Do you agree or disagree with the title?
How is Trump clever, by inheriting 40 million and then going bankrupt four times? I see this as dumb not clever.
At least he's not a career criminal politician who has gotten rich off the backs of Americans like 98% of congress, and previous other politicians/bureaucrats who have done nothing but acquire more power and line their own pockets.
So Trump will make things better by being even worse than the career criminal politicians like Senator Inhofe?
Actually, I was thinking more of folks like Feinstein, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, just to mention a few...and yes, there are plenty of crooks on both sides of the aisle.
Bill Clinton is a way better president than Trump will be unless Trump suddenly reverses course, I'm still hopeful of that.
Clinton became a better president when he had the sense to move to the middle when 2 years into his first term, the republicans took the house and senate. And, it was Hilly I was referring to. Bill was simply a disgrace acting the way he did in the WH with Monica and no telling who else. Had he done that down the street at the Red Roof Inn, I wouldn't have cared nearly as much.
There is corruption in government, but turning to a candidate like Donald Trump won't solve the problem.
Well, I am going to disagree with you and give him a chance. So far, I'm liking some of the things I see him doing.
What do you like that he is doing thus far? Freezing the big lick regulation so we have more animal cruelty?
"President Donald J. Trump approved a Memorandum stopping the publication of the Federal Rule to remove the “Pads and Chains”. to abolish "Big Lick" animal Cruelty. It was set to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, January 24, 2017. "
Bill Clinton was very different from Trump on the issue of immigration.
"Immigration was a big issue [in discussions between myself and the president of Mexico]. Many Central Americans and people from the Caribbean nations were working in the US and sending money back home to their families, providing a major source of income in the smaller nations. The leaders were worried about the anti-immigration stance Republicans had taken and wanted my assurances that their would be no mass deportations. I gave it to them, but also said we had to enforce our immigration laws.
Source: My Life, by Bill Clinton, p.756 , Jun 21, 2004 "
Bill Clinton uses less provocative language. Thanks for showing me this, I really do want Trump to be a good president. I'm more of a one issue person anyways, I'm upset mostly by Donald's stance on anthropogenic climate change.
There is a clear consensus of experts, yet for some reason Trump denies this.
"But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."
Oh wait, Trump has filed for bankruptcy six times my mistake. As for turning into billions, he had massive help from his family.
"Trump has actually filed Chapter 11 six times, four times within two years in the 1990s, once more in 2004 and once more in 2009. " politifact.com
Trump was partly responsible for the bankruptcies and personally filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy six times.
As for the part about meat, that is an ad hominem attack. You are questioning me as opposed to my arguments.
"Ad Hominem Definition
Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments. "
Could also mean he was born into privilege and used his family's influence.
"Trump was born in New York City in 1946, the son of real estate tycoon Fred Trump. Fred Trump’s business success not only provided Donald Trump with a posh youth of private schools and economic security but eventually blessed him with an inheritance worth an estimated $40 million to $200 million. It is critical to note, however, that his father’s success, which granted Donald Trump such a great advantage, was enabled and buffered by governmental financing programs."
I'm just breaking the illusion that Donald Trump is a self-made man.
No, he hasn't done bad, he has done mediocre.
Miracles don't exist because God doesn't exist.
So, you think its funny that people are trying to dissuade immoral Islam practices? I think it is heroic for people to stand up to evil and put an end to the evils of religion.
The truth that God doesn't exist? Yes, I agree we will find the truth eventually. For now we are left with probability and it is extremely unlikely that God exists.
We are here due to a series of natural events. Big bang theory, abiogenesis, and evolution.
Only one can be correct. There is plenty of evidence for the scientific theories I mentioned above. What evidence do you have of God?
Negative, atheists and agnostic score highest on biblical knowledge tests. The fact that I know the Bible well reinforces the hypothesis that I am an atheist.
Jewish Faith 20.5
Mormon Faith 20.3
White Evangelical 17.6"
I agree 100%. And he's still whining about the crowd at the inauguration, and also still whining because he lost the popular vote to Hillary. The big baby needs to grow up, and tend to the business at hand.
Vainglorious ! Wow, that sounds like one of those words suddenly picked up by the news media and then used in every report and story on the topic for the next several weeks.
You know, when the left gets all uppity and feels a need to strut it's own perceived superiority they pull out the $0.50 words as if used in every day language.
Remember 'gravitas'? I think that one was dug up and used when George W. was running for office and the left - I mean the whole left were parroting how Bush lacked the gravitas to hold office. Every left wing propaganda spewer used the same language, over, and over again.
So, now we got vainglorious - like Obama wasn't the king of vanity!
So now your taking the reverse snob-ism route? That we should all talk like four year olds? As for being uppity, poor people were more likely to vote for Hilliary.
With cheap and easy access to the Internet and public libraries it is far easier to become informed than rich.
No, no, no - just pointing out your need to strut your own perceived superiority.
Lol, I know a lot of liberals think they are superior. I don't think of myself as superior, at least not consciously.
I agree with the narcissistic part for sure, he talks enough about himself. Xenophobic is evident from his talks about Mexicans, Muslims, and Chinese.
Vainglorious is apparent from his pictures. Ignorant, hmm climate change denier and anti-vaxxer, yes that qualifies. Two-year old, emotionally and metaphorically yes.
Do you know Donald Trump, or the caricature painted of him by the left? Because if you think they're being fair in their appraisal of him... I don't know, it's hard for me to see how anyone could think that unless they were completely blinded by bias themselves and unwilling to acknowledge reality.
The fact is, Trump is a very competent person who's well versed in business and fiercely loyal to the US public and his nation's founding ideals. If you saw his meeting with business leaders today, they spoke very positively about both the meeting and their outlook for the future. If he was as flawed a personality as some believe, things would not have gone so well, would they?
Obama sees the world through the lens of a social activist, an educator, a lawyer, Trump sees the world through the lens of a businessman. Well you can have whatever theories you like about social policy, it won't cost you money to be wrong as long as long as people agree with you. And law is basically a BS factory, nothing is real there.
In business, if what you do doesn't work, it can be financially devastating, you can't afford to be wrong very often. That factor keeps business people in touch with reality. They cannot afford to buy into BS, so they learn to smell it a mile off.
Where do you get the idea that Donald Trump is competent? Trump inherited 40 million from his father and went bankrupt six times. As for a business venture, have you seen the documentary you've been Trumped?
