Climate Change Denial (1 Viewer)

Moderator #1

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
12,106
Ratings
16,217
Offline
Sticky Post
I just read about this island in Louisiana that has nearly disappeared. You all may already know about this, but this is new to me.

One of the worst things about this administration is it’s science denial. Trump isn’t very smart nor is he well educated. This has permeated the entire administration. It’s yet one more way Trump is hurting the very people he says he is helping.

I know we had a thread an this originally, but it was past two pages back, so I decided to start a new one. I know this case isn’t completely due to climate change, but as the article points out, in the future there will be many cases like this.

http://www.businessinsider.com/isle-de-jean-charles-climate-change-refugees-2018-4
 
Banned #321
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
1,339
Ratings
1,195
Age
36
Offline
Your problem is your belief that 97% of scientists agree with your theory and solution. They don’t. A simple google search will show you how Cook arrived at that number and how ridiculously fake it is.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
8,953
Ratings
7,391
Offline
Your problem is your belief that 97% of scientists agree with your theory and solution. They don’t. A simple google search will show you how Cook arrived at that number and how ridiculously fake it is.
You can dispute the surveys all you want, like I said, there is room to do so, I think it is driven entirely by ignorance and motivated reasoning, but there is holes you can push in on. And you can decide to choose ignorance over science, but the fact remains that there is not any viable alternative theories that have passed the scientific review process at this time and explain what is necessary to offer up as a credible alternative hypothesis.

The funny thing with AGW denialisms like you, is that there has been millions poured into propaganda mills like the Heartland Institute that earned its credentials arguing smoking is safe that have failed to produce any sort of credible alternative. Which if you think about what that would do for their employer, if such evidence existed, you would expect it to be beaten hard. The fact these groups intentionally stay away from the peer review process is incredibly telling.

But again, you're a troll, you have no respect and no interest in approving this in any sort of good faith, so it's really mostly a waste of bandwidth to explain all this to. Something a quick Google search could also tell you.
 

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
27,692
Ratings
25,512
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
There is no consensus. Even if there was, science is not measured by consensus, and history has shown us how terrible of an idea that is.
And those 150 years of evidence show that the earth and oceans have not warmed and acidified.

To attack CO2 as if it is a pollutant is obviously ridiculous when there is actual real pollution and poisons in the air and water that the climatepocalypsers love to ignore while obsessing with a building block of life.

What a conspiracy that would be. That something all life needs is poison and poison is meh. That even when science shows the massive amounts of more CO2 in the past 150 years have done zilch for temperature and acidification, but it’s somehow still scary.
That stating the obvious and proving it with science means you are inflammatory. That linking charts that do nothing to disprove facts means your opponent is dumb troll. That refusing to answer questions means Your opponent refuses to answer questions.
Beer is the bread of life yet if you were to have to breathe it you would die.

Did you guys know that there's a brewery named clown shoes with catchy names and bottle art? Check it out...... The clown shoes award can now be beer themed!

I wish they'd name one that tastes like death "Climate Change Denial" and then add 80% CO2.

clown-shoes-black-ipa.png
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,042
Ratings
16,393
Age
47
Location
Coalinga CA
Offline
There was a mathematical error, and a range of error from 10-70%. There was no denying that warming was happening, it was simply how much, and within that error was the variance above. So, no, warming has not been debunked, only an error showing higher than expected has been caught recasting the data to the accepted rates of warming that have been published before.

So no, not yet again
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
8,953
Ratings
7,391
Offline

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
27,692
Ratings
25,512
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
20,523
Ratings
32,254
Location
Lebronto
Offline
onthurdays wrong.
Yet again

If you read the article, you'd see that the correction confirmed the initial concerns and the initial ranges.
However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.
but I'm glad to see you link a source that endorses the scientific process:

While papers are peer reviewed before they’re published, new findings must always be reproduced before gaining widespread acceptance throughout the scientific community, said Gerald Meehl, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

“This is how the process works,” he said. “Every paper that comes out is not bulletproof or infallible. If it doesn’t stand up under scrutiny, you review the findings.”
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
8,953
Ratings
7,391
Offline
Weird, looks like Onthurdays didn't stick around to defend his inflammatory post, very unlike him.

He's certainly not one to just drive by and run off for days/weeks at a time and never re-engage with the fires he started.
 

MLU

National Signing Day Legend
Joined
Apr 28, 1999
Messages
52,233
Ratings
16,468
Location
Mesa, AZ
Offline
Weird, looks like Onthurdays didn't stick around to defend his inflammatory post, very unlike him.

He's certainly not one to just drive by and run off for days/weeks at a time and never re-engage with the fires he started.
Still waiting for the new talking points to get posted over on StormFront...
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
25,058
Ratings
41,396
Location
70005
Offline
Reviving this thread with this article since climate change seems to be getting lumped into all the other political threads randomly...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/giant-hole-in-antarctica-thwaites-glacier/

On my phone so copying and pasting is a little difficult. Interesting discovery, IMO, and a pretty obvious example of climate change and its effects on the world we inhabit.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
24,563
Ratings
12,157
Age
50
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
Watching it snow outside got me to thinking that climate change isn't just about what temperature it is, but when as well.

Historically, February has been the upswing month around here. The chinook winds come, the snow melts and maybe winter has a last gasp, but by Valentines' spring is just around the corner.

These past couple years, that hasn't been the case. It's not that the temperatures themselves are lower than they used to be, it's that we're seeing January a month later.

Plants that should be budding out are getting frozen instead, delaying the fruiting cycle. In some cases the whole plant dies after having successfully weathered what ought to be the winter months. It's pushing insect hatches out, meaning fish fry and minnows don't have the food sources they ought to given the timing of the previous spawn.

A changing climate doesn't have to be more severe (although it often is) to be damaging.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
25,058
Ratings
41,396
Location
70005
Offline
They say that the warming is happening much too quickly for species to adapt. The creatures and conditions us humans rely on.
They also say that the part us humans play is to add that extra percentage of CO2 that can't be handled by natural means. We're the part that's tipping it all over.
I'm convinced he "reads" articles and reports much in the vein of Trump. Headlines and the first paragraph before getting distracted and then just copies the link, posts it here and declares victory while refusing to broach any of the follow up questions that he gets peppered with afterwards.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
25,058
Ratings
41,396
Location
70005
Offline
Watching it snow outside got me to thinking that climate change isn't just about what temperature it is, but when as well.

Historically, February has been the upswing month around here. The chinook winds come, the snow melts and maybe winter has a last gasp, but by Valentines' spring is just around the corner.

These past couple years, that hasn't been the case. It's not that the temperatures themselves are lower than they used to be, it's that we're seeing January a month later.

Plants that should be budding out are getting frozen instead, delaying the fruiting cycle. In some cases the whole plant dies after having successfully weathered what ought to be the winter months. It's pushing insect hatches out, meaning fish fry and minnows don't have the food sources they ought to given the timing of the previous spawn.

A changing climate doesn't have to be more severe (although it often is) to be damaging.
Shoot. I totally agree. While we aren't dealing with snow here - quite the opposite - this is the warmest February we've had in quite some time. Last year, January and February were brutally cold. Yesterday, the heat index was in the mid 80's. When I got in my car to leave work around 4:30, it said the exterior temperature was 87 degrees, which I pretty much call the heat index since it's parked in the sun and the temps on the news are taken in the shade. If March is freezing cold instead of the turn into warmer temperatures that the rest of the country calls Spring, Mardi Gras will suck even though we thought we'd be lucky having a later date this year based on the temperatures last year.

I guess the pure unpredictability of the weather is another example of the effects of climate change we're seeing every day.
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,042
Ratings
16,393
Age
47
Location
Coalinga CA
Offline
We’ve been all over the place here on the west coast also. We’ve had record heat in late December where it was 80 degrees, now back down to somewhat normal. Fortunately we have the precipitation that we haven’t had consistently for years.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom