News:

Welcome Back to the MenWithFibro Forums
It does not matter the name, We all have the same symptoms.
We are THE ORIGINAL
"MenWithFibro"

Main Menu

ShoutBox! For quick short shout outs to other members. For introductions, questions or comments please post in the proper sections of the forum.

2023 Nov 18 19:10:11
ronr: Sorry folks but we have to move again.  Finances is the major reason and but the new hosting service is kicking back tons of errors and things just aren't work well!  I cleaned out the shoutbox just so that the changes messages will stand out better!

2023 Nov 18 19:06:32
ronr: Facebook does not allow nearly the amount of privacy and they search for people and groups thatdon't follow their guidelines.

2023 Nov 13 19:25:44
ronr: This link is an invitation for those that would like to follow us! https://discord.gg/WYfQM3TW

2023 Nov 13 19:25:04
ronr: Discord is new to most of us but there is a GREAT DEAL of privacy there.  You need to be invited to even see our page.  Download of the app is easy and there are plenty of directions

Can You Still Deny It?

Started by Lucky1, April 01, 2014, 11:02:47 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lucky1

#15
  Well I had another reply intended.  Instead I will ask about a few things that you said >@looneylane......
Quote from: looneylane on April 09, 2014, 01:54:26 PM
It all comes down to which researcher or scientist you wish to believe. I have lived in several areas of Canada and travelled throughout Mexico and all the stats show present climate and conditions have all occurred within the past 200 years in areas where documented. Most see it as cyclical not climate change. Recorded  stats from Europe would be helpful for this discussion as I know there are some stats going back a few hundred years on climate and temperatures. I like to look at the fossil record from the North that shows that at one point there was a tropical climate in some farther north areas. To me this shows climate change is nothing new and predates industrial man. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be more responsible though if anything it should make us aware of the risks associated with our behavior. just my little old opinion nothing more
Line1>>>>>>>> I beg you, tell me the name of that researcher, or report.  Because all these so-called researchers from the Heartland foundation have been discredited by all of their piers.  All 30 scientists they site, have been discredited for taking money from the foundations funded by energy companies.
    Line 2,3, 4 ,& ,5>> No, that will not do. Your European temps will not tell you enough, say all the experts anyway.
    Line 5 >>>>>>>> This is in direct conflict with the findings of the United Nations panel on international climate change. I believe they won the Nobel Peace Prize. They are headed by Dr. Chris Field. He's a senior fellow at Stanford University. He is a professor in that field!  The head scientist at the Heartland foundation, Jay Lear phD. He claims to be an expert in the field of hydrology.
    Line 5 >>>>>>>> Your opinion is in direct conflict with the findings of United Nations panel. Humans are the cause of climate change!
    Line 5 & 6 & 7>>>Yes! Our behavior has caused climate change that is the finding of the United Nations panel.
    Line 7 & 8>>>>>> Your opinion is based on what?. Who did the research, and did you research them?
@ looneylane  Thank you very much for the answers to these questions.
It sounds like you are calling heads AND tails. One is fact,one is fiction pick one.




Lonesome George

The UN, now there's a group a person can really trust.  LOL........  I guess the UN would only be happy if all the worlds people died and cows quit farting. No, that wouldn't work either, where would they get their billions of dollars from if all the people died.

Yes, people cause pollution.  Things in the US are vastly improved since the 60's.  Everything we buy or use cost a lot more because of energy standards and pollution standards. How about pushing China, India, Africa into cleaning up their act since that is where the worst offenders are.  I'm still trying to figure out the part is all climate change is man's fault, how come there are marine fossils in the sides of mountains and wolly mammoths found deep in ice sheets.  Or the discovery several years ago of a bunch of WW2 aircraft buried in around 45 feet of snow and ice after they landed there during the war.

Man needs to help as much as he can, and I do whay I can.  I recycle my plastics, metals, glass, paper, ect.  Wait and combine several short trips into one, keep the house temperatures warm in summer and cool in winter, that's about all I can do personally.  I'm paying three fortunes for electricity, gas, appliances, ect, because someone decided these things should use less electricity.  The unfortunate part is these "green" appliances do cost a lot more, but last 1/3 the time. 

Now what pollutes more, having to make and ship three appliances that use a little less electricity, of one that uses a little more and last 30 years?  Same with new diesel over the road trucks, Most are in the shop almost as much as they are on the road.  They pur out less pollution, that's a fact, but cost way more to buy, and use more fuel that a truck from 15 years ago.  So, if you take into consideration the pollution involved in extracting more fuel, and all the associated pollution in transportation and refining, it's about a wash.  How about everyone trying to get to 40 mpg with the new cars with all their emission equipment.  I was doing 45-50 mps in a Volkswagen Rabbit Diesel 25 years ago.  It seems we are going backward in the name of progress.

The problem with the over the top climate changers is it's all or nothing, and the US is always the bad guy, mostly because the greenies feel guilty and will pony up the most money.  Name just one thing the UN has done right, well, except for all the money different people have gotten caught embezelling from them through the years.  They seem to be very good at making money disappear with no results.


looneylane

Judith Curry:

How can science be certain about man's impact when over the last 15 years the natural impacts surprisingly have stopped the warming of the air, asked climate scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Institute of Technology, Chairperson of the Climate Forecast Applications Network."

We are not talking just european temps asian temps and recorded north american temps  El Nino patterns show similar weather for the past 300 yearsOutdoing Each Other's Predictions

In recent days, the debate over the IPCC forecast has heated up. Some 4,000 experts gathered in Melbourne, Australia last week for a meeting of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG). And it seems almost as though they are in competition to outdo one-another's predictions.

NASA climate researcher James Hansen, for example, warns in a paper published this month that sea levels could rise by five meters in the next 90 years -- nine times higher than the maximum cited in the last IPCC report. He insists that he has found indications that sea levels in the future could rise by as much as five centimeters per year.

Hansen, say some climatologists, is risking his reputation with such an extreme forecast. Three years ago, researchers found that a rise of over two meters per century is impossible because so much ice simply can't melt in such a short time. Furthermore, current measurements show a rise of just three millimeters per year.

An additional recent study, written by Jim Houston from the Engineer Research Center in Vicksburg, Mississippi and Bob Dean from the University of Florida in Gainsville for the Journal of Coastal Research, argues that sea levels have risen steadily for the last 100 years -- and that there has been no acceleration at all in recent years.

A reply was not long in coming. In the current issue of the Journal of Coastal Research, Stefan Rahmstorf, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research argues that Houston and Dean only included sea level calculations beginning in the 1930s. He says that if one chooses a year from the previous century, an accelerated rise can be seen.
Point 5 Of course my opinion is in conflict with it I rad all reports not just the handpicked ones that agree with my points?
5,6,7 Prove it! using all the research not just what review panel of 8 chose saying they used 5,000 scientists when only 8 picked what was in the report.
My opinion is based on an open mind and looking at the pros and cons of all researchers and what their political stake in the fight is. I could list researchers all day and it would not sway you just as looking at the UN report does not sway me because of bad research reporting. I do research as part of my regular course load I know how to review it and I know what peer review is the UN guys and Al Gore not quite as much in my opinion.

Heads or tails or head stuck in the sand? Lucky1 I keep my head up and my ears open! Do I think there are signs we are having a impact? Yes! Do I think it is what is being reported? not exactly so I will continue to read all relevant research and like a good scientist I will keep my mind open to changing my opinion based on facts presented not theories still in transition. They may peak my interest but they will not blind me.
This is my opinion and you have yours I won't accuse you of not doing your research or try to start a big disagreement over how we view and who we read. To me this is a red herring. It may have some basis in fact but is meant to distract us from the real problems. If we live in fear we never truly live and are more easily controlled. One of the greatest military tactics in the world is to get someone to make a decision or take a tactic thinking it is their own idea when all along it makes them take the path you want them to.
I believe this is a topic neither of us should engage in again as it could just go on and on and never help anyone truly just needs our support.
Cheers and peace from the Looney1

Lucky1

#18
    Science does not obey Presidents or Dictators. Science is what has been proven, not what is politically or
socially popular at the moment.
 Why do the Nobel prize winners say the opposite things as you?  Just to make coal oil & gas industry angry?
They could make millions as climate change deniers like CEO Jim Bast and his wife take over $250,000 per year from
the Heartland foundation.  Jim Bast was one of the last deniers of the harm of 2nd hand smoke, I wonder why?
Google some of these names you mentioned.


looneylane

Science should also not be about popular opinion. Al Gore is the poster child for what is wrong with the nobel prize. It is all politics on both sides and their are good and bad scientists and science on both sides of this debate. Let us leave it at that.

augoldminer

The US wants auto makers to sell 1 million electric cars in the next few years
These 1 million cars will slow down global warming by 1 HOUR.
Wooden Ships and Rusty Crusty Old Iron Men
USS Enhance MSO437
Sanity is for Nuts!

LizardKing

Quote from: augoldminer on April 17, 2014, 04:11:25 PM
The US wants auto makers to sell 1 million electric cars in the next few years
These 1 million cars will slow down global warming by 1 HOUR.

No problem, they can just modify the data to suit them and make it seem like a winning program!
Fibromyalgia is real, man made global warming is not...

Lucky1

#22
@LizardKing and augoldminer.   What if we got the power , Without the pollution ?
  Millions if not billions of people could drive vehicles that are charged by solar panels. :bighug:                                      @looneylane.  ...........
>Judith Curry she went to Georgia Institute of technology not Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
97% of climate change experts say it is because of human activity. She says we just don't know enough yet. That is one of the top 10 myths I will get into. But she is a youngster she is only 60 years old.
> Robert Dean Was born in 1930, It is safe to say he is well past his prime. Work with
>James Houston Was Not accepted by the scientific community because it used tidal gauges and satellite altimeters The Washington Times falsely suggested their study Refutes IPCC estimates. They said they were going to put it to the test they did not. 
Can you come up with any other names. professors or PhD's who are respected by their peers?
Myths of the climate deniers. The top 10 list.  And the all time favorite myth of climate change deniers.
1.The climate has changed before
2. It's the sun.
3. It's not bad.
4. No consensus yet.
5. It's cooling
6. Models are unreliable
7. Temperature records are unreliable.
8. Animals and plants will adapt.
9. It has not warmed since 1998.
10. Antarctica is gaining ice.
And the bonus lie is ............ We need more time to view all the arguments............
       

looneylane

1. there are examples of tropical plants in the arctic..deal with it
2.Solar changes are normal and have caused tidal issues when giant solar flares hit the atmosphere.
3. It has been happening since the beginning of time so it just is.
4. There is no consensus the Un and IPCC chose 8 people who agreed with their plans and let them choose which studies and research to include sand which to not include.
5. Some areas of the earth have shown dramatic cooling trends areas of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have had some of the coldest winters in 50 years.
6.Which models are you talking about? the tidal ranges have been used as guages for over 400 years by coastal peoples and show these trends are within historical records?
7. So are records reliable? I think the consensus on temperature changes are out as the monitoring stations have been cut back so the results are not as consistent is the main concern I hear not that records aren't useful?
8. Umhh again lets see tropical animals and plants that have been found in the fossil record in the north where some have adapted and others migrated to areas more hospitable to them so how is this wrong?
9. Ok prove that it has on a global scale? I have seen that from both sides of the debate some areas have cooled and others warmed the averages for both sides show the averages have not increased just that some areas have warmed and others cooled.
10 National Geographic themselves had a special on increasing ice shelfs and expanded ice fields so they are lying to the world on national TV? They are also one of the biggest proponents of Global warming and climate change theories.
Time is the great evaluator of wether this is new trend over a continuing trend so we need to be good stewards and reduce destructive behaviour wether it is proven we are causing extreme climate change or not as we need to leave this world habitable for the next generation of people and animals. We have had a big part in the destruction of habitat for wildlife.
A quote from the man where many of the current ideas came from on climate change.
Jeremy Paxman: "Sure. But you then, after publishing these apocalyptic predictions, you then retracted them.
The IPCC's report, Lovelock told BBC's Jeremy Paxman, "is very similar to the statements I made in my book about 8 years ago, called The Revenge of Gaia. It's almost as if they've copied it."  The following exchange then ensued: James Lovelock: Well, that's my privilege. You see, I'm an independent scientist. I'm not funded by some government department or commercial body or anything like that. If I make a mistake, then I can go public with it. And you have to, because it is only by making mistakes that you can move ahead."

