72
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 10:57 am
Quote:
An Iowa chemistry teacher was placed on administrative leave after saying on Facebook that he would not attend a rally featuring the climate activist Greta Thunberg because he didn’t “have my sniper rifle,” according to school officials and reports.

nyt
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 11:05 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
oralloy apparently has a problem, however, because he repeatedly feels the need to brag about his unsubstantiated score on an intelligence test in order to make up for the paucity of his reasoning and argumentation.

Setting the record straight after you and your leftist compatriots mischaracterize me is hardly bragging.

You cannot provide any examples of any flaws in my reasoning or my arguments.

You cannot provide any examples of a case where I talked about my superior intelligence as a way to shore up my arguments.


hightor wrote:
I'm just pointing out that claiming "I'm really smart" is a childish way to conduct oneself in a contentious discussion.

It's a perfectly reasonable response when you and your leftist compatriots mischaracterize my intelligence.


hightor wrote:
I'm not commenting on anyone's "belligerence", I'm criticizing oralloy's childishness.

Setting the record straight when you and your leftist compatriots mischaracterize me is hardly childish.

If anyone here is childish, it is you and your leftist compatriots for mischaracterizing the intelligence of anyone who does not share your demented ideology.


hightor wrote:
But one of these days he'll come to his senses and offer a meaningful response instead of bringing up his alleged genius status. He'll summon up his courage and forcefully respond, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."

There is no meaningful discussion to be had when you leftists contaminate a conversation with your mischaracterizations and personal attacks. But I think it is fair for me to set the record straight.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 11:20 am
@hightor,
Quote:
I'm just pointing out that claiming "I'm really smart" is a childish way to conduct oneself in a contentious discussion.

And I'm pointing out that you are exposing your propensity for ignoring the belligerence directed at oralloy and myself, and then focusing on his response. In case you still don't get it, I'm saying that your selective memory has apparently made you blind to the insult directed at myself and oralloy by a poster whose only point was to be insulting, and then to criticize any response to the belligerent one. And that's what makes you belligerent.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 11:37 am
@hightor,
Sounds like a nice family-values sort.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 11:57 am
@Glennn,
I'm not interested in being a thread mommy — "Now you two quit insulting each other. oralloy, it's not nice to brag. Olivier, you stand in the corner." I'm merely criticizing one character's overuse of a particular self-aggrandizing and intellectually lazy debate tactic, the tiresome "I'm smarter than you" line. Looks like you're the one who "doesn't get it".
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 12:20 pm
@oralloy,
You don't what Glenn's or my IQ are, and we don't know what your IQ is. Given your high degree of gullability, someone could have lied to you about it. In any case, only complete cretins doubt climate change nowadays.
Olivier5
 
  5  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 12:23 pm
@Glennn,
Debating with idiots is like casting pearls for swines.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 03:13 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
If you fail to do so this time, I will assume that you have nothing to substantiate your belief.

You have nothing to substantiate anything about your understanding of climate or science generally.

Quote:
What is also clear is that despite the IPCC's acceptance of the flaws in the dataset below, you maintain that their credibility remains intact. That's an indefensible proposition.

I have posted many things that are simply true. They don't require substantiation unless you don't understand basic science. You could google wikipedia entries on anything I've discussed and understand what I'm talking about for yourself. Instead you engage in some empty debate about sources to imply there is something being said that's unsubstantiated. You're just trying to argue a side in a political debate by posturing.

Instead of posturing and debating on a political level, why don't you just discuss your view of how climate works and see if there is something you are missing because you don't fully understand the science?

Quote:
Also, are you of the opinion that global warming does not precede increases in Co2?

There are various factors that can influence global temperature averages and climate generally. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not the only factors, but they have effects in addition to whatever all the other factors are doing.

If the sun, for example, flared up and caused the ground to heat up more and heat up the atmosphere more, that heating would be amplified by greenhouse gases because they blanket whatever heat is generated on the ground.

Not only CO2 but also H2O (in addition to all the other greenhouse gases, such as methane) are affected by various factors, including heat. Air holds more water as its temperature rises, and cooling is required for H2O to condense and precipitate out of the air.

With CO2, it can't condense except by trees and plants absorbing it. It can dissolve into waterways, but it will bubble back out like fizz coming out of soda pop.

You have to understand how the carbon-cycle and water-cycle works and their relationship to energy and heat generally. Then you will understand how other factors that influence climate cannot mute the effects of industrial energy use and land-clearing/paving/development.

livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 03:18 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
An Iowa chemistry teacher was placed on administrative leave after saying on Facebook that he would not attend a rally featuring the climate activist Greta Thunberg because he didn’t “have my sniper rifle,” according to school officials and reports.

nyt

Of course there is hate for Greta Thunberg, just as there is hate for every individual who dares to stand up for something unpopular.

Whether hate is directed against Greta Thunberg or Donald Trump, it's the same thing: fascists hammering down the nail that sticks out, or cutting down the grass that sticks up above the mower blade, or whatever other metaphor you use to describe it.

In short, it is just anti-individualist hate.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 03:38 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Given your high degree of gullability, someone could have lied to you about it.

You cannot provide any examples of gullibility on my part.

Note that "you lying about my position and beliefs" does not count as demonstrating my gullibility. My position and beliefs are what I express in my own posts.

And no, they were not lying about my IQ. I was taking two years of college in a single year, not studying, getting nearly perfect straight As, and routinely pointing out all of the errors that college professors were making in their chosen fields.

They were a bit curious how smart I was, so they offered to have me take an IQ test, and I did so.

If it upsets you that I'm so much smarter than you, go read one of those sour grapes books about how having a high IQ doesn't really matter in life. They are said to help people who don't have high IQs cope with their inferiority.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 03:39 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
I'm merely criticizing one character's overuse of a particular self-aggrandizing and intellectually lazy debate tactic, the tiresome "I'm smarter than you" line.

Considering that the direct subject of discussion is my intelligence, there is nothing intellectually lazy about me discussing my intelligence.

Considering that I am addressing the subject of my intelligence only after other people made it the subject of discussion, there is no self aggrandizement.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 07:44 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
I'm not interested in being a thread mommy

No one is asking you to. What I'm pointing out is your complaint about someone saying he's smarter than the guy who just called him and myself stupid. His post was as pointless as yours.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 07:53 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
I have posted many things that are simply true.

Sure you have . . . not. It remains clear that you are unable to produce the scientific studies that support the claim that anthropogenic Co2 is dangerous. I'll ask you one more time to cite a source to validate the notion that anthropogenic Co2 is dangerous? For instance, link me to scientific studies that lay out how the predicted dangers are occurring. If you fail to do so again, you will have simply failed again.

What is clear, however, is that despite the IPCC's acceptance of the flaws in the dataset below, you maintain that their credibility remains intact. That's an indefensible proposition.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Large gaps where there is no data and where instead averages were calculated from next to no information. For two years, the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were estimated from just one site in Indonesia.

Almost no quality control, with misspelled country names (‘Venezuala” “Hawaai” “Republic of K” (aka South Korea) and sloppy, obviously inaccurate entries.

Adjustments – “I wouldn’t be surprised to find that more than 50 percent of adjustments were incorrect,” says McLean – which artificially cool earlier temperatures and warm later ones, giving an exaggerated impression of the rate of global warming.

Methodology so inconsistent that measurements didn’t even have a reliable policy on variables like Daylight Saving Time.

Sea measurements, supposedly from ships, but mistakenly logged up to 50 miles inland.

A Caribbean island – St Kitts – where the temperature was recorded at 0 degrees C for a whole month, on two occasions (somewhat implausibly for the tropics)

A town in Romania which in September 1953, allegedly experienced a month where the average temperature dropped to minus 46 degrees C (when the typical average for that month is 10 degrees C).

______________________________________________________________________________________

Do you really not see the problem there?

Also, you forgot, again, to tell me whether or not you are of the opinion that global warming does not precede increases in Co2?
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 07:58 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
How the **** would I know what their "motivations" were?

Well let's see. Why were parts of the Report that were in the approved report deleted from the published version? Let's look at what was deleted, and maybe we can find a clue there.
____________________________________________________

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

____________________________________________________

I think that if the goal was to convince critical thinking-challenged folks like yourself that the sky is falling, then those omissions would certainly go a long way to that end.

You remind me a lot of the Sierra representative in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quOw4dI4Apw
Quote:
Given the preponderance of evidence the most charitable explanation is that they were simply mistaken.

They were deleted because they didn't support the bullshit.
Quote:
Unlike Glennn, I'm not a respected climatologist.

I'm not a climate scientist. What I did was quote some scientists who've made it clear that Cook misrepresented them by fraudulently using their Papers as an endorsement of anthropogenic global warming. It would appear that, not unlike others here, you believe that a meaningless sarcastic jab is a good substitute for actually rebutting the points I'm making.

Now, tell me how many scientists make up the 97% consensus that anthropogenic co2 is dangerous.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  5  
Reply Mon 7 Oct, 2019 11:17 pm
@Glennn,
Do you have any idea how the IPCC reports are created - how many academics from different instittutions and nations are involved, and all the different bodies of research they work in and on?

Just the fact that you say they've only published five reports since 1990 underlines you as a denialist hack. (Like I needed more evidence that after this time you give a link to a pro-nuclear source.)

https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/

I don't know what your game is - but I'm not playing it.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Oct, 2019 12:28 am
@oralloy,
Oh I can prove everything I say, but you can't understand the proof. So believe whatever uou want, if it makes you happier to think there's no existential climatic threat caused by humans
Olivier5
 
  5  
Reply Tue 8 Oct, 2019 12:45 am
Way to go, Vlad! Now that you're on board, maybe you could convince your orange minion that CC is real?

Quote:
Even Putin Is Now Worried About Climate Change

Russia has dropped its doubts about joining the Paris accords.

By Leonid Bershidsky, September 24, 2019

After years of procrastination, Russia, the world’s fourth-biggest greenhouse gas emitter, has officially joined the Paris climate agreement, which it signed in 2016. It shows that President Vladimir Putin’s views of climate change are evolving and he wants his government to do more.

Putin was never a fully-fledged climate change denier. Rather, he once didn’t take it seriously enough. Addressing a climate conference in 2003, Putin started by joking that Russia could perhaps use slightly warmer weather so people spend less on fur coats and grain harvests would increase. He went on to say, though, that certain areas of Russia are hit increasingly often with extreme weather phenomena and that “possibly global climate change” could result in major damage.

Whatever else the Russian president is, however, he’s not someone who ignores hard data, and these haven’t been in short supply. In its most recent annual climate report, the national weather service said the average temperature in Russia has been increasing by 0.47 degrees Celsius every 10 years between 1976 and 2018 – 150% faster than globally. Putin cited that surprising statistic several times this year, most recently in July. “Increasing production and the consumption of energy in traditional ways inevitably means new risks and further climate change,” Putin said.

At the same time, Putin the pragmatist has been worried about Russia’s inability to shake its fuel dependence. With the European Union, Russia’s biggest fuel export market, intent on sharply lowering emissions, this dependence is a brake on economic growth.  A paper published last year by the Russian economist Igor Makarov and two collaborators from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimated that if all countries perform according to their goals set under the Paris accord, Russia’s growth will slow by 0.2 percentage points to 0.3 percentage points a year. 

Meanwhile, Russian officials have been dragging their feet on the ratification of the Paris accord. Putin’s special representative for the environment, Sergei Ivanov, said earlier this year Russia should only do so once it has reliable data on how much carbon dioxide its forests absorb. The government planned to obtain the data by 2020. This was, most likely, just a pretext: Many in Russia, including in the influential fossil-fuel industry, have been arguing that U.S. President Donald Trump had the best interests of U.S. industry in mind when he pulled his country out of the accord. 

Putin appears to have rejected these arguments. On Monday, the same day as the United Nations climate summit, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a government resolution that, according to the Russian government’s website, obviates the need for parliamentary ratification. It means that as of today, Russia is bound by the agreement.

Given how little the Paris accord actually requires countries to do (they’re allowed to determine their own contributions based on the goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees by the end of this century), Russia doesn’t really have to worry about implementation costs. When it signed the agreement, it promised to keep greenhouse gas emissions to 75% of the 1990 level. That target is easy to meet, after the collapse of Soviet industry in the 1990s. Indeed, on CO2 emissions, Russia is doing better than Germany, not to mention the three bigger emitters – China, India and the U.S.

That doesn’t mean, however, that Russia is doing its bit for the climate today. According to the Climate Action Tracker, a research project backed by the German environment ministry, Russia is one of the world’s laggards. Merely joining the Paris accord as a symbolic step won’t change it; after all, only two major nations – the U.S. and Turkey – haven’t done so yet.

Putin’s decision to stop dithering and join the accord, however, is likely more than a symbolic step: It's a signal of the Kremlin's growing seriousness about the threat. As such, it doesn’t augur well for industry lobbyists, who have objected to the introduction of emissions pricing. Before the end of this year, the Russian parliament expects to see a government draft of a new emissions law, and it’s likely to hold some unpleasant surprises for the energy industry, especially for coal-burning power plants. Russia certainly has room to improve when it comes to emissions reduction. According to the consulting firm Enerdata, it has the secondmost energy-intensive economy in the world – after neighboring Ukraine.

The Russian government is about to try a climate-related set of goals to reduce the country’s fossil fuel dependence and improve the economy’s energy efficiency. Whether these intentions will lead to a drop in Russian emissions, or simply end up creating another tax on industry, is impossible to predict. But at least the evolution of Putin’s views on climate appears to be going in the right direction.


https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-24/putin-is-finally-worried-about-climate-change
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Tue 8 Oct, 2019 05:37 am
@Olivier5,
Scientists Discover Record Methane Emission in the Russian Arctic

Researchers were able to see the greenhouse gas bubbling through the seawater.

Quote:


A group of scientific researchers has discovered a record methane emission coming from the eastern Siberian Sea, expedition organizer Tomsk Polytechnic University (TPU) said in a statement.

The scientists found concentrations of the greenhouse gas — which can significantly influence the planet’s climate — up to nine times the global average.

“This is the most powerful gas fountain I've ever seen,” said Igor Semiletov, the head of the expedition and a TPU professor. “No one has ever recorded anything like this before.”


Nearly 80 scientists from Russia, China and Sweden traveled to the eastern Arctic to study methane emissions.

The statement said that while the researchers determined the exact location of the greenhouse gas fountain using instruments, it was so large that they were also able to see it bubbling through the seawater with their own eyes.

moscowtimes
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Tue 8 Oct, 2019 06:03 am
@hightor,
Plus the Amazon burning, the Indonesian peatland burning, etc. etc. etc. The problem gets more intractable by the day. We're screwed. Or more precisely our children and grand children are.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 8 Oct, 2019 06:51 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Oh I can prove everything I say, but you can't understand the proof.

With my 170 IQ I can understand anything that you are capable of posting. The reason why you don't back up your statements is because you can't.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 08:05:23