Not only was the business a failure, but he destroyed a scientific site of interest and annoyed Scotland. That's an epic fail.
As for business leaders speaking positively of them, they are probably happy about his climate change denier stance. Also, Trump talked about tax cuts for the rich.
In other words Trump says science, poor people, minorities, LGBT, environment, and animals don't matter.
I was willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but he went too far for me already. I can't just stuff my feelings in a box and ignore Trump destroying this country. I wouldn't be me if I sat on my hands. It would be like asking for a fish not to swim.
In fact, I'm going to call the switchboard soon and tell my congressman how upset I am about Trump putting the kibosh on regulation that stops the big lick animal cruelty.
"HOLD THE PRESSES!!! – President Donald J. Trump Puts “The Kibosh” On Publishing The Federal Regulation (Rule) To Eliminate “Big Lick” Animal Cruelty On Tuesday, January 24, 2017"
Trump has never gone bankrupt, a few of his hundreds of businesses have been reorganized under Chapter 11 over the years. Big difference.
Climate change has been happening literally forever, I don't think a tax is going to change that. And the scientific data shows that temperature changes drive changes in CO2 concentrations, not vice versa. Whenever CO2 and temperature trend in opposite directions, CO2 ALWAYS turns to match the temperature trend, not the other way around. Personally, I believe we've changed weather patterns via deforestation.
Trump has never said that science, poor people, minorities, LGBT, environment, and animals don't matter, in fact he's said the opposite.
As for big lick, I had no idea about it. Did a little digging, seems like a ban is appropriate, I'm with you on that. Trump hasn't killed it outright, it just got scooped up in a review of pending legislation. Hopefully it is passed.
“The White House ordered an immediate freeze of pending regulations on Friday night until they can be reviewed by the Trump administration." http://www.billygoboy.com/2017/...nuary-24-2017/
If Trump can unfreeze the big lick regulation, he will have temporarily regained my trust. I really am hoping that he will turn out to be a good president.
As for climate change, there can be multiple causes, deforestation, Co2, methane, and more.
The scientific evidence points to Co2 being the main driver. I am well prepared to defend global climate change.
Milankovitch cycles cause the temperature to increase which causes a positive feedback cycle via Co2 being released from the ocean into the atmosphere.
"As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).
The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming."
Have you ever wondered why people like Al Gore never seem concerned about other environmental issues? Clearly there are other problems besides global cooling, uh, warming, no, climate change.
The 1977 cooling trend was caused by forcing of aerosols.
"Most mentioned is Rasool 1971 which projected that if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 fold, it may trigger an ice age. While Rasool underestimated climate sensitivity to CO2, its basic assertion that the climate would cool with a dramatic increase of aerosols was correct. "
Bah, it's nonsense, the climate changes. If it's not getting warmer it's getting colder, and historically, we have a LOT more to fear from an ice age than a warm period.
The goal is to make you afraid, so you react the way they want you to. They're just sheep dogs, they bark and the herd reacts. Sheep aren't in a position to understand the game that's being played though, we are.
The earth's heat comes from the sun, and the single biggest thing we as humans can do to alter the way sunlight meets the surface of the planet is to alter the surface of the planet. We do that a lot. Almost everything we do to the surface of the planet makes it add more heat to the atmosphere than it originally did. Go down the list, roads, buildings, farms, logging, mining, the whole nine yards. If it was forested, which most of it was, it is now hotter since humans changed it. I mean, we're talking about tens of degrees difference across a large percentage of the earth's land mass, of course that's going to effect the climate. But that doesn't give them any excuse to extract money or gain power, does it?
Ah, but if it's caused by carbon dioxide, well, A, prove it, most people wouldn't know how, so they aren't in a position to dispute it. And B, everything we do makes carbon dioxide, that gives them a huge opportunity to increase taxes on everything we do.
I used to get very angry at climate change denial statements like yours, now I'm jaded from arguing with so many.
" If it's not getting warmer it's getting colder" Maze
No, we have had two warm winters in a row. See the chart at the epa.gov link? The sea temperature rate has been increasing for a while now.
"The goal is to make you afraid, so you react the way they want you to. " Maze
The same could be said of the fossil fuel industry.
"But that doesn't give them any excuse to extract money or gain power, does it? " Maze
It would, then reforestation efforts would be pushed.
"A, prove it" Maze
Sure, from the 2nd link you can see Co2 is 81% of greenhouse gases.
"An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming." skepticalscience
"B, everything we do makes carbon dioxide, " Maze
That includes breathing, I doubt they will tax breathing in oxygen and exhaling Co2.
Alright, look at this climate graph and show me the part where the climate wasn't getting warmer or colder.
Also, if it was a stock chart, would you bet it's going up from here, or down? It looks pretty obvious to me.
Climate is naturally changing all the time yes, but right now sun activity is at a low. The planet should be getting colder due to low sun activity, but the reverse is true, the planet is getting warmer.
"The sun's energy has decreased since the 1980s but the Earth keeps warming faster than before."
2011: "2010 was coldest year since 1986 says Met Office"
2014: "The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming"
2014: "Brrr: Contiguous U.S. Is in Coldest Year Since 1997"
2014: "One of the Coldest Winters in 20 Years Shatters Snow Records" http://www.accuweather.com/en/w...er-we/24831365
2016: "‘I want to leave': Alaska has coldest weather in years, wind chill of minus-74"
2016: "September 2016 coldest in South West Australia since 1897"
This is why they changed the name from global warming to global climate change. This is called a polar vortex. I was surprised at first by the polar vortex.
"Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap"
Also, for the sources claiming lower temperatures, what did they measure? Most of the warming has been at the ocean's surface in Antarctica.
So, if they only measured the land temperature in some part of the planet that the temperature happened to go down, this would be a cherry picking fallacy.
Take the first link for example. "Last year was the coldest in Britain since 1986"
This is why the event is called global climate change, you can't just look at one specific land area, Britain, and make broad conclusions that are accurate about the rest of the world.
"Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument."
The very fact that they started out by calling it global warming, then had to switch it to climate change because it wasn't warming should tell you it's a load of bs.
I mean, the entire concept is predicated on the notion that they have scientific insight into future climate conditions, they had to change the name because the results of their predictions weren't matching REALITY. If they were getting it wrong then, what makes you think they're getting it right now?
Science is cumulative like math or a pyramid. The evidence builds upon itself. When a scientific hypothesis is presented with contradictory evidence, the theory is either A. Discarded or B. modified to fit the parameters of the new evidence.
In this case it was B. Even so, the warming trend still holds true, a polar vortex or two doesn't destroy the theory. As more evidence supports the hypothesis, the less likely the theory will be dis-proven.
Let's say there is a 99% chance that man made global climate change with a primary driver of Co2 is real and a 1% its false. We have to take measures to mitigate the risk.
All they have proven so far is that they can't accurately predict future changes in climate. That's not a basis to create policy.
I think 99% accuracy qualifies as accurate. There is ample evidence. Just the amount of co2 ppm.
As of Jan 25th 2017 the ppm is 407.29 according to co2.earth .com
The temperature has risen 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
"Why Hasn't The Earth Warmed In Nearly 15 Years?"
First, you haven't proven that there has been no warming for 15 years. That's an appeal to authority. Second, Patrick Michaels is not to be trusted.
"Patrick Michaels (born 1950) is a climatologist at George Mason University, though he is currently listed as a "Distinguished Senior Fellow in Public Policy" at the university and a "Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies" at the Cato Institute. Michaels used to be the token global warming denier among real climatologists, though he seems to have been replaced by Richard Lindzen in more recent years due to some of his notorious cases of screw-ups and outright fraud, such that he has lost any semblance of plausible deniability at this point. "
Could you watch this and tell me what you think about it?
First I noticed Patrick Moore, a known fossil fuel industry shill.
"Moore Claims There Is "No Scientific Proof" That Humans Are "Dominant Cause" Of Global Warming. On February 25, Patrick Moore, who used to work at Greenpeace before becoming a communications consultant for the nuclear and fossil fuel energy industries, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to deny that humans are the dominant cause of climate change:"
Moore claims the Earth would die from a lack of Co2? Are you kidding, humans exhale Co2 just for starters.
"An average human exhales around 2.3 pounds of CO2 in a day."
As for Greenpeace, I don't agree with everything they say.
Just because Greenpeace has their flaws, don't make the climate change deniers correct. I've watched other climate change denial videos, and they always make extraordinary claims, with little to no evidence to back them up. This video thus far is no exception.
This is called an appeal to authority fallacy.
The appeal to (false or irrelevant) authority is a fallacy in which a rhetor seeks to persuade an audience not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for the famous. Also known as ipse dixit and ad verecundiam."
Now, Patrick Moore goes into NASA making some claim about life on Mars. To the best of my knowledge there is soil bacteria on Mars, which is life, even if it is very primitive life.
Then, Patrick Moore shows a graph which using a Cherry picking fallacy. Despite, the vast majority of evidence showing that Co2 and temperature are strongly correlated, Moore focuses on the few anomalies.
Then, Moore talks about our ancestors surviving these changes. First, all the changes that were slow gave a chance for the species to adapt and evolve. Second, any rapid change was correlated with mass extinction.
Then, Moore goes into the Co2 lags temperature argument. This is because of changes in the Earth's tilt causing a slight temperature increase, which causes the ocean to release Co2 into the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas effect causes temperature to raise more, bringing us out of the ice age.
I notice Moore uses strong provocative language, the word fraud in relation to Al Gore. This shows bias on Moore's part.
Next, Moore goes into the 1940-70s cooling trend caused by aerosol forcing.
Now, Moore makes a rare argument that plants enjoy the extra Co2. While this is true to extend, the change is too fast for most plants to adapt. Invasive species and weeds benefit the most.
Patrick Moore makes a very weak case for needing more Co2. Let's assume for a second that there is an ideal level of human Co2 production strictly from an environment standpoint. That level would probably be met just from humans breathing and exhaling Co2. The problem is Co2 production is above that.
I'm not sure what the point of oil sands in Canada is. Seems like a red herring.
Thanks for sharing the video Maze, now at least I know one person who is the source of a lot of misinformation. An agent of Satan, if such a create exists, Patrick Moore.
An agent of satan? I thought those guys were already in charge, and had been for some time. Moore pointed out that the modern environmental movement has taken on an anti-human agenda, but he didn't need to, I can see it for myself. Which side is anti-human, God or satan?
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
-Jesus (John 10:10)
Personally I think Moore makes some valid points. Climate scientists don't generally talk about time frames beyond a few hundred thousand years, but we know that's a relatively short blip in the earth's history. When you zoom out and look at the big picture, on the scale of millions of years, the notion that the earth is abnormally warm or has abnormally high CO2 concentrations is absurd, we're nowhere near either of those things. In fact, at the peak of the last ice age, CO2 concentrations fell to within 10 ppm of the 150 ppm threshold at which plants cannot survive.
In terms of hard evidence, we know plants are the basis for all life on earth, and we know plants start to die at 150 ppm of CO2 and do best at about 2000 ppm. We're at 450 ppm, is that high or low on the CO2 scale, in terms of what's beneficial for life? Because the better plants grow, the better the rest of the food chain grows.
Thanks for continuing the conversation.
I had some intuition that environmentalism and animals was somehow associated with anti-human in the minds of some people. Despite, that this makes no logical sense. That humans need the environment to survive and non-human animals play a vital part in the ecosystem.
Furthermore, the Bible teaches us stewardship of the land and to respect animals. What it really boils down to is who is telling the truth.
In simplest terms, the devil is a liar. Nothing more, nothing less. Followers spread his lies. So, whichever faith or lack of faith you believe in simply by devoting yourself to the truth, you are anti-lies and thus anti-devil.
Let me reiterate, it is not the amount of Co2 that is the problem, it is the rate of change. Let's take a mundane example. Imagine you have some houseplants. If you shock your plants by subjecting them to extreme changes the plants will become stressed.
Enough stress will cause the plants to wilt. Finally, with enough stress you will guarantee the death of even the most hardy plant. Yet, the same plant when exposed to the same conditions will receive less stress if the change is more gradual.
An extreme change would be keeping your plant in the dark, cold, and dry refrigerator then putting your plant out in the bright, hot, windy, and wet summer rainstorm conditions.
Yet, if you broke the change into increments. Taking your plant from the cold and dark fridge to the temperate and dark inside of your house this would give the plant a better chance.
The same with Co2. Let's say that plants and animals do best at 2000ppm. Well, we want to achieve that goal slowly and allow ecosystems to adapt rather than become stressed and die.
"A large number of ancient mass extinction events have been strongly linked to global climate change. Because current climate change is so rapid, the way species typically adapt (eg - migration) is, in most cases, simply not be possible. Global change is simply too pervasive and occurring too rapidly."
We've had less than a degree of temperature change in the last century, that's remarkably stable if you ask me. And plants do best at 2000 ppm right now, without any need to adapt to the change.
That's not to say that humans have been good for the biosphere as such, we've done a lot of damage, but CO2 production is the one generally positive thing we've contributed to the planet because it makes plants grow better.
I personally don't think it's a coincidence that the big, well funded environmental movement served to us on a platter attacks the one positive effect we're having as a species while ignoring every destructive thing we're doing. You point out that the devil is a liar, how much more satisfying of a lie could there be than that?
"More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily good for plants."
There are many other factors like predators and nutrient availability.
Plant Growth and Carbon Dioxide for Maximum Yield
"... as you begin to increase plant growth and Carbon Dioxide levels you will reach a point where temperature becomes the limiting factor. In order to benefit from the highest levels of CO2 supplementation (1500-2000 ppm), you actually need to run your garden area warmer than normal"
The New “Skeptical Science” Website: What is Going On Here?
"As a scientist (physicist), I decided to check it out... "
The guide is for indoor plants. You know the term "hot house orchid?" The phrase means that an orchid, one of the most fragile plants, can live in an ideal artificial environment.
As seen here your link proves my point further. "Plants will use extra water and nutrients under these conditions, so make sure they are available!"
Those extra water and nutrients aren't always available.
I've read over the masterresource.org site and was not impressed.
I'll run through the claims one by one.
Skeptical science's name. Yes, science is skeptical by nature, and here's why the website is called what it is.
"This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?"
"the site is actually focused against skeptical scientists — specifically those who have the temerity to question anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Hmmm."
The reason is below, so called skeptics are really practicing denial by embracing any argument against climate change, no matter how weak.
"Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming"
The 97% consensus is correct. You can look up the abstracts yourself. Alternatively, you can read peer reviewed articles affirming the consensus.
Then, John Droz, Jr. doesn't seem to understand what a consensus is. A consensus is a dictatorship determined by evidence. Furthermore, Droz doesn't back up his claims about Galileo’s time and ulcers.
Furthermore, I wouldn't call the so called experts before Galileo scientists.
As for non-climatologists signing a petition, the problem is many of them were in unrelated fields. Imagine a heart surgeon performing brain surgery or visa-versa. Or even a dentist performing brain surgery. After-all a dentist is a doctor right?
The more qualified the scientists were, the more they agreed. The highest qualified scientists are climate scientist. That's where the 97% come from.
Would you want a bunch of skin doctors and dentists signing a petition on how brain or heart surgery is done?
"Further, if Mr. Cook is saying we should listen only to specialists, and if Mr. Cook is not a specialist in climate science, what is his authority for reaching such a conclusion? Should I also ask my barber who to listen to?"
Cook is quoting peer reviewed journals from specialists in the field.
"n other words, the 31,000± petition signers have concluded that the methodology for supporting AGW was more political than scientific." Droz
Why don't they publish their work in a peer review journal then? They can't because they have no evidence of their claim and it would be discarded.
"in their assertions that “consensus” trumps the Scientific Method; that computer models are superior to empirical evidence; "
This is just false. A consensus is reached when multiple lines of evidence reach the same conclusion. There is enough empirical evidence without the computer models.
Furthermore, the author does not explain how climate scientists deviated from the scientific method.
In brief, I see a bunch of scientific evidence from climate scientists who reached a 97% consensus printed in peer reviewed journals using the scientific method. Then, I see a random person criticize them not using the scientific method, no peer reviewed journals, no empirical evidence, and making bold claims based upon misrepresentation and cherry picking of the data.
Oh btw, Droz is unqualified and bias.
" Yet this semi-retired real-estate investor and self-described environmental advocate spends much of his time quietly and effectively plying the halls of power in Raleigh, N.C., deflecting credit and avoiding the spotlight. "
"'Science under assault'
Droz has presented his slideshow, and others like it, including "Science Under Assault," to the North Carolina Legislature and in town-hall style meetings across the country. Those talks are often sponsored by conservative and libertarian-leaning groups such as the American Tradition Institute, a think tank known for hounding climate scientists with enormous data requests."
In summary, we have sound science being attacked by an unqualified individual with a dogmatic attachment to libertarianism named John Droz Jr.
Thanks for the read and continuing the discussion.
[Forbes] Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.
Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.
Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.
"The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. "
You have just proved a significant portion of my side of the debate. Let me reiterate because this is important, most people on both sides, the climate scientists and the deniers believe humans have caused some global warming.
I want to draw attention to the language.
Pro: anthropogenic climate change view point:
Climate scientists versus deniers
Con: man-made climate change view point:
Alarmists versus skeptics.
I assert that the Pro side is using the correct language and that the Con side is using misleading language.
The skeptic thought process looks at the full body of evidence and then comes to a conclusion. The polar opposite is the thought process of denial. A conclusion is reached and then looks for evidence to support the conclusion.
Denial is the anti-thesis of skepticism. Denial is a form of cognitive bias. Note, denial is not always bad. That cognitive bias acts as a shield so we don't change our minds too quickly.
I believe humans have altered the climate, and it's no great mystery how we did it. We altered the surface of the planet and therefore we altered the way sunlight meets the surface of the planet. Since essentially all the heat we have on earth arrives as solar energy, what it makes contact with is important. Hot pavement can fry an egg, while a few meters away the same pavement is cool to the touch because it's shaded by mature trees.
The changes we make to the surface of the planet have a very predictable effect on weather patterns and therefore on climate. I learned about it in Air Cadets because we studied meteorology. Naturally, being able to read atmospheric conditions and anticipate how the landscape effects weather is important when you're flying.
In broad strokes, some surfaces get hot in the sun and some don't, those that do get hot create rising columns of hot air that pilots call "thermals". When you're looking for thermals, you look for freshly tilled land, built up areas, dry fields, anything that gets hot in the sun. Forests and marshes never get hot enough to generate thermals. When you understand this, it's easy to see that we've made big changes, because pretty much everything we humans do to alter the landscape creates thermals where there were none before. Farms, logging cuts, cities, roads etc are all sources of thermals.
Crucially though, they can't tax that, and they can't eliminate it either, it's just a fact of our existence. I mean, there are some things we could do to mitigate it, but it's not something we can stop. So there's no money in it.
You indicate that "thermals" are causing climate change. Do you entirely reject that Co2 has a warming effect on the planet or do you simply think Co2 has less effect than what Nasa has told us?
I can prove both, I just don't want to waste a bunch of time proving something you already know. Carbon dioxide is an invisible gas that traps infrared but not the visible light spectrum. This acts like a blanket.
"Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change. "
The principle greenhouse gases are nitrogen and water vapor. It's part of why forest makes climate more temperate, it releases water vapor which retains heat.
I was looking up nitrogen as a greenhouse gas, and I found this:
[Mother Nature Network]
Nitrogen, the other greenhouse gas
Vehicle exhaust, power plant exhaust, and large-animal feeding operations are all sources of nitrogen emissions, according to the report. These increased nitrogen loads from power plants and other sources are causing smog, acid rain and global warming.
Unlike carbon dioxide, nitrogen doesn’t stick in the atmosphere for long periods of time. Instead, it precipitates out within a few days as ammonia-laden rain — a mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen that fertilizes plants as it falls to the ground.
Now, nitrogen pollution in rainwater runoff is a serious issue leading to algal blooms etc, but nitrogen gas?
Nitrogen ... is the most plentiful element in Earth’s atmosphere... About four-fifths of Earth’s atmosphere is nitrogen
There are other greenhouse gases. Nevertheless Co2 is the leading cause of climate change.
"this happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases."
"While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing."
I'm aware of what their conclusions are, I just think they're wrong.
Here's a video from the Council on Foreign Relations talking about deforestation and weather. Bear in mind I think the CO2 aspect of it is meaningless, but pay attention to the heat and moisture factors.
"Plants pull water out of the ground and release it as vapor through a process called transpiration."
"The vapor rises and forms rainclouds. The clouds that form above the Amazon bring rain to regions beyond the forest. They carry more water than the Amazon river."
"Deforestation reduces the amount of moisture in the atmosphere. This effects regional precipitation patterns and can cause drought beyond the Amazon."
If it can effect local weather, and deforestation is happening globally, there's your climate change.
Some level of climate change is caused by deforestation, but what about desert areas like Antarctica? There is no trees in a desert, yet the temperature is rising.
"The first piece of that research, which looked only at the month of July, found that deforestation is changing weather patterns around the mountain but not (at least in July) at the peak, according to Dr. Udaysankar Nair, a research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center."
Deforestation affects local climate, but not global climate.
There may be no trees in Antarctica, but there are no cars there either. Deforestation is global, so it's effects are global.
Try this some time, go on Google Earth and try to find a forest that isn't riddled with clear cuts.
When you look at the trees, the few dark areas you see are old growth, the lighter colored areas are newer growth, and of course the brown areas are fresh cuts. A couple hundred years ago that was all old growth.
Deforestation is not global. Just for starters 70% of the Earth's surface is water. I may be wrong, but last time I checked trees don't grow in water, but soil.
"About 70% of the earth’s surface is covered with water."
Furthermore, deserts make up 1/3 of the land area.
" Deserts actually make up 33%, or 1/3rd of the land’s surface area."
Deforestation cannot be global.
Deforestation is a global problem because it's happening in every forest on earth, and I think you know what I meant. Look at that forest, it's basically clear cuts and more clear cuts, there's basically nothing left of the original forest. Add cities and farms and you have humans making massive changes to the surface cover of the planet and thus to the way sunlight meets the planet. It's not insignificant, it's huge.
Glaciers melting also effect the surface of the Earth. Yet, you haven't shown any hard data on how much changing the surface of the Earth matters. I think your jumping to conclusions.
"Description: Drawing a conclusion without taking the needed time to reason through the argument."
Co2 on the other hand can be measured via satellites.
"Data from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels measured between 1 October and 11 November."
I found a video to explain what your talking about.
Fact: The Urban Heat Island effect is small.
Myth: The Urban Heat effect is huge.
Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions.
That guy completely ignores deforestation as a contributing factor, it's like he thinks humans haven't done anything but build some cities. Also, heat rises, so if you create a hot spot, like a city, a farm or a logging cut, the hot air rises up to form clouds and cooler air flows in from the surrounding area. That guy talks like heat just hangs around in a bubble, like hot air doesn't rise, he's ignoring basic laws of thermodynamics.
I wanted to comment on the video, but comments are disabled. A sure sign of fraud and bullshit, because scammers never want to be called out on their scamming.
Here's a little info about thermals, the result of hot spots like cities. http://bookergc.blogspot.ca/200...and-decay.html
And bear in mind, we think of thermals as the result of solar heating, and most of them are, but cities are releasing stored heat from fossil fuels, heat that wouldn't normally be there. About 70% of the fuel your car burns does nothing but heat the air. And every single BTU used to heat every home winds up in the environment too, that's why you have to keep adding more.
If you ignore the CO2 hocus pocus and just look at it as a thermal issue, it makes perfect sense.
There is less trees in the cities than in rural areas. The video is from the youtube channel of Queensland Australia, a top 50 university. I doubt they would allow a scam artist to create videos. Queensland university has a reputation to protect.
A top 50 university
UQ ranks in the top 50 as measured by the Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities. The University also ranks 51 in the QS World University Rankings, 52 in the US News Best Global Universities Rankings, 60 in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings and 55 in the Academic Ranking of World Universities.
He's a scammer. Or he's ignorant. He failed to address the vast scope of the changes we've made to the surface of the planet and he also failed to address basic thermodynamic issues. A "heat bubble" isn't a thing, a hot area makes a thermal. Why not call it a thermal? Maybe it's because thermals pull cooler air from around them in as the hot air rises in a column over the heated area. That's what happens, it's well established, pilots use it. That means if you want to measure the extra heat, you have to measure it in very particular places or you won't find it.
He also talks about "jumping to conclusions" which is precisely what so called "climate scientists" do. They've decided that the problem is CO2 and no amount of contradictory data can dissuade them from the conclusion they insist on supporting. Historically, changes in temperature lead changes in CO2 by hundreds of years. That right there means there's no way around it, temperature changes have historically driven changes in CO2, not the other way around, so there is ZERO credible evidence that CO2 levels have any effect at all on temperature, because if it did, it would lead, not lag.
Furthermore they insist on disregarding HUGE changes we've made to the relationship between the sun and point at which it meets the atmosphere. It used to land on trees, they consumed the sun and used vast amounts of solar energy to pull water from deep in the ground and evaporate it to KEEP THEMSELVES COOL. All that, totally ignored, THE PROBLEM IS DEFORESTATION.
Fact: The upper atmosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere is heating. No natural phenomenon can explain this. Thus Co2 must be the cause.
Myth: Thermals and deforestation are the primary cause of climate change.
Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions.
Thermals and deforestation wouldn't explain why the upper atmosphere is cooling. The answer is green house gases. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere. This is why there is cooling in the upper atmosphere, the heat can't escape.
Co2 causes temperature to increase. Note, I've already addressed this issue before
"Then, Moore goes into the Co2 lags temperature argument. This is because of changes in the Earth's tilt causing a slight temperature increase, which causes the ocean to release Co2 into the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas effect causes temperature to raise more, bringing us out of the ice age. " vegan
Furthermore we know how Co2 affects infrared. , "Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating."
Finally, Venus has lots of greenhouse gases and is very hot.
Venus's atmosphere consists mainly of carbon dioxide, with clouds of sulfuric acid droplets. Only trace amounts of water have been detected in the atmosphere. The thick atmosphere traps the sun's heat, resulting in surface temperatures over 880 degrees Fahrenheit (470 degrees Celsius). Probes that have landed on Venus have not survived more than a few hours before being destroyed by the incredibly high temperatures."
Once again you ignore the sun, Venus is MUCH closer to the sun. Wouldn't that make it a lot hotter regardless of the composition of the atmosphere?
Look, I know your position on climate change and you know mine. I've heard all the same nonsense that you have; you believe it, I don't. I simply observe the world around me, and what I see provides ample explanation for a changing climate. None of what I've observed is reflected in the nonsense we've all been fed, in fact they do their best to explain it away. But they never try to explain CO2 caused warming away despite the fact that there is substantial scientific reason to doubt it has any effect at all. The primary greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor.
But hey, if you think I'm full of crap, cut down every tree in your yard and see if it effects the climate in your yard. I bet it will.
Thank you for continuing to have a respectful and intelligent conversation.
Venus is similar to Earth in distance to the sun.
"Venus and Earth are similar in size, mass, density, composition, and distance from the sun. There, however, is where the similarities end."
The distance alone cannot explain the temperature differences between Earth and Venus.
"I simply observe the world around me, and what I see provides ample explanation for a changing climate." Maze
Your jumping to conclusions. A person could just as easily guess another incorrect answer, an increase in sun activity is responsible or the correct answer that Co2 is causing the heating.
" But they never try to explain CO2 caused warming away despite the fact that there is substantial scientific reason to doubt it has any effect at all." Maze
What is this substantial scientific reason to doubt? The science is settled. There is a 97% consensus along climate change scientists. These are the experts of experts. Climate change is political debate not science.
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."
"But hey, if you think I'm full of crap, cut down every tree in your yard and see if it effects the climate in your yard. I bet it will." Maze
I can verify that by simply walking next doors to my neighbors who have already done that. :( As seen by the Urban Heat Island effect cutting down trees does matter locally, yet not globally, except for the carbon sink effect.
Venus is about 108 million miles from the sun.
Earth is about 150 million miles from the sun.
Mars is about 220 million miles from the sun.
Unsurprisingly, Venus is hot, Mars is cold and Earth is just right. Does that seem like a coincidence to you?
The concept of a scientific consensus is nonsense, scientific advancement requires challenging accepted orthodoxy, not blindly adhering to it because it's popular. At one time, the scientific consensus was that the earth is flat.
If cutting down trees made your neighbor's yard less temperate, what is the logical result of massively deforesting the planet? I mean, there's barely an old growth tree left in existence. Scroll up to the picture I posted and zoom in on it. Better still, go on Google Earth and look at any forest anywhere and you'll see we have cut down a LOT of trees. Here's the key though, as obvious as it is, THEY IGNORE IT. Your neighbor's yard isn't a little warmer on a sunny day, it's A LOT warmer, right? They IGNORE that. Think about it.
Distance from the sun matters, yet then why is Mercury on average have a lower temperature than Venus?
"Because the planet is so close to the sun, Mercury's surface temperature can reach a scorching 840 degrees Fahrenheit (450 degrees Celsius). However, since this world doesn't have a real atmosphere to entrap any heat, at night temperatures can plummet to minus 275 F (minus 170 C), a temperature swing of more than 1,100 degrees F (600 degree C), the greatest in the solar system."
Yet again your argument jumps to conclusions.
In regards to the scientific consensus on Flat Earth, you have yet to prove that. I don't even think scientists existed back then. Furthermore, your argument fails to account for the strict standards required to come to a scientific consensus.
I think you kind of see where I'm coming from. If nobody had ever told you about CO2 and I told you that deforestation had changed the weather, you'd think it was perfectly logical, trees have a big impact on climate, you've observed that for yourself. But you've been convinced that it's a gas that made the climate more extreme, and now nobody can tell you any different.
Until technology advances, or more particularly until more advanced technology is released to the public, we need fossil fuels. We don't strictly need to deforest the land, there are other ways of making boards than just trees. Hemp fiber is much more efficient from a land use perspective than wood, and pretty much everything that can be made from wood can be made from hemp. If we did nothing but let the forests grow back, the climate would become cooler and more moderate again.
"But you've been convinced that it's a gas that made the climate more extreme, and now nobody can tell you any different. " Maze
I would change my mind instantly if one piece of solid evidence was given to the contrary.
To challenge Co2's heat warming effect is to challenge all of physics. Scientists have known about Co2's properties for over 100 years. W/o this knowledge the air force's heat seeking missiles wouldn't work.
I agree about hemp as fiber, watch the billion dollar crop documentary.
I'm not saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, I'm just saying it's present in trivial concentrations that don't have a significant effect on climate. You focus on the 450ppm of CO2, not the 999,550 ppm of 'not CO2.'
[National Geographic] Though deforestation has increased rapidly in the past 50 years, it has been practiced throughout history. For example, 90 percent of continental United States’ indigenous forest has been removed since 1600.
Deforestation also drives climate change. Forest soils are moist, but without protection from sun-blocking tree cover, they quickly dry out. Trees also help perpetuate the water cycle by returning water vapor to the atmosphere. Without trees to fill these roles, many former forest lands can quickly become barren deserts.
Removing trees deprives the forest of portions of its canopy, which blocks the sun’s rays during the day, and holds in heat at night. This disruption leads to more extreme temperature swings that can be harmful to plants and animals.
Swaths of forest half the size of England are lost each year.
The world’s rain forests could completely vanish in a hundred years at the current rate of deforestation.
Can we at least agree that deforestation is a major problem? I don't think CO2 is changing the climate, you do, but we both know deforestation is changing the climate, and you don't need anyone to tell you that because experienced it for yourself. Trees make it cooler, you know it, I know it, and so does anyone else who's been outside on a hot day.
"I'm not saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, I'm just saying it's present in trivial concentrations that don't have a significant effect on climate. You focus on the 450ppm of CO2, not the 999,550 ppm of 'not CO2.'" Maze
Yes, Co2 is only a small part of the Earth's atmosphere's composition. Nevertheless, Co2 has unique properties that make Co2 potent.
Think of different dishwasher detergents. Each one has the same volume, 16 Fl oz. Yet, each has a different potency. The same could also be for venomous animals.
Some animals have small amounts of highly potent venom like a black widow spider, while others like a cobra have high amounts of moderately potent venom. In this case, the Cobra is more dangerous to a human due to the sheer volume of venom. Yet, even a very small dosage of cyanide could kill a human.
Another example is density of metals. Lead is the most dense metal. Co2 is like lead, has a lot of weight for its volume.
In summary, despite Co2 only making up a small % of the atmosphere it is very potent.
Yes, deforestation causes global warming for a number of reasons.
1. Forests are a carbon sink. Deforestation removes the carbon sink.
2. Dead vegetation is a carbon producer.
3. Forests effects the climate in other ways.
I still contend that Co2 is the primary driver of climate change.
Fact: Sun activity is at a low. The Earth should be cooling if the sun was the cause, yet the Earth is getting warmer.
Myth: The sun is responsible for global warming.
Fallacy: Red herring, while the sun is responsible for warming trends in the past, it is not responsible now.
Here's a video to better answer your question about Co2 being a trace gas.
Fact: Co2 has a big impact despite being a small part of the atmosphere.
Myth: Co2 is a trace gas and has negligible impact.
Fallacy: Red herring and jumping to conclusions. The fact that Co2 is only a small percentage of atmospheric gas is irrelevant. This myth jumps to the conclusion that just because Co2 is found in small amounts that the effect is negligible. Yet, there are plenty of examples of a small amount having a large impact including alcohol and drugs.
"while the sun is responsible for warming trends in the past, it is not responsible now"
Think carefully about that statement.
The statement is correct. In the past the sun was the main reason we had ice ages and why we left ice ages. Sun activity is at a low now, so the sun is not responsible.
Here's a video why the Sun is not responsible.
[23 June 2016] //We are now at the ending point of solar maximum period number 24. //
//Forecasters expect the next Solar Minimum to arrive in 2019-2020. //
I'm not sure where you got your graph from, but from that graph you can see that the overall trend is upwards in temperature.
They admit that they adjust the data. And that site has no credibility with me at all.
I'm not sure what you mean by admit they adjust the data. I think you are referring to changes in weather stations or instruments. Scientists do change the data to compensate for such moves. These corrections increase accuracy.
"For instance, local officials might move a station from a valley to a nearby hilltop. They might change the time of day when they record their measurements from sunrise to sunset. They might change the kind of thermometer they use. In the ocean, the practice once was to haul up a bucket of water. Later, the standard practice was to measure the temperature from the engine’s intake valve."
As for skepticalscience.com, they are about as credible as it gets.
These sources consist of legitimate science. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer reviewed science. See all Pro-Science sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: Skeptical Science is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian blogger and author John Cook. In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a large database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments commonly put forth by those involved in the global warming controversy who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change (Wikipedia). Strictly adheres to the scientific consensus on climate change and sources to credible scientific studies.
That's a nice excuse, but they fiddle with the data. Shockingly, if they don't fiddle with the data, there's no warming, but when they do, there is. Strange huh?
Fact: The adjustments are minor and have a negligible effect on the overall trend.
Myth: Climate scientists fiddle with the data making warming appear, when none exists.
Fallacy: Conspiracy theory. Scientists aren't that organized and there is too many people and organizations involved.
Between normal solar fluctuations and our destruction of the world's forests, there is ample reason to expect climate change. CO2 is a nutrient, it's improving plant growth. It's not exactly a counterbalance for deforestation, but it's a counter trend. We need all the CO2 we can get right now. The fossil fuel era is coming to an end on it's own anyway. It's only through suppression that we don't have "free energy" devices powering everything already.
Fact: Sun activity is at a low.
Myth: The Sun is responsible for the warming trend.
Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. Although, the Sun does affect climate, Sun activity is at a low and cannot explain the current warming trend.
Fact: CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are still the main driver of global warming.
Myth: Deforestation is the main cause of global warming.
Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. Deforestation cannot explain the rate of warming nor the cooling up high and warming down low.
Benefits and drawbacks of Co2
Fact: There are some benefits of Co2, but the drawbacks are greater than the benefits. Therefore, there is a net drawback of increasing Co2 at this rate.
Myth: More Co2 will have an overall positive influence.
Fallacy: The fallacy with the myth Co2 being beneficial is you are cherry picking the benefits of increased Co2 without looking at the draw backs.
Furthermore, we are in the middle of a sixth mass extinction. Sharp changes in Co2 are correlated with mass extinctions in the pass. The rate of change is too high for ecosystems to adapt.
"Sun's Current Solar Activity Cycle Is Weakest in a Century"
CO2 caused global warming is a load of BS, akin to flat earth theory. Changes in temperature caused by the sun are primarily related to the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation and the sun's variable ability to deflect them. More cosmic rays mean more clouds, which means cooler temperatures. This has an amplifying effect on variations in solar output. But that's irrelevant, kind of, it's something we can predict, but not something we can change. In terms of how we've changed the heat balance of the planet, we've done it by altering the way sunlight meets the surface of the planet, mainly through deforestation. And nothing you can say will change my mind because I know with complete certainty that you don't know better than me. You're just parroting what you've been told, and I don't think you've given it as much thought as me, because you haven't arrived at your own independent conclusions.
"a [single] large oak tree can transpire 40,000 gallons (151,000 liters) per year." ONE, okay? ONE.
We said earlier that heat is removed from the environment during evaporation, leading to a net cooling; notice how cold your arm gets when a physician rubs it with alcohol before pulling out a syringe with that scary-looking needle attached. In climates where the humidity is low and the temperatures are hot, an evaporator cooler, such as a "swamp cooler" can lower the air temperature by 20 degrees F., while it increases humidity.
This conversation has gone on for a long time. You readily admit I cannot change your mind. You have made several new claims in this last post.
I no longer have the time and energy available to disprove or verify all your claims at the rate you have been stating them. Therefore, I propose one of two solutions:
A. I post less often, once every 2-3 days and make a full rebuttal of each of your claims.
B. I respond to only one claim per response, in this case the analogy between climate change and flat Earth at the same rate we have been.
I have not given up, I just can't keep up at the current rate.
Thank you for giving me a breather, I finished up some other endeavors.
Fact: Burning of fossil fuels causing Co2 to increase and warming the planet is a well establish scientific fact. These facts have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
Myth: CO2 caused global warming is a load of BS, akin to flat earth theory.
Fallacy: Misrepresentation and appeal to emotion. Comparing that the uninformed masses thought the Earth was flat with modern science misrepresents the credibility of peer reviewed journals, the scientific method, and scientists.
Using strong loaded phrases and words like "load of BS" is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion cover up that there is no facts involved in the statement.
Fact: Clouds cause both warming and cooling effects. High thin clouds cause net warming while low thick clouds cause net cooling.
Myth: -- Clouds cool. --
Fallacy: Oversimplification, clouds both cool and warm.
Fact: Cooling from evaporation will not stop warming. The planet has been much warmer and has had much higher co2 levels in the past. Venus has the highest known temperature in the solar system due to Co2, Saturn might be higher.
Myth: Evaporation will stop warming
Fallacy: Cherry picking and oversimplification. Although it is true that evaporation produces a cooling effect, the overall trend is warming and positive feedback.
This is due to after the water evaporates it becomes water vapor which is a greenhouse gas which contributes to global warming. The more evaporation the more water vapor greenhouse gas and thus more warming.
While it is true that a short term cooling effect is realized, this is an oversimplification, since evaporation causes long term warming also.
I don't really think we have any more to discuss on this topic. The notion that CO2 levels have any effect on climate isn't an inconvenient truth, it's a convenient lie.
Fact: There is a consilience of evidence that Co2 from burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming. The physics for how Co2 causes warming is over 100 hundred years old.
Myth: The notion that CO2 levels have any effect on climate isn't an inconvenient truth, it's a convenient lie.
Fallacy: Bare assertion. The claim is only true because Maze claims it is true. This is like saying "I am holding a teacup" and expecting a teacup to appear.
Sorry Vegan, I know a scam when I see one.
Prove your claims then.
Fact: "The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."
Myth: There is no consensus due to 31,000 scientists signing a petition.
Fallacy: Fake experts, as expertise increases so does agreement that global warming exists.
Science isn't based on consensus, it's built on research, and for that reason, science is never settled, period. The fact that the alarmists rely on logical fallacies like scientific consensus reveals the fraudulent nature of their patently absurd claims. The climate hasn't behaved according to their computer model projections... at all. It's completely bogus, wake up.
Fact: The scientific consensus has robust standards that consists of three parts, consilience of evidence, social calibration, and social diversity. Science can be wrong, but in the case of climate change, the chance is minimal.
There are many other scientific consensus not related to climate change.
Myth: -- the scientific consensus is irrelevant--
Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions and oversimplification. Deniers sometimes read consensus and think democracy. Ignoring the part about a consilience of evidence.
Fact: The IPCC is twenty times more like to underestimate than overestimate.
Myth: -- The IPCC is alarmist.--
Fallacy: Cherry picking the few times the IPCC overestimated.
"Claims that the IPCC is alarmist are not supported by evidence, and there are clear indications that the opposite may be the case."
Fact: The climate models are useful even if they are all incorrect.
Myth: --The climate models are wrong therefore, global warming doesn't exist. --
Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. The models mostly have to do with amplification effects. There is still uncertainty in how much impact man-made global warming will have and how quickly this will occur. The overall trend is not dis-proven.
Look Vegan, you seem like a nice person, but I'm sick of hearing that nonsense. Knock it off.
You can label what I am saying as non-sense, but you cannot prove it.
Fact: Carbon dioxide is at 405.25 ppm as of this post. Co2 hasn't been this high in at least 800,000 years. Humans are responsible via burning of fossil fuels.
Myth: --The current tread of Co2 increasing is part of a natural cycle --
Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. When all the evidence is pointing to a suspect, this is like saying "humans have died before, therefore this person died of natural causes."
Listen, okay? FUCK YOUR BULLSHIT. I don't buy it and will never buy it because it's A SCAM. Now leave me alone. Maybe we can talk about some other subject some time but this is my last comment on this thread.
Now you resort to ad hominem attacks and capital letters to make your point. Why, because there is no other recourse. You have lost this debate in evidence.
This is the last resort of a co2 caused by fossil fuel anthropogenic global climate change denier. Why, because a denier cannot win against the informed with evidence nor logic.
I personally have been proven wrong, and humans have something called ego, confirmation bias, and world-view backfire effect that cause rise to such angry feelings. Yet, I would be doing the world a disservice if I didn't stick up for the truth. People have a right to know.
Fact:Climate change is not some future event. Climate change is happening now. Climate change effects everyone.
"Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually."
Myth: --Climate change doesn't effect me. --
Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. Just because climate change is difficult to detect for the common person, doesn't mean it is not real.
More heat waves and more intense heatwaves. There is twice as many new hot records as cold records. Less hurricanes, but stronger hurricanes. More invasive species. We are in the middle of a sixth mass extinction. Species are becoming extinct about 1,000 times greater than if humans didn't exist.
Polar bears are having trouble hunting seals due to lack of sea ice. Glaciers are melting. The ocean is acidifying. Corals are bleaching.
Climate change is causing water shortages. Disease carrying mosquitoes are reaching areas they could not reach before. Humans, plants, and animals are all being harmed today, yesterday, and will be tomorrow.
Deniers give beautiful lies. I give you an Inconvenient Truth. Climate change is here now.
That was Obama.