@Anonymint
You see, your delusions of grandeur are causing you to profile people like me as "mind-controlled Millenial asshats" that "disrespect their elders" and have been indocrinated by some sort of NWO school of thought.
None of this is true, I'm not a millenial, I could be older than you and it's just as likely that you yourself have been indocrinated by the filter bubble that you're confined to due to your paranoia of modern society, and your internet search history.
Serious question, have you ever been diagnosed with bipolar or manic depression? Because although you're obviously a very intelligent person, your trains of thought can be very incoherent and off topic. Plus you have a tendency to rate your own opinions and theories as superior to others, without succintly explaining why.
Like I said, I've been on the fence with the whole AGW theory for years, and make a point of reading as many opposing views as possible to try and gain a balanced view on the matter. It seems to me that you've already made up your mind and refuse to even contemplate opposing points of view.
That's a dangerous mindset that can lead to indoctrination.
Topic: Man-made global warming = Govt take care me for life - page 10. (Read 13844 times)
And regarding that article, I am not even going to read it. Research has become too much politicized these days.
Translation: I'm not reading that, it goes against my religious teachings.Lmao that stupid statement contradicts what you're supposedly standing up against, I'm out of this thread anyway, see you all in the cold(er) new year.
We have entered into a cooling period, c02 levels have been higher in the past, c02 levels lag behind increases in temperature by around 200 years.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf
This is pure BS. More CO2 means an increase in the temperature. Even a 4-year old kid will be able to understand that. And regarding that article, I am not even going to read it. Research has become too much politicized these days.
You Millennials fools. I already refuted the "fact" about greenhouses cases driving the thermodynamics! The tail doesn't wag the dog:
well no, it's a well known fact that the composition of the atmosphere does have an effect on the thermodynamics of planets. Different gases in the atmosphere will cause the planet to retain more or less heat. We can see this by studying other planets.
You've got that backasswards. The long-term composition of the atmosphere is dictated by the thermodynamics of the earth, not vice versa. The longer explanation of why that is so is your homework assignment. I will give you one tidbit to start with, which is that CO2 lags temperature rises (and declines) by 200 - 800 years because it is the warming and cooling of the oceans that cause the release of more or less CO2 from the massive mass of the oceans. Humans can't impact enough mass to offset the effect on the oceans. The Earth is a self-stabilizing system because of this huge heatsink, and the main heat sources are internal below the crust and the Sun (by many orders-of-magnitude than anything humans can do on a long-term basis).
The lag is an irrefutable fact seen in 100,000s of years (if not more, I forget) of ice core data.
You fools will believe any junk "science" put out by the socialist system that is "protecting" and "educating" you. Good luck with that. Mein Kampf.
If they have "science" to tell you FruitLoops are nutritional, you'll believe that also.
Classic Anonymint. Rather than continuing the debate, you go off on an obscure tangent about Nazis, Jews and collectivism.
That you don't understand the generative essence relevance is my fault?
https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/47#issuecomment-267836518
Why should I debate with someone who is mind-controlled and determined to choose collectivist "facts". You are free to enslave yourself. Why should I waste my time stopping you?
You're very smart, but you're not as smart as you think you are.
You Think?
And your arrogance, delusions of grandeur and inability to clearly communicate your ideas will put you at a disadvantage, if your so-called "Age of Knowledge" comes to pass.
Another Millennial asshat who thinks he has experience and disrespects his elders because he thinks he is right because his school "educated" him. Click the github above, as you have a cohort there.
On topic, I'm currently studying for a science degree, and I've always been a very critical thinker and a huge skeptic. I've been on the fence in regards to climate change for over 15 years, but in the last couple of years my opinion has shifted to "it's probably happening and humans are probably responsible". Mainly because I've seen the vast majority of research claiming the opposite debunked, and I've seen a lot more solid evidence claiming AGW from what I consider to be credible sources.
Because you are being indoctrinated by your school.
This may have been true in the past, but a lot of research suggests that CO2 both is an effect of warming, and causes it through feedback loops...
The Malthusian youth asshats always think it is different this time and ignore millions of years of documented historical information. And their idealism only causes the periodic bouts of megadeath (driven by their youthful inexperience and idealistic driven arrogance). Enjoy.
I suggest you watch the videos:
Perhaps the best explanation I have ever heard:
https://www.prageru.com/courses/left-and-right-differences/how-do-we-make-society-better-left-vs-right-5
(Sourced by CoinCube)
...
Relate this phenomenon of wanting to ignore "damned facts" to following video:
https://www.prageru.com/courses/left-and-right-differences/does-it-feel-good-or-does-it-do-good-left-vs-right-2
https://www.prageru.com/courses/left-and-right-differences/how-do-we-make-society-better-left-vs-right-5
(Sourced by CoinCube)
...
Relate this phenomenon of wanting to ignore "damned facts" to following video:
https://www.prageru.com/courses/left-and-right-differences/does-it-feel-good-or-does-it-do-good-left-vs-right-2
Also no need for ad hominem attacks, calling me a dumb ass is not constructive to the debate. Also nothing you've said proves that man is not capable of impacting the long term temperature of the Earth.
Because you implied (upthread) that we are not rational, when it is you who needs to do your homework. We already have.
And because you don't do your homework, you choose to destroy your free-will:
Incorrect. The Nazis (and all groups other than the Jews) practice evolutionary groupwise self-destruction. The Nazis were collectivists (go study it!).
The Jews are succeeding because their group strategy is correctly aligned with the natural laws of nature.
The Jews sit outside the collectivism and anneal with it groupwise. The is essentially what George Soros was saying when he said being amoral w.r.t. to opportunity costs is rational. This is why the Jews don't do usury to each other (they are a small group scattered across many collectivist regimes, forming a common philosophical bond or group strategy, and usury is collectivism paradigm in the large), only to the other gentiles.
Collectivism is the fault of those who participate in it. The Jews did not take away the free will of the gentiles. Even farm animals have less free will then the gentiles. No wonder the gentiles are less intelligent (on a groupwise basis) than cows, because they choose collectivism every damn time even though the Lord said not to in 1 Samuel 8.
The Jews are succeeding because their group strategy is correctly aligned with the natural laws of nature.
The Jews sit outside the collectivism and anneal with it groupwise. The is essentially what George Soros was saying when he said being amoral w.r.t. to opportunity costs is rational. This is why the Jews don't do usury to each other (they are a small group scattered across many collectivist regimes, forming a common philosophical bond or group strategy, and usury is collectivism paradigm in the large), only to the other gentiles.
Collectivism is the fault of those who participate in it. The Jews did not take away the free will of the gentiles. Even farm animals have less free will then the gentiles. No wonder the gentiles are less intelligent (on a groupwise basis) than cows, because they choose collectivism every damn time even though the Lord said not to in 1 Samuel 8.
And we will let you do it. Please continue. You will reap what you sow.
Classic Anonymint. Rather than continuing the debate, you go off on an obscure tangent about Nazis, Jews and collectivism.
You're very smart, but you're not as smart as you think you are. And your arrogance, delusions of grandeur and inability to clearly communicate your ideas will put you at a disadvantage, if your so-called "Age of Knowledge" comes to pass.
On topic, I'm currently studying for a science degree, and I've always been a very critical thinker and a huge skeptic. I've been on the fence in regards to climate change for over 15 years, but in the last couple of years my opinion has shifted to "it's probably happening and humans are probably responsible". Mainly because I've seen the vast majority of research claiming the opposite debunked, and I've seen a lot more solid evidence claiming AGW from what I consider to be credible sources.
We have entered into a cooling period, c02 levels have been higher in the past, c02 levels lag behind increases in temperature by around 200 years.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf
This is pure BS. More CO2 means an increase in the temperature. Even a 4-year old kid will be able to understand that. And regarding that article, I am not even going to read it. Research has become too much politicized these days.
Also no need for ad hominem attacks, calling me a dumb ass is not constructive to the debate. Also nothing you've said proves that man is not capable of impacting the long term temperature of the Earth.
Because you implied (upthread) that we are not rational, when it is you who needs to do your homework. We already have.
And because you don't do your homework, you choose to destroy your free-will:
Incorrect. The Nazis (and all groups other than the Jews) practice evolutionary groupwise self-destruction. The Nazis were collectivists (go study it!).
The Jews are succeeding because their group strategy is correctly aligned with the natural laws of nature.
The Jews sit outside the collectivism and anneal with it groupwise. The is essentially what George Soros was saying when he said being amoral w.r.t. to opportunity costs is rational. This is why the Jews don't do usury to each other (they are a small group scattered across many collectivist regimes, forming a common philosophical bond or group strategy, and usury is collectivism paradigm in the large), only to the other gentiles.
Collectivism is the fault of those who participate in it. The Jews did not take away the free will of the gentiles. Even farm animals have less free will then the gentiles. No wonder the gentiles are less intelligent (on a groupwise basis) than cows, because they choose collectivism every damn time even though the Lord said not to in 1 Samuel 8.
The Jews are succeeding because their group strategy is correctly aligned with the natural laws of nature.
The Jews sit outside the collectivism and anneal with it groupwise. The is essentially what George Soros was saying when he said being amoral w.r.t. to opportunity costs is rational. This is why the Jews don't do usury to each other (they are a small group scattered across many collectivist regimes, forming a common philosophical bond or group strategy, and usury is collectivism paradigm in the large), only to the other gentiles.
Collectivism is the fault of those who participate in it. The Jews did not take away the free will of the gentiles. Even farm animals have less free will then the gentiles. No wonder the gentiles are less intelligent (on a groupwise basis) than cows, because they choose collectivism every damn time even though the Lord said not to in 1 Samuel 8.
And we will let you do it. Please continue. You will reap what you sow.
Well, one way that man could change the exchange of heat would be to set off every nuclear bomb that exists in the whole world, creating a nuclear winter. Off topic yes, but it shows that what you said is certainly not impossible.
Read the thread. I already refuted that. It would not be a long-term effect. Man annihilates himself with a nuclear winter, then everything comes back to normal again within decades. Man can't impact the long-term thermodynamics of the Earth and the solar system. Sorry dumb ass!
well no, it's a well known fact that the composition of the atmosphere does have an effect on the thermodynamics of planets. Different gases in the atmosphere will cause the planet to retain more or less heat. We can see this by studying other planets.
You've got that backasswards. The long-term composition of the atmosphere is dictated by the thermodynamics of the earth, not vice versa. The longer explanation of why that is so is your homework assignment. I will give you one tidbit to start with, which is that CO2 lags temperature rises (and declines) by 200 - 800 years because it is the warming and cooling of the oceans that cause the release of more or less CO2 from the massive mass of the oceans. Humans can't impact enough mass to offset the effect on the oceans. The Earth is a self-stabilizing system because of this huge heatsink, and the main heat sources are internal below the crust and the Sun (by many orders-of-magnitude than anything humans can do on a long-term basis).
This may have been true in the past, but a lot of research suggests that CO2 both is an effect of warming, and causes it through feedback loops.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
Not to mention there are many other factors involved, such as the release of methane from permafrost which could create more serious feedback loops in regards to the greenhouse effect.
Well, one way that man could change the exchange of heat would be to set off every nuclear bomb that exists in the whole world, creating a nuclear winter. Off topic yes, but it shows that what you said is certainly not impossible.
Read the thread. I already refuted that. It would not be a long-term effect. Man annihilates himself with a nuclear winter, then everything comes back to normal again within decades. Man can't impact the long-term thermodynamics of the Earth and the solar system. Sorry dumb ass!
well no, it's a well known fact that the composition of the atmosphere does have an effect on the thermodynamics of planets. Different gases in the atmosphere will cause the planet to retain more or less heat. We can see this by studying other planets.
You've got that backasswards. The long-term composition of the atmosphere is dictated by the thermodynamics of the earth, not vice versa. The longer explanation of why that is so is your homework assignment. I will give you one tidbit to start with, which is that CO2 lags temperature rises (and declines) by 200 - 800 years because it is the warming and cooling of the oceans that cause the release of more or less CO2 from the massive mass of the oceans. Humans can't impact enough mass to offset the effect on the oceans. The Earth is a self-stabilizing system because of this huge heatsink, and the main heat sources are internal below the crust and the Sun (by many orders-of-magnitude than anything humans can do on a long-term basis).
...one of the more reputable scientific journals such as Nature or the Royal Society.
Which are controlled by the proponents of the junk AGW science. Wherein they obscure their lies in shitloads of technobabble, manipulated data, cherry picked data, models to fit the conclusion desired, and other forms of JUNK SCIENCE.
If you think man can control the long-term thermodynamics of Earth, you are not a scientist. Any person with even a reasonable comprehension of thermodynamics would understand it simply doesn't make any sense. Compute the mass of the oceans and tell me how man could do anything which would change the exchange of heat at any level of long-term significance? Impossible!
The long-term thermodynamics of the earth are controlled by the massive internally stored heat and the Sun. Period.
CO2 lags temperature changes because the oceans release more CO2 when they warm. The sun and flow from internally stored heat below the crust, controls the temperature of the oceans.
Please stop the nonsense. Especially please don't accuse us of being simpletons who can't understand basic thermodynamic facts.
"Compute the mass of the oceans and tell me how man could do anything which would change the exchange of heat at any level of long-term significance? Impossible!"
Well, one way that man could change the exchange of heat would be to set off every nuclear bomb that exists in the whole world, creating a nuclear winter. Off topic yes, but it shows that what you said is certainly not impossible.
As to your claim that "The long-term thermodynamics of the earth are controlled by the massive internally stored heat and the Sun. Period.", well no, it's a well known fact that the composition of the atmosphere does have an effect on the thermodynamics of planets. Different gases in the atmosphere will cause the planet to retain more or less heat. We can see this by studying other planets.
I'm not talking about AGW here, just refuting the claims in your post. I don't see how you can be so sure of yourself, when you say things that are objectively false.
As to your rubbishing of the most reputable, peer reviewed scientific journals, do you have any evidence that they are controlled by these "proponents of junk AGW science"? You do realize that, even after peer review and publication, these journals are read and reviewed by tens of thousands of scientists across the world, who work in different fields, some of which are experts at things like statistical analysis and epistemology?
Not to mention the vast majority of opposing evidence to the AGW theory seems to come from suspect sources, sometimes linked to the fossil fuel industry or other fields which represent conflicts of interest.
If you are so sure, why not write a solid scientific paper yourself? You may not be able to get it published in a reputable journal, but I'm sure you could get it published online and reviewed.
Global temperature changes and even wild fluctuations are a completely normal thing if you look at the history of Earth. Such effects are caused by various cosmic (ecliptic, sun activity, cosmic radiation) and earthly factors (land mass distribution, sea currents, mountains -> wind changes). The global temperature was a lot higher than today during hundreds of million years. We are currently living within a temporarily warm period within an overarching ice age.
Drawing conclusions based on temperature changes of a few decades or even centuries of modern history is not convincing at all.
Drawing conclusions based on temperature changes of a few decades or even centuries of modern history is not convincing at all.
Your first part is true, global temp changes are normal when we look at the history of the Earth, but these changes happened over a huge timescale. What isn't normal is the incredible speed of the current warming trend, coupled with the spectacular increase in CO2 ppm during the last 150 years. That's what's worrying.
No, your assessment is not correct. There's evidence that temperature changes occurred very rapidly in ancient times as well. This is also quite logical if you consider factors such as land mass movements which ultimately lead to the closure of sea passages and hence sudden changes in sea currents (for example the merging of the North and South American Continent). Changes in Earth ecliptic and sun activity also occur within short time spans.
In addition there are no measurement methods for assessing temperature changes on a micro timescale in the past. Research is limited to determining mean temperatures over extended periods of time. Therefore it's well possible that wild swings and rapid increases/decreases in temperature occurred in the past as well.
OK, first show me evidence that temperature changes in ancient times occurred as rapidly as they are now. Bonus points if you can tell me the CO2 ppm at the time.
Your second point doesn't make sense because you seem to have contradicted your first point. How can there be evidence for such rapid changes, if there are no measurement methods for the changes?
Pick one, and we'll discuss it.
Could easily do, but not gonna happen, sorry. You're way too arrogant to justify any further effort for discussion.
Man-made global warming theory is activist pseudo-science. It's based on scientifically unsound extrapolation of insufficient data sets, collected under confirmation bias. I have no doubt that we'll see a dramatic shift of the scientific mainstream regarding that topic within the next 15 years.
That said, as a pure thought experiment it would be interesting to think about the opposite scenario of a global cooling. Would scientist and public leaders demand the release of more CO2 in that case?
I don't really think I'm being arrogant, I simply pointed out the contradiction in your two points and asked for evidence for your claims. As you refuse to link to any evidence I will assume you don't have any.
...one of the more reputable scientific journals such as Nature or the Royal Society.
Which are controlled by the proponents of the junk AGW science. Wherein they obscure their lies in shitloads of technobabble, manipulated data, cherry picked data, models to fit the conclusion desired, and other forms of JUNK SCIENCE.
If you think man can control the long-term thermodynamics of Earth, you are not a scientist. Any person with even a reasonable comprehension of thermodynamics would understand it simply doesn't make any sense. Compute the mass of the oceans and tell me how man could do anything which would change the exchange of heat at any level of long-term significance? Impossible!
The long-term thermodynamics of the earth are controlled by the massive internally stored heat and the Sun. Period.
CO2 lags temperature changes because the oceans release more CO2 when they warm. The sun and flow from internally stored heat below the crust, controls the temperature of the oceans.
Please stop the nonsense. Especially please don't accuse us of being simpletons who can't understand basic thermodynamic facts.
We have entered into a cooling period, c02 levels have been higher in the past, c02 levels lag behind increases in temperature by around 200 years.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf
Global temperature changes and even wild fluctuations are a completely normal thing if you look at the history of Earth. Such effects are caused by various cosmic (ecliptic, sun activity, cosmic radiation) and earthly factors (land mass distribution, sea currents, mountains -> wind changes). The global temperature was a lot higher than today during hundreds of million years. We are currently living within a temporarily warm period within an overarching ice age.
Drawing conclusions based on temperature changes of a few decades or even centuries of modern history is not convincing at all.
Drawing conclusions based on temperature changes of a few decades or even centuries of modern history is not convincing at all.
Your first part is true, global temp changes are normal when we look at the history of the Earth, but these changes happened over a huge timescale. What isn't normal is the incredible speed of the current warming trend, coupled with the spectacular increase in CO2 ppm during the last 150 years. That's what's worrying.
No, your assessment is not correct. There's evidence that temperature changes occurred very rapidly in ancient times as well. This is also quite logical if you consider factors such as land mass movements which ultimately lead to the closure of sea passages and hence sudden changes in sea currents (for example the merging of the North and South American Continent). Changes in Earth ecliptic and sun activity also occur within short time spans.
In addition there are no measurement methods for assessing temperature changes on a micro timescale in the past. Research is limited to determining mean temperatures over extended periods of time. Therefore it's well possible that wild swings and rapid increases/decreases in temperature occurred in the past as well.
OK, first show me evidence that temperature changes in ancient times occurred as rapidly as they are now. Bonus points if you can tell me the CO2 ppm at the time.
Your second point doesn't make sense because you seem to have contradicted your first point. How can there be evidence for such rapid changes, if there are no measurement methods for the changes?
Pick one, and we'll discuss it.
Could easily do, but not gonna happen, sorry. You're way too arrogant to justify any further effort for discussion.
Man-made global warming theory is activist pseudo-science. It's based on scientifically unsound extrapolation of insufficient data sets, collected under confirmation bias. I have no doubt that we'll see a dramatic shift of the scientific mainstream regarding that topic within the next 15 years.
That said, as a pure thought experiment it would be interesting to think about the opposite scenario of a global cooling. Would scientist and public leaders demand the release of more CO2 in that case?
Climate change is nothing new: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/climate-change-history-the-fall-of-empires-come-when-warming-turns-of-cooling/
So the graph in that article shows interglacial temperature and gives the implied conclusion that there is nothing unprecedented about the levels of CO2. I wonder why they don't just produce a graph that actually shows the levels of CO2 if that's what they're talking about? It might have something to do with the fact that such a graph exists and doesn't support their conclusion in the slightest.
Source: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The world clearly goes through natural cycles of cooling and warming. There is literally zero dispute of that. But to claim the effect hasn't been magnified by human activity is complete and willful ignorance. The fact that they would use a tangentially related graph to imply their beliefs are accurate is only further evidence of that.
I do have it, but I am not willing to distribute it for free, I recommend it, but that is up to you if you decide to purchase it or not.
I haven't seen a single paper that opposes or refutes the research of Dr Abdussamatov, only dismissals without scientific basis, and only papers that show a complete lack of knowledge wrt the impacts of solar activity.
I haven't seen a single paper that opposes or refutes the research of Dr Abdussamatov, only dismissals without scientific basis, and only papers that show a complete lack of knowledge wrt the impacts of solar activity.
In 10 years we will be bitching about how the prius drivers were trying to suffocate all the world's plants..
It would be nice if we had some proper scientists on BCT that reference actual papers, rather than a bunch of paranoid armchair experts sourcing questionable sources (often linked with fossil fuel, big oil companies).
Free speech is a wonderful thing, yet potentially very dangerous as well (especially when money is involved)
Free speech is a wonderful thing, yet potentially very dangerous as well (especially when money is involved)
Check my bottom link, feel free to purchase the paper.
Fair enough, you are one of the few posters that do reference their views with scientific papers, and I commend you for that. Do you have access to the paper itself and would be willing to post it in full so I can read it? I'm not going to pay $30 plus to access a paper.
Don't forget though that for every paper denying the causes of climate change, there are multiple more which oppose that view. It's worth noting that the paper you reference comes from a book, rather than one of the more reputable scientific journals such as Nature or the Royal Society.
Jump to: