.
            You say the reason is some global conspiracy for govt funds. I side with the scientific consensus.
            I don't typically have issues with Nuclear, I have issues with the corporations doing everything they can to save a buck and not dispose of nuclear waste in the safest way possible.
            Wrong. You can estimate past CO2 and temperatures but you cannot directly measure them.

            As for rising temperatures today: Correlation doesn't mean causation. In a complex system such as planetary atmosphere there could be other causes beyond CO2. I've pointed out aircraft contrails as one such known example.

            As for disposal of nuclear waste: There is a safe method of disposal. Yucca Mountain is one such example. But, hysterical know-nothings have blocked its use. Typically, those know-nothings are Leftists who are opposed to anything with the label nuclear attached.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              Wrong. You can estimate past CO2 and temperatures but you cannot directly measure them.

              As for rising temperatures today: Correlation doesn't mean causation. In a complex system such as planetary atmosphere there could be other causes beyond CO2. I've pointed out aircraft contrails as one such known example.

              As for disposal of nuclear waste: There is a safe method of disposal. Yucca Mountain is one such example. But, hysterical know-nothings have blocked its use. Typically, those know-nothings are Leftists who are opposed to anything with the label nuclear attached.
              I side with the science, you do not. That's our difference.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                I side with the science, you do not. That's our difference.
                I side with science too. Your view is too myopic to see other possibilities. For example, a model that predicts future climate changes isn't "science." It's statistics based on scientific data. That is, it's statistics.

                I may not be a climate scientist, but I damn sure know a butt load about statistics and how to use regression and modelling to make predictions with them.
                Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 25 Dec 19, 19:02.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                  I side with science too. Your view is too myopic to see other possibilities. For example, a model that predicts future climate changes isn't "science." It's statistics based on scientific data. That is, it's statistics.

                  I may not be a climate scientist, but I damn sure know a butt load about statistics and how to use regression and modelling to make predictions with them.
                  The science is already settled on the topic. Overwhelmingly. If you don't want to accept that and keep defending Big Oil, that's up to you.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                    The science is already settled on the topic. Overwhelmingly. If you don't want to accept that and keep defending Big Oil, that's up to you.
                    [img]https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ClimateRecap.jpg
                    [/img]

                    The science is anything but "settled" and that simply amounts to a host of various logical fallacies. Oh, I'm also not "defending Big Oil." I arguing that the science is anything but settled, the field of research is relatively new, and the complexity of planetary atmospheres and biospheres is not that well understood that counter claims about climate change or alternative hypotheses can be dismissed so glibly.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      [img]https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ClimateRecap.jpg
                      [/img]

                      The science is anything but "settled" and that simply amounts to a host of various logical fallacies. Oh, I'm also not "defending Big Oil." I arguing that the science is anything but settled, the field of research is relatively new, and the complexity of planetary atmospheres and biospheres is not that well understood that counter claims about climate change or alternative hypotheses can be dismissed so glibly.
                      Yep the science was also settled in the 70’s another ice age was coming

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                        [img]https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ClimateRecap.jpg
                        [/img]

                        The science is anything but "settled" and that simply amounts to a host of various logical fallacies. Oh, I'm also not "defending Big Oil." I arguing that the science is anything but settled, the field of research is relatively new, and the complexity of planetary atmospheres and biospheres is not that well understood that counter claims about climate change or alternative hypotheses can be dismissed so glibly.
                        You'd think you'd just accept the settled science and be happy. But you're defending Big Oil and republican talking points because why?
                        Makes no sense to go against the science, unless the agenda is making sure Big Oil doesn't lose any profits in this whole ordeal.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                          You'd think you'd just accept the settled science and be happy. But you're defending Big Oil and republican talking points because why?
                          Makes no sense to go against the science, unless the agenda is making sure Big Oil doesn't lose any profits in this whole ordeal.
                          You are just wrong and simply repeating the nonsense of the Left on Gorebal Warming. I have no interest in Big Oil so that's just a canard on your part.

                          https://skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

                          https://internationalfreepress.com/2...ay-scientists/

                          https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...5b3_story.html

                          https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._or_dogma.html

                          This is the nonsense that claiming it's "settled science" brings:

                          https://climatesciencenews.com/2019-...pollutant.html

                          What claiming it's settled science is, is a logical fallacy most often in the form of an ad hominem. This goes something like this:

                          The Believer in Gorebal Warming is questioned and presented alternative facts and arguments for their position. Rather than address those facts and arguments the Believer retorts that "It's settled science. 97% (or some other very high percentage) of all scientists agree on that. You are just repeating the nonsense of deniers..."

                          There's nothing in that other than insulting the person the Believer is arguing with. First, the 97% (or whatever) is generally held to be only climate scientists, and they have a vested interest in the economics and politics of Gorebal Warming. There is hardly that sort of consensus among all scientists.
                          Second, trotting out that position is itself a logical fallacy as it amounts to an Appeal to Authority.

                          So, feel free to continue to live in your bubble of denial while the rest-of-us get on with our lives and largely ignore climate change as a serious issue to contend with. After all, we're not doomed in a decade to anything other than being ten years older.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                            You are just wrong and simply repeating the nonsense of the Left on Gorebal Warming. I have no interest in Big Oil so that's just a canard on your part.
                            You must understand Big Oil controls the republican party? Republicans are only against the settled science because of Big Oil.

                            It is settled science

                            The Believer in Gorebal Warming is questioned and presented alternative facts and arguments for their position. Rather than address those facts and arguments the Believer retorts that "It's settled science. 97% (or some other very high percentage) of all scientists agree on that. You are just repeating the nonsense of deniers..."
                            The science is settled on the problem. You're only presenting skeptical outlets as a basis to defend Big Oil.
                            First, the 97% (or whatever) is generally held to be only climate scientists, and they have a vested interest in the economics and politics of Gorebal Warming. There is hardly that sort of consensus among all scientists.
                            Second, trotting out that position is itself a logical fallacy as it amounts to an Appeal to Authority.
                            I would hope that climate scientists are the only ones involved with the topic. If you're not an expert in the field, then your opinion is valued even less. Big Oil likes to trot out websites and hit-pieces on the topic. Doing everything in their power to keep people ignorant on the topic so they don't lose a few bucks.
                            So, feel free to continue to live in your bubble of denial while the rest-of-us get on with our lives and largely ignore climate change as a serious issue to contend with. After all, we're not doomed in a decade to anything other than being ten years older.
                            You get your information from people who are not climatologists. Red flag right there. Follow the money.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X