Covfefe

[El_Goretto]

Your entire answer is pseduo science claptrap.

No offense but what have you brought to the discussion?

You provided a few pretty graphs which show a vastly incomplete picture, from dodgy articles that spread debunked falsehood.

I agree with Nimbus, the situation and impact of a rising global temperature had a different effect on dinosaurs or on humans back in the middle age than it will have on us right now. Over 7 billion humans roam the Earth now and the effect of global warming will be much more severe: changing weather patterns, unpredictable crops, destruction of habitat, disappearance of some populated coastal areas, population displacement and so on.

I mean, if your only argument is (I paraphrase) "what you're saying is bullshit", then maybe it's better to not have this conversation or debate at all. If you're not going to invest the time to provide compelling arguments, research and (credible) evidence, why bother at all?

What climate change deniers and other spreaders of hoax, fake news and alternative facts rely on is the fact that it only takes a few words to sow confusion but requires much more effort to debunk said confusion.

They spread those poor quality, attention grabbing, "I told you so", easy to read articles which are taken at face value and hysterically shared on social media but it then requires days of research and writing to debunk the bullshit in the form of articles using vocabulary and concepts that few people understand.

 

[William King]

You provided a few pretty graphs which show a vastly incomplete picture, from dodgy articles that spread debunked falsehood.

Those graphs are the compelling evidence you need.

You do not need more information to know that the climate IS NOT rising faster than it has in the past.

You do not need more information to see that world temperatures have always fluctuated, with and without humans. VocalNeil pointed this out, but you both conveniently ignore him.

You do not need more information to see that the world had much higher temperatures with lower carbon dioxide levels.

That's the thing about proving a negative, the ancient climate record shows that all this nonsense about CO2, is just that. Nonsense.

Climate change scientists forget to mention that water vapour is the biggest culprit, but we cannot control clouds. (nor profit from them).

I mean, if your only argument is (I paraphrase) "what you're saying is bullshit", then maybe it's better to not have this conversation or debate at all. If you're not going to invest the time to provide compelling arguments, research and (credible) evidence, why bother at all?

In direct response to a nonsense comment about dinosaurs being different to humans, and therefore not relevant. If you cannot see that Nimbus' response is no par with Kellyanne Conway, then there's no point debating.

 

[William King]

here's another pretty picture, but this one was made by a Professor of Geology.

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/pro...elaide-climate-change-2-728.jpg?cb=1291527531

 

[William King]

A lecture for you.

 

[El_Goretto]

Those graphs are the compelling evidence you need.

Your graphs omit data from the past 150 years. Those past 150 years ARE the point of contention.

Also, your data is based off a single measurement point in Greenland. It is the consensus that when measuring several different indicators throughout the globe, the conclusion is a net rise in temperature.

You do not need more information to know that the climate IS NOT rising faster than it has in the past.

Data points to the fact that since the first industrial revolution, it is rising faster than it has in the past.

You do not need more information to see that world temperatures have always fluctuated, with and without humans. VocalNeil pointed this out, but you both conveniently ignore him.

Nobody has ever denied that temperatures don't fluctuate. It's the rate at which they are fluctuating now that is a concern. What climate change scientists are proposing is not that we prevent the temperature from changing at all but that we prevent them from changing so fast due to human activity. This is basic, I don't even see the point of addressing this.

You do not need more information to see that the world had much higher temperatures with lower carbon dioxide levels.

Have you read the link provided by Nimbus?

Those times where the temperature was lower with higher CO2 levels than today was due to the fact that the sun output on Earth was lower by something like 10% (can't remember the exact number) due to variations in the Earth orbit. It meant that to keep the temperature constant a much larger amount of CO2 was needed. That amount was not enough to keep the temperature from falling.

That's the thing about proving a negative, the ancient climate record shows that all this nonsense about CO2, is just that. Nonsense.

See above.

Climate change scientists forget to mention that water vapour is the biggest culprit, but we cannot control clouds. (nor profit from them).

Not sure about that, haven't researched yet so I can't comment.

In conclusion: your above quotes prove my point. You quick fire those statements without evidence whatsoever. For me to prove that you're wrong would mean that I need to go around the Internet looking for peer reviewed scientific papers, read them, quote them in a well worded article. Ain't nobody got time for that.

I'm not going to let myself be dragged into a dead end debate. What I'm observing is that you're either not interested in making a convincing argument or you're trying to rile me up and waste my time. Either way, I have no interest in debating this further.

 

[Nimbus]

Your entire answer is pseduo science claptrap.

I have provided the data, and the XKCD illustration clearly shows that just -4 degree average temperature means NYC would be completely buried by glacier. We don't know exactly what +4 degrees would look like, and we can only hope it's not nearly as extreme to the other direction. While we can probably survive an extra +4 celsius, we don't know whether +10 is ok. The credible fear is that after a certain point we totally lose control over a runaway process, leading to a level of change so drastic it's beyond our capability to survive it.

This is not pseudo science, Jo Nova's stuff is.

 

[Nimbus]

A lecture for you.

Oh, look, another 3 percenter. I'll stick with the 97%.

 

[William King]

Oh, look, another 3 percenter. I'll stick with the 97%.

You mean cherry pick the answer you want. There we have it folks, proof of the echo chamber.

In conclusion: your above quotes prove my point. You quick fire those statements without evidence whatsoever. For me to prove that you're wrong would mean that I need to go around the Internet looking for peer reviewed scientific papers, read them, quote them in a well worded article. Ain't nobody got time for that.

So you want me to do it, but not you ?

But the statement above is 1st year university science, I didn't provide evidence because I am typing from knowledge, you know the scientific background that the two of you appear to lack ? I have it. I have done years of research on this stuff.

But, to show evidence, here is a link.

It's true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect by American Chemical Society
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...cenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

 

[fastpitch17]

No offense but what have you brought to the discussion?

You provided a few pretty graphs which show a vastly incomplete picture, from dodgy articles that spread debunked falsehood.

I agree with Nimbus, the situation and impact of a rising global temperature had a different effect on dinosaurs or on humans back in the middle age than it will have on us right now. Over 7 billion humans roam the Earth now and the effect of global warming will be much more severe: changing weather patterns, unpredictable crops, destruction of habitat, disappearance of some populated coastal areas, population displacement and so on.

I mean, if your only argument is (I paraphrase) "what you're saying is bullshit", then maybe it's better to not have this conversation or debate at all. If you're not going to invest the time to provide compelling arguments, research and (credible) evidence, why bother at all?

What climate change deniers and other spreaders of hoax, fake news and alternative facts rely on is the fact that it only takes a few words to sow confusion but requires much more effort to debunk said confusion.

They spread those poor quality, attention grabbing, "I told you so", easy to read articles which are taken at face value and hysterically shared on social media but it then requires days of research and writing to debunk the bullshit in the form of articles using vocabulary and concepts that few people understand.

What? Did you even read what anyone said? no one denied there was climate change. I think all were in agreement on that. What is trying to be explained is that the Earth has gone through this all before. More then once. Sure, there are more people now and it will affect many of them. That isn't to say it is something new. This natural cycle is just that, natural and believe it or not, there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it except build higher sea walls maybe.

So, stop saying climate change deniers. No one here said that.

 

[El_Goretto]

So, stop saying climate change deniers. No one here said that.

I think what is understood by "Climate Change Deniers" is that the they deny that the climate is changing more rapidly than it should due to human activity.

Maybe a more appropriate, more encompassing term would be Climate Change Skeptics?

Tomahto, tomato, you know what I mean?

This natural cycle is just that, natural and believe it or not, there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it except build higher sea walls maybe.

It's not a matter of belief. Scientific evidence is here. I don't need to believe that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, it's a fact.

Once again, if you read what has been posted, nobody denies that these cycles are not occurring naturally, but they are occurring naturally slowly and we're making them occur faster to our own detriment.

Anyway, enough from me on this topic.

 

[Nimbus]

You mean cherry pick the answer you want. There we have it folks, proof of the echo chamber.

I'm perfectly fine with this, as I'm in good company. You are making an 'echo chamber' with a much smaller group of people, filled mostly with right wingnuts, and Trump. Today only three countries don't participate in the Paris agreement. Syria, USA (because of Trump), and Nicaragua. Nicaragua does it because the agreement doesn't go far enough, as half of their energy use already comes from renewable resources.


Another scientist has examined the exact same set of data as Miller, and came to a different conclusion. That's good enough for me.

Even if (and that is a big IF) the effect of climate change is proven later to be overstated, the benefit of reduced polution and renewable energy is real.

 

[fastpitch17]

I'm perfectly fine with this, as I'm in good company. You are making an 'echo chamber' with a much smaller group of people, filled mostly with right wingnuts, and Trump. Today only three countries don't participate in the Paris agreement. Syria, USA (because of Trump), and Nicaragua. Nicaragua does it because the agreement doesn't go far enough, as half of their energy use already comes from renewable resources.

Hopefully you are not calling those that are disagreeing with you right wingnuts or Trump like. If you are i assure you my words for you will get me banned here. Why revert to name calling just because you are not winning over everyone to your side? Sorry, it doesn't work like that. No one has called you names for being a tree hugging liberal. mainly because we don't care if you are a tree hugging liberal that get's their guidance from Gore.

The thing you and another seem stuck on is that you want to say Climate Change Deniers, and that perhaps we agree with Trump's move to remove the US from the agreement. Well, I am not a denier no matter what tomato you want to throw out there and I have not read where anyone agreed with Trump on his removal. I happen to think the US should have stayed in. Not because it would do anything for the climate change but it would do somethings for a better world. Especially in helping the poorer nations in developing industry.

I suggest you take some kind of chill pill and do as you said and stay out now or if you keep on the route you are on, it will get pretty damn ugly in this thread. You have been warned.

 

[El_Goretto]

But, to show evidence, here is a link.

It's true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect by American Chemical Society
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...cenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

Do you even read the links that you're posting?!

The link you're posting actually makes a case for the negative impact of CO2 on global warming via positive feedback:

If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.

For those who are not following: water vapor is a condensable gas, meaning that as cloud reach higher altitude, they cool down, condense and you get rain and snow fall.

CO2 is a non-condensable gas which means that once in the atmosphere, even at the cooler altitudes, it won't condense like water vapor does. It will stay in the atmosphere.

The positive feedback effect is such that a small increase of temperature due to CO2 leads to an even higher increase in temperature from water vapor, because any increase in temperature will increase the amount of water vapor which in turn will further increase the temperature.

Here's a very basic explanation of this:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-basic.htm

And a slightly more complex one with research references:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

So @William King , I think I know what you're doing. I was this close* to think that you were trolling, but I see that you are actually an undercover agent for the 97%. Well played, well played.


*this close:

Alright, I'm done.

 

[El_Goretto]

I suggest you take some kind of chill pill and do as you said and stay out now or if you keep on the route you are on, it will get pretty damn ugly in this thread. You have been warned.

Junior modding and all that yadda yadda. Ok that's out of the way.

I realized reading your post that my post earlier was misleading and it made it look like I was calling members of this forum "climate change deniers and other spreaders of hoax, fake news and alternative facts". I was not, except for maybe William King because he's been spreading really weird stuff, but I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not do it on purpose.

What I meant were the authors of such misleading articles. They misquote and cherry pick scientific research to further their argument against the scientific consensus and it takes great effort to debunk it. The same as with any other fake news the world over.

I thought I was being fairly humorous but I admit that I am a bit tone deaf myself sometimes, so I apologize if anyone felt offended by my remarks. I did not mean to.

Believe me, I'm not mad. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[Nimbus]

Hopefully you are not calling those that are disagreeing with you right wingnuts or Trump like. If you are i assure you my words for you will get me banned here. Why revert to name calling just because you are not winning over everyone to your side? Sorry, it doesn't work like that. No one has called you names for being a tree hugging liberal. mainly because we don't care if you are a tree hugging liberal that get's their guidance from Gore.

The thing you and another seem stuck on is that you want to say Climate Change Deniers, and that perhaps we agree with Trump's move to remove the US from the agreement. Well, I am not a denier no matter what tomato you want to throw out there and I have not read where anyone agreed with Trump on his removal. I happen to think the US should have stayed in. Not because it would do anything for the climate change but it would do somethings for a better world. Especially in helping the poorer nations in developing industry.

I suggest you take some kind of chill pill and do as you said and stay out now or if you keep on the route you are on, it will get pretty damn ugly in this thread. You have been warned.

This post was a response specifically to Willy calling me stuck in an echo chamber, which implies it's a small collection of ignorant people feeding off each other. In reality he's the one stuck in such chamber.

I have followed climate change since I still subscribed to National Geographics a couple of decades ago. Many people found evidence of climate change before it became a buzz word, back when it was still tentatively called global warming. The thing with (good) scientists is that they are careful. They took care to explore all other hypotheses before they concluded that the earth was indeed getting warmer, and they repeated the same process before they concluded it is man-made. The Scientific Method has been duly followed. While I'm no scientist, I am educated enough in the scientific method and statistics to understand that their conclusions are not pulled out of their ass. I also know that the 'peer review' process can be vicious, as these professional nerds love to prove each other wrong, if at all possible. Anything that survives the process with 97% consensus is almost as good as the theory of gravity.

In the very beginning I saw certain people denying climate change outright, alleging that it was just a hoax to disadvantage American businesses. When it finally became impossible to deny due to mounting perceptible evidence, they changed their tune to say there wasn't enough proof that it was man-made. When new data made it obvious that our carbon output did contribute to the change, they changed their tune again to say that the entire thing is overblown. The only thing left to convince them (if such a thing is possible), is when NYC goes under water and vast tracts of arable land turns into desert, propelling a global food crisis. By that time the damage is done.

You personally seem capable to evolve, and I give you credit for it. King Willy (his name before he was banned in the old forum) just likes to be a contrarian and to call names, so I was returning the favor. We didn't get along well over there either.

 

[vocalneal]

Ah, someone who enjoys racists non-jokes and is a climate change denier. Color me surprised.

I'm not a climate change denier I just don't think that humans are wholly to blame and as such shouldn't have to pay to stop it changing.

The cheapest shot in any debate or discourse is to call someone what you believe me to be. It has become such a cheap shot that it is almost totally meaningless and only generally used by people with little or no intellect.

If I find any more off-colour jokes I'll let you know.

Moderator note: We don't condone the publication of racists jokes, no matter how funny you think they are. Perhaps you should have another look at Posting Guidelines re Inclusivity,

 

[R Cameron]

You mean cherry pick the answer you want. There we have it folks, proof of the echo chamber.

I don't think any of us want that answer.

"You believe the 97% of oncologists that say you have cancer?? See, you're just cherry picking the answer you want."

 

[William King]

I have followed climate change since I still subscribed to National Geographics a couple of decades ago

I bow to your superiour internettimg skillz then.

 

[William King]

Do you even read the links that you're posting?!

Yep. It admits that water vapour has the greatest impact, it then clumsily tries to provide an explanation on why global warming theorists can ignore that. I thought you would be able to ser through that, sadly I was wrong.

CO2 is a non-condensable gas which means that once in the atmosphere, even at the cooler altitudes, it won't condense like water vapor does. It will stay in the atmosphere.
e.

Let's be clear CO2 is a trace gas. Trace. Miniscule. This nonsense about runaway global warming is a hypothesis, there is no evidence for it.

If you go back to the Devion Period CO2 was 8x higher .... but no run away global warmimg occured there.

 

[Nimbus]

I bow to your superiour internettimg skillz then.

Twenty years ago National Geographic didn't have much of anything on the internet. This was the age of dial up when downloading one picture took half an hour. Knowledge still came mostly through peer reviewed scientific books and magazines, unlike today when every blogger can publish her own version of science.

I think you are better at the internet, finding obscure 3 percenter scientists to support your religion.