I actually read both sided of this debate and could probably debate either side if I wanted to but each side has credibility issues depending on who you talk to or read so I choose to follow what is knowable and testable in my world and not just take either sides view. you seem to be asking me to "pick a side!" I have I pick the one I can verify the most and will not follow out of fear or apathy both kill our brains and our reasoning so I wont choose either side based on rebuttable "facts" given by both I will follow scientific theory and choose that which lines up with consistent testable facts. Oh yeah I do agree with the idea of getting the most power for the least pollution.  :)

ronr

We have already reduced pollution by 70% in the last ten years. 

Convincing China and the other developing nations to do the same will be nearly impossible.  I'm sure we all saw how bad it was during the Olympics in China and they had cleaned things up a bit for that.  Their pollution is our pollution and the whole world's once the jet stream carries it far enough.

We have only a short time's worth of modern recorded data without consulting fossil records.  Those fossil records show tropical plants buried in glaciers on mountain sides thousands of years ago.

Times are tough when "Happy Hour" is your nap.
My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!

Lucky1

#25
@ looneylane.       We agree on something!  Yes we had an Ice Age.   We have found the fossils of many animals and plants that have come into existence and gone extinct.   Yes we agree the earth has been changing for Millions of years.
     We also agree that ALL of our knowledge is incomplete, at best.  How could our knowledge ever be complete??
Incomplete records give incomplete information at best.  I am sure we can agree on that too.
I ask if you could give me the names of your experts. Your rhetoric was long but your list of names of experts was short, 4 names, of very old professors.   97% of scientists believe humans are the cause of climate change, 3% do not.  Where do you stand?  Can you name anyone (who is NOT on the payroll of Coal Gas & Oil industries) under 60 years old, who is PhD  in the field of Climatology that agrees with your assertions?
I bet for every name you come up with I can come up with nine or more that disagree.
We do not have a consensus is what the 3% keep repeating.  That has become the mantra, We do not have a consensus yet!  We will never have a consensus of all scientists! 
This is the excuse to do nothing.    If China wants to destroy the world should we help them?   Should we destroy the environment as much as they do, so wealthy people can make more profit?

Do two wrongs make a right?  Happy Easter and Passover everybody.







looneylane

LOL ok so no matter what I say you have a rebuttal that is just repeating what I said? We could pass stats back and forth ad nauseum and researchers and scientists. Where do you get 97 pct when even many listed on the IPCC and the UN panel disagree with the final draft? Oh well I will not trade back and forth when you have determined you have won no matter what facts or representatives are presented! Thanks for the Argumentem ad populum! I prefer to discuss things with people who haven't entrenched themselves so deep they cannot hear any other opinion that way we can both learn. I may fall into at times but I at least try to hear the other side

Lucky1

#27
  97% of scientific experts on climate change agree THIS problem with climate CHANGE is caused by human activity. Sorry if that was confusing. How many of these PhD's that are experts in the field that are under 60 years old?
I agree to keep asking you, you agree to keep denying my request. We agree once again.
We also agree that we are sick of this,AD NAUSEAM! LOL.  et tu looney I am compelled like a mad man to get the last word in.
  In the name of an Easter truce I concede the last word to you. LOL old man w-cane

mloved

I have enjoyed the great dialogue.  Wait, I want to get the last word in too.

Developing countries want their turn at polluting just as the modern countries have done when they were upstarts.

Since it's all about $$$, people can stop buying things made from those polluting-gone-wild companies and countries.  When there are no buyers, companies either change things or fold.

So many things, ingredients and parts of products you wouldn't suspect, comes from these countries.  And then, well known US and European companies also have factories there too.

The internet has been great for the proactive to bring awareness, action etc on polluting culprits.  The Chinese govt have extreme penalties for citizens that step out of line on the internet, but movements are still happening.

And let us not forget about the plutonium and other radioactve material, a lot in steel drums that corrode, dumped in the oceans and who knows where else.  Here's a link on wikipedia showing what countries, where dumped and reported amts.  Scroll down and see the chart with the flags - difficult pill to swallow. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste


And then,,, what is the cause of the big "dead" area in the Atlantic that can be seen from satellite?
Not my will, but Thy will be done

Imagine - John Lennon

Groundhog Day - the movie

Where the mind goes, the body will follow

Lucky1

#29
A Concise Observation!    But they are working to keep your trust, Powering the American dream. Right?
Plus, we are better than they are right?

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk