Pages:
Author

Topic: Man-made global warming = Govt take care me for life - page 11. (Read 13844 times)

legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1001
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)

Check my bottom link, feel free to purchase the paper.
legendary
Activity: 1188
Merit: 1016
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)
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1001
http://armstrongeconomics-wp.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/12/Mind-Blowing-Temperature-Fraud-At-NOAA-_-Real-Science.pdf

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/global-temperatures-are-mostly-fake/

The good news is the LIE of man made climate change is being exposed by nature, the bad news is it's going to get cold, the other bad news is that it has become such a touchy religious subject that it is very hard to have a civilised discussion on the topic & I don't expect that to change, they will still cling to their lie and attempt to twist it to fit and we will be blamed for man made cooling.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000173

legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1016
Just put another CO2 releasing log on the fire. It's cold tonight.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
legendary
Activity: 1188
Merit: 1016
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.

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.
legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 3191
Leave no FUD unchallenged
It's almost funny that every other day, according to anonymint at least, the sky is falling in cryptoland and the end times are always nigh.  There's always a fatal flaw in the fundamental concept of crypto that only he knows how to fix, or a hostile takeover from rogue elements that only his mighty logic can save us from.  But when it comes to something real, credible and tangible, like climate change, suddenly it's all a big conspiracy and he's here to tell us we shouldn't take it seriously.   Roll Eyes

I say almost funny, but on a serious note, we should be concerned about his mental health.  I don't know if it's too many meds, or not enough, but something isn't right there.  Literally every thread amounts to "Hey everyone I've been pondering this issue and finally have a solution that no one will find fault with because I'll just talk over them and post more links supporting my entirely myopic viewpoint so don't even try to argue because I'm always right and it's the fault of communists blah blah blah".  

Post, rinse, repeat.

Sure, the earth undoubtedly goes through cycles of perfectly natural climate change, but to seriously believe human beings have had zero influence on that is just unconstrained denial of reality and consequence.  Maybe it's not just anonymint losing the plot, but hardcore libertarians in general.  This thread sound much like the anti-vaxxer thread, in that people genuinely believe they can continue to act like selfish and greedy egomaniacs by pretending that cause and effect isn't a real thing.  News flash, your choices affect others.  

Bottom line is, you're putting others at risk by turning yourself into an incubator and carrier by not vaccinating yourself.  This seems like yet another one of those things where hardcore libertarians somehow think they can still live and function within a society but only give a shit about themselves.  Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.  Go live in a cave somewhere or find a deserted island if you're that desperate to remove yourself from the rest of civilisation.  You don't get to take all the benefits but none of the accompanying responsibility.

Same thing applies to climate change.  Things keep going the way they are, coastal towns end up underwater, unexpected heatwaves kill, freak storms increase in intensity to more dangerous levels.  People's lives are destroyed.  Libertarianism means everyone is free to make their own choices, provided those choices aren't forcing other people to lose their freedoms.  It seems some people are very quick to forget that last part.  Libertarianism doesn't mean you have permission to be a self obsessed lunatic and completely disregard society as a whole.

The simple fact is, you're too busy thinking about your own freedom to care about anyone else's.

And you think it's the millenials who are the spoiled brats?   Roll Eyes

I'm not saying for a second that government can be trusted for all things, but someone has to keep you crackpots in check, so until someone comes up with a better solution, I'm happy for the government to take care of you (when they put you in a padded cell).
legendary
Activity: 3346
Merit: 1352
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
When you are taking about global climate cycles is the 29 years of the above graph an appropriate sample size?

I would say not.

During the past 50 years, the global temperatures have increased by more than one degree Celsius. At no point of time in the past, did the temperature increased by this much in such a short a short duration. Still believe that this global warming is a hoax?
legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1012
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.

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.
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 501
Global Warming issues would always be a good topic to discuss as it is affecting us and the future generations. The problem with this issue is that though definitely changes of the weather are now appearing in many parts of the globe, the science behind this whole thing can sometimes be compromised and many advocates are getting selective of the facts they want their audience to be convinced of. One thing for sure, in the coming years we would see validation -- actual validation -- as to who is telling the whole truth on Global Warming.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
narrowpathnetwork.com
legendary
Activity: 1188
Merit: 1016
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.

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.
legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1012
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.
legendary
Activity: 1188
Merit: 1016
When you are taking about global climate cycles is the 29 years of the above graph an appropriate sample size?

I would say not.

Well it's 54 years in fact, as far as I can see. And no, it's not an ideal sample size but it beats the ~6 months sample that was in the article that you yourself just posted. So how can you possibly criticise my sample when yours is less than 1% of the length of my sample?

In fact there are temp and CO2 records going back to the mid to late 1800s, but the graph I chose has the records of El Nino/La Nina in too, which may not have existed that early on.

Still don't see how you think your 1/2 year sample trumps my 54 year one, can you elaborate on that?
legendary
Activity: 2254
Merit: 1043
When you are taking about global climate cycles is the 29 years of the above graph an appropriate sample size?

I would say not.
legendary
Activity: 1188
Merit: 1016
Quote
Global COOLING: World temperature DROPS as spikes NOT caused by man, scientists claim

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/742289/El-Nino-La-Nina-temperature-drop-global-warming-climate-change

Truth is we will never know the truth and only time will tell, both sides of the argument have an agenda and are making cash from it.

The Express is a British tabloid, highly biased both politically and socially, it is not a great source for this sort of thing. I haven't read the article (I will now and edit accordingly), but this sounds very suspiciously like a rehash of the recent Breitbart story (which was totally debunked). I will read the article and comment again.

I would say that although we will never know the 100% truth, there is a difference between one side having exponentially more evidence for their hypothesis than the other. We don't know the 100% truth about gravity or quantum physics effects, but they are universally accepted. The same could be for climate science, in fact the evidence so far is verging on "certain".

However I do agree that both sides are "making cash" from their opinion, but this is mainly related to the media. I believe there are many people in the petrochemical industry making billions, even though they believe that what they are doing is wrong and could damage the planet. But they wont be around to experience it, so it doesn't matter. Likewise, there are people in climate science funded by petrochemical companies who are willing to make false assumptions about research, as there are honest climate scientists who would refuse such funding to attempt unbiased research.

It's a complicated problem

EDIT: Yeah, that trashy express article is using an erroneous measurement:
Quote
Met Office Hadcrut4 data has shown about a 0.5C drop in average surface temperatures between the spring and the end of October.
- comparing the global temp in a period of less than 6 months to imply that the planet isn't warming. Any scientist will tell you that this is a far too small sample of data to predict an overlying trend. For instance take a look at this graph:



See how el nino/la nina seem to be irrelevant when you increase the sample size to an approriate amount?
legendary
Activity: 2254
Merit: 1043
Quote
Global COOLING: World temperature DROPS as spikes NOT caused by man, scientists claim

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/742289/El-Nino-La-Nina-temperature-drop-global-warming-climate-change

Truth is we will never know the truth and only time will tell, both sides of the argument have an agenda and are making cash from it.
legendary
Activity: 1188
Merit: 1016
iamnotback:

Rather than writing ridiculous "gish gallops" why don't you give coherent, concise answers to posts?

For example, can you explain why the 10 warmest years in 136 years (excepting 1998) have occured since the year 2000?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

This gif is enlightening:


http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2016/05/spiral_optimized.gif
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
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)






Edit: btw, I agree with the following, except the problem is that divorce has destroyed the benefit for men:

https://www.prageru.com/courses/life-studies/be-man-get-married

http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-false-life-plan/
http://blog.jim.com/economics/the-future-belongs-to-those-that-show-up/
http://blog.jim.com/culture/fertility/
http://blog.jim.com/culture/on-what-used-to-be-called-marriage/
http://blog.jim.com/politics/the-reason-that-women-need-to-be-subordinated-for-successful-reproduction/

Note I am not a misogynist. Actually the reason women are not given more testosterone is because their eggs are more valuable than male sperm. We must protect the women, because if a tribe only had one woman remaining, it would be in danger of extinction, but one man could easily impregnate a plurality of woman.

I also dreamed at one point of working with female programmers and that a female would be both my career peer as well as my peer in romance. But I have since learned that there is a reason that women and men are physiologically different. Women have similar average IQ but their outliers are much more rare on the upper end of the IQ curve. Females are very smart at consensus building and nurturing. Men are very smart at economics (and technology as a function in economics).

http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-ancestral-environment-of-females/#comment-183149
http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-ancestral-environment-of-females/#comment-183156

As the 160 IQ Eric S. Raymond points out in numerous blogs, these are the "damned facts" that don't feel good to admit, but are in fact reality.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5220
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238

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

Tangentially James A. Donald was the first person to interact with Satoshi Nakamoto when he announced Bitcoin in 2008 on the Cryptography mailing list.




Edit#2: the liberal socialism Dark Age proceeds as these brainless retards continue to foam at the mouth:

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/internet-week-99/
Pages:
Jump to: