Frothingslosh
Premier Pale Stale Ale
- Local time
- Today, 14:45
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,255
Is this hypocrisy?
- Thread starter Dick7Access
- Start date
Bladerunner
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 11:45
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,792
Re: Is this hipocrsity
Fortunately, I know a scam when I see one and global warming is a SCAM!
OH...by the way, Global warming in not the name for it any more. They have changed it AGAIN to fit the data. Talk about moving the goal post.
Fortunately, I know a scam when I see one and global warming is a SCAM!
OH...by the way, Global warming in not the name for it any more. They have changed it AGAIN to fit the data. Talk about moving the goal post.
Bladerunner
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 11:45
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,792
Re: Is this hipocrsity
you know why they are investing heavily in renewable energy. They know they can make cheaper panels which will help the green people fulfill their dream. With our government throwing money left and right at renewable energy, China would be fools not to and believe me they are no fools.
That said, their main energy relies on Coal the very industry Obama is trying (to a great success ) shut down. And they coal plants do not have scrubbers.
Smoking mirrors is all it is.
you know why they are investing heavily in renewable energy. They know they can make cheaper panels which will help the green people fulfill their dream. With our government throwing money left and right at renewable energy, China would be fools not to and believe me they are no fools.
That said, their main energy relies on Coal the very industry Obama is trying (to a great success ) shut down. And they coal plants do not have scrubbers.
Smoking mirrors is all it is.
Bladerunner
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 11:45
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,792
Re: Is this hipocrsity
A liberal Left page for sure.
Oh, Ngas an alternative energy was at 40 cent per therm or however they measure it. when the cold spell hit the northeast gas rose by 1000% $40 to $400. Why a shortage yes, but caused by the shutdown of several refineries.
You in Europe had better not make Putin mad! he will shut your gas off. Oh, yeah I forgot, you have windmills and solar panels that can power anything you want. Being an electrician I doubt very seriously that the solar panels will ever do anything but support the main power. Nuclear, Water, Oil or Coal will remain for the next 50 -100 years.... By then science will have caught up with reality and invent something that will advance our society 10 fold. That something would be unlimited power which has to come from the atom.
It is all a scam because they want the power. they are always crying about the oil companies making so much money. It simple they don't want a piece of the pie, the liberal left in this country want the whole pie.
A liberal Left page for sure.
Oh, Ngas an alternative energy was at 40 cent per therm or however they measure it. when the cold spell hit the northeast gas rose by 1000% $40 to $400. Why a shortage yes, but caused by the shutdown of several refineries.
You in Europe had better not make Putin mad! he will shut your gas off. Oh, yeah I forgot, you have windmills and solar panels that can power anything you want. Being an electrician I doubt very seriously that the solar panels will ever do anything but support the main power. Nuclear, Water, Oil or Coal will remain for the next 50 -100 years.... By then science will have caught up with reality and invent something that will advance our society 10 fold. That something would be unlimited power which has to come from the atom.
It is all a scam because they want the power. they are always crying about the oil companies making so much money. It simple they don't want a piece of the pie, the liberal left in this country want the whole pie.
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 06:45
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,834
Re: Is this hipocrsity
So you say but you have not posted a single piece of evidence to back your claim. Nor has anyone else on this site in any thread. Not one. You won't because you know that it would be demolished by facts and you prefer to preserve your illusions.
Climate Change is just another name for it. The idea was to discourage those who think unusual cold snaps would be evidence against. In fact the prolonged cold snaps we have seen are due to the slowing of the Jet Stream, causing it to meander down to low latitudes just as the models show.
BTW Sydney, Australia has just had the longest run of May temperatures above 22 degrees (~72F) on record. Nineteen days in a row, over two times the previous record of nine.
We are two days from winter here and I am sitting by an open window at 9 PM wearing a single layer of clothing.
So you say but you have not posted a single piece of evidence to back your claim. Nor has anyone else on this site in any thread. Not one. You won't because you know that it would be demolished by facts and you prefer to preserve your illusions.
Climate Change is just another name for it. The idea was to discourage those who think unusual cold snaps would be evidence against. In fact the prolonged cold snaps we have seen are due to the slowing of the Jet Stream, causing it to meander down to low latitudes just as the models show.
BTW Sydney, Australia has just had the longest run of May temperatures above 22 degrees (~72F) on record. Nineteen days in a row, over two times the previous record of nine.
We are two days from winter here and I am sitting by an open window at 9 PM wearing a single layer of clothing.
Last edited:
Bladerunner
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 11:45
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,792
Re: Is this hipocrsity
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 06:45
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,834
Re: Is this hipocrsity
Simply vaguely pointing out "gravitational effects" does not constitute evidence. The mechanisms involved need to be elucidated. No such mechanisms have been found that would explain what we are measuring.
Moreover the effects you are referring to are already included in the models. Far from being overlooked as many denialists presume, the models would not be useful without them being included as they would not be able to match the history of climate as found in the geological record.
If you understood what you were talking about you would know that.
Gravitational effects and the effects of angular momentum manifest as variations in the eccentricity of the orbit of of the Earth and the tilt of its axis relative to the ecliptic.
The most important long cycles are the Milankovich Cycles. These ultimately trigger the glaciation cycles the planet has been experiencing for many millions of years.
Such effects cause changes over astronomical time scales. There is nothing that is even remotely likely to cause such temperature rises as we are experiencing in just a few decades.
As I said. Name any evidence you like and I will demolish it, which I have just done in this case. Next please.
Simply vaguely pointing out "gravitational effects" does not constitute evidence. The mechanisms involved need to be elucidated. No such mechanisms have been found that would explain what we are measuring.
Moreover the effects you are referring to are already included in the models. Far from being overlooked as many denialists presume, the models would not be useful without them being included as they would not be able to match the history of climate as found in the geological record.
If you understood what you were talking about you would know that.
Gravitational effects and the effects of angular momentum manifest as variations in the eccentricity of the orbit of of the Earth and the tilt of its axis relative to the ecliptic.
The most important long cycles are the Milankovich Cycles. These ultimately trigger the glaciation cycles the planet has been experiencing for many millions of years.
Such effects cause changes over astronomical time scales. There is nothing that is even remotely likely to cause such temperature rises as we are experiencing in just a few decades.
As I said. Name any evidence you like and I will demolish it, which I have just done in this case. Next please.
Dick7Access
Dick S
- Local time
- Today, 14:45
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,329
Re: Is this hipocrsity
I know this is not scientific evidence, but it has served me well all the long years I have lived. 99% of the people on this forum are not climate scientist. It wouldn’t surprise me if we did have one, however, as I have witness some pretty smart people here. That of course means that each side is listening to others of either verbal or written reports. Look on both sides and see who is for it and against. Follow the money. Both side in this greeny debate stands to profit. Both sides have political agendas. Look at accountability. Look at reputations. I look at somebody like Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi. She is for it, and has to be the stupidest person I have ever heard speak in congress. .Obama is for it. Everything he says is s lie. Why would I trust what he says on green not to be a lie. I don’t have time to research their names, but some of the reports of some scientist withhold facts from other scientist, hide emails etc. If you are a true scientist you want your data to be expose to the ultimate scrutiny. Look at some of the photos that have been truly expose as fakes. If you case is solid why try to deceive by having a scientist who has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Once it is found out it weakens your case. Not scientific but surely as the crows fly, birds of a feather flock together.
I know this is not scientific evidence, but it has served me well all the long years I have lived. 99% of the people on this forum are not climate scientist. It wouldn’t surprise me if we did have one, however, as I have witness some pretty smart people here. That of course means that each side is listening to others of either verbal or written reports. Look on both sides and see who is for it and against. Follow the money. Both side in this greeny debate stands to profit. Both sides have political agendas. Look at accountability. Look at reputations. I look at somebody like Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi. She is for it, and has to be the stupidest person I have ever heard speak in congress. .Obama is for it. Everything he says is s lie. Why would I trust what he says on green not to be a lie. I don’t have time to research their names, but some of the reports of some scientist withhold facts from other scientist, hide emails etc. If you are a true scientist you want your data to be expose to the ultimate scrutiny. Look at some of the photos that have been truly expose as fakes. If you case is solid why try to deceive by having a scientist who has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Once it is found out it weakens your case. Not scientific but surely as the crows fly, birds of a feather flock together.
scott-atkinson
I'm with the Witch.......
- Local time
- Today, 19:45
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,618
Re: Is this hipocrsity
Is CO2 good for anything? Apart from plants...
Is CO2 good for anything? Apart from plants...
Dick7Access
Dick S
- Local time
- Today, 14:45
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,329
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 06:45
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,834
Re: Is this hipocrsity
I took a look at your links. You clearly don't even understand the meaning of the word, "evidence".
I took a look at your links. You clearly don't even understand the meaning of the word, "evidence".
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 06:45
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,834
Re: Is this hipocrsity
Interesting. Dick sees it as a matter of reputation. Bladerunner posts what he thinks is "evidence" as links that try to discredit the reputation of those who disagree with his position.
I guess this is not so surprising from people who subscribe to Christianity, one of the ultimate personality cults of all time. It is all about uncritical acceptance of opinion based on reputation.
Science is very different. Hypotheses stand alone, regardless of who presents them. If the hypothesis fits the facts then it gains reputation. If it suggests further tests whose outcomes are not already known and continues to fit in every case it ultimately becomes a theory.
Theories like General Relativity are spectacular. Relativity redefined fundamental measurement system and overturned the way we think about Space and Time itself. New measurements could not be interpreted in any way except to confirm its validity.
Climate Change has a much harder time. It didn't overturn anything but dealt with long term patterns in an extremely complex system.
The expected patterns have not always immediately emerged so the equivalent indisputable ah-ha moment like measuring the detail of the orbit of Mercury in Relativity are not available for climate change theory.
Instead scientists had to look deeper and deeper as to why temperature measurements did not immediately match those projected by models. However in every case to date, additional mechanisms have been brought to light by further research that explained the observed discrepancies.
Denialists seize upon this process as merely fudging the figure and assume they are just included to fit what biased scientists want to see. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Any new mechanism must endure rigorous investigation and their inclusion must help the models better match the recorded history.
The most recent major refinement to the models was the effect of particular Pacific equatorial current cycles which have been shown to be currently increasing the absorption of heat into the ocean. This understanding successfully explained why atmospheric temperatures had not recently risen as fast as models had projected.
As such cyclic mechanisms become better understood and computer processing power continues to increase the climate models continue to more and more closely match not only the measurement history but the ability to project the detail of the future.
Throughout this refinement process, one insurmountable fact remains. Increasing the atmospheric CO2 means more heat is retained by the planet. This is inevitably going to increase the temperature. The rest is just the detail of exactly how fast that will happen and who will suffer the most.
Unless we stop running or technology on combustion the temperature will rise. The sooner we accept this the sooner we will act and the less it will cost to solve the problems it creates.
Interesting. Dick sees it as a matter of reputation. Bladerunner posts what he thinks is "evidence" as links that try to discredit the reputation of those who disagree with his position.
I guess this is not so surprising from people who subscribe to Christianity, one of the ultimate personality cults of all time. It is all about uncritical acceptance of opinion based on reputation.
Science is very different. Hypotheses stand alone, regardless of who presents them. If the hypothesis fits the facts then it gains reputation. If it suggests further tests whose outcomes are not already known and continues to fit in every case it ultimately becomes a theory.
Theories like General Relativity are spectacular. Relativity redefined fundamental measurement system and overturned the way we think about Space and Time itself. New measurements could not be interpreted in any way except to confirm its validity.
Climate Change has a much harder time. It didn't overturn anything but dealt with long term patterns in an extremely complex system.
The expected patterns have not always immediately emerged so the equivalent indisputable ah-ha moment like measuring the detail of the orbit of Mercury in Relativity are not available for climate change theory.
Instead scientists had to look deeper and deeper as to why temperature measurements did not immediately match those projected by models. However in every case to date, additional mechanisms have been brought to light by further research that explained the observed discrepancies.
Denialists seize upon this process as merely fudging the figure and assume they are just included to fit what biased scientists want to see. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Any new mechanism must endure rigorous investigation and their inclusion must help the models better match the recorded history.
The most recent major refinement to the models was the effect of particular Pacific equatorial current cycles which have been shown to be currently increasing the absorption of heat into the ocean. This understanding successfully explained why atmospheric temperatures had not recently risen as fast as models had projected.
As such cyclic mechanisms become better understood and computer processing power continues to increase the climate models continue to more and more closely match not only the measurement history but the ability to project the detail of the future.
Throughout this refinement process, one insurmountable fact remains. Increasing the atmospheric CO2 means more heat is retained by the planet. This is inevitably going to increase the temperature. The rest is just the detail of exactly how fast that will happen and who will suffer the most.
Unless we stop running or technology on combustion the temperature will rise. The sooner we accept this the sooner we will act and the less it will cost to solve the problems it creates.
Steve R.
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 14:45
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,436
Re: Is this hipocrsity
Dick is correct. Science has been and continues to be debased by politics and religion. Currently, we are in such a period where the "cause-of-the-day" is global warming. One can only hope that continued scientific investigation over a suitable period of time (that washes out the political and religious overtones) will allow the real science to emerge.
Those "selling" global warming, as I have previously expressed, are not being honest with the public. Specifically by only focusing on managing CO2 emissions as the simplistic public sound byte "magic wand" solution. Environmental solutions, without repeating myself, will require many different management actions.
Dick7Access
Dick S
- Local time
- Today, 14:45
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,329
Re: Is this hipocrsity
I know this will blow your mind and think I have completely lost mine, but most of what you said fortifies what I believe, and that is fine but you will have to stand in line to declare me a fruit cake. There's a bunch of people in my church ahead of you. If you have done all or most of the research on your own, I take my hat off to you. I do not know you personally or anything about you so the information you would offer is little value to me. If not, however, than you like most on this thread/forum are evaluating what others have research. I don't have the time, ability, or interest to do a analysis of all that is available from both sides. The people that I respect that have a better ability (brains) than I have all debunk global (anything you want to call it). Every single one. Not just a few, every single one. In and our of the ministry. In and out of the media. Every single one that favors global etal. that I know anything about I disdain. They show me no sign of intelligence. Not don't take this personally, I don't know anything about you, so I can't possible disdain you. I know this is not scientific, but it is all I have to work with, but it works for me. Many, many times in my life, in many difference areas. I was in business for myself, I was in politic, in my college life, teaching school, my 22 years of military, almost every time I had doubts about a person, they usually were wrong (later proven) with their position on many areas. Global anything for us is in the same area as the other thread of atheism. None of us will be around to say ah ha, I was right. I also put some trust in something I learned in the first grade. It's called, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling".
Regards
I know this will blow your mind and think I have completely lost mine, but most of what you said fortifies what I believe, and that is fine but you will have to stand in line to declare me a fruit cake. There's a bunch of people in my church ahead of you. If you have done all or most of the research on your own, I take my hat off to you. I do not know you personally or anything about you so the information you would offer is little value to me. If not, however, than you like most on this thread/forum are evaluating what others have research. I don't have the time, ability, or interest to do a analysis of all that is available from both sides. The people that I respect that have a better ability (brains) than I have all debunk global (anything you want to call it). Every single one. Not just a few, every single one. In and our of the ministry. In and out of the media. Every single one that favors global etal. that I know anything about I disdain. They show me no sign of intelligence. Not don't take this personally, I don't know anything about you, so I can't possible disdain you. I know this is not scientific, but it is all I have to work with, but it works for me. Many, many times in my life, in many difference areas. I was in business for myself, I was in politic, in my college life, teaching school, my 22 years of military, almost every time I had doubts about a person, they usually were wrong (later proven) with their position on many areas. Global anything for us is in the same area as the other thread of atheism. None of us will be around to say ah ha, I was right. I also put some trust in something I learned in the first grade. It's called, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling".
Regards
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 06:45
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,834
Re: Is this hipocrsity
Probably because you consider anyone who believes in global warming must be lacking in intelligence.
Probably because you consider anyone who believes in global warming must be lacking in intelligence.
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 06:45
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,834
Re: Is this hipocrsity
I did address your claim about global warming being due to "gravitational effects". You don't want to talk about that now because you have been proved wrong. An honest debater would acknowledge that fact.
Please offer some actual evidence that supports your case.
I don't want to give a pass to anyone. Moreover you are misrepresenting the situation by pretending that it is the developing world that are the biggest culprits. Well wake up. The people of the USA are still by far the largest contributors.
Again you attack the personality rather than the issue. Al Gore is a hypocrite and I have no respect for him. It doesn't mean that the issues he is raising are wrong.
Just because some parts of the problem are more difficult it does mean we cannot address any of it.
Aircraft manufacturers have invested a fortune in improving efficiency. Both Boeing and Airbus are working on electric plane technologies using fuel cells to further increase efficiency. Yes it is early days but they see it as important.
Trains are easily electrified. Many lines already are. Feed the grid with solar energy. (You didn't chose a difficult one there did you.)
Rubbish. It is you who has offered nothing of substance while you parrot the "can't be done" propaganda fed to you by fossil fuel proponents. Meanwhile others get on with the job of doing it.
I did address your claim about global warming being due to "gravitational effects". You don't want to talk about that now because you have been proved wrong. An honest debater would acknowledge that fact.
Please offer some actual evidence that supports your case.
I don't want to give a pass to anyone. Moreover you are misrepresenting the situation by pretending that it is the developing world that are the biggest culprits. Well wake up. The people of the USA are still by far the largest contributors.
Again you attack the personality rather than the issue. Al Gore is a hypocrite and I have no respect for him. It doesn't mean that the issues he is raising are wrong.
Just because some parts of the problem are more difficult it does mean we cannot address any of it.
Aircraft manufacturers have invested a fortune in improving efficiency. Both Boeing and Airbus are working on electric plane technologies using fuel cells to further increase efficiency. Yes it is early days but they see it as important.
Trains are easily electrified. Many lines already are. Feed the grid with solar energy. (You didn't chose a difficult one there did you.)
Rubbish. It is you who has offered nothing of substance while you parrot the "can't be done" propaganda fed to you by fossil fuel proponents. Meanwhile others get on with the job of doing it.
Dick7Access
Dick S
- Local time
- Today, 14:45
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,329
Re: Is this hipocrsity
I have to give credit where credit is due. That's a good come back.
However what I mean is not just what people say about GW. For an example Nancy P. says we have to pass this bill to see what's in it. That has to be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard from any politician. Granted you can't evaluate her on one statement, but with her it's every time she opens her mouth. Why would I believe what she has to say on GW. As I see it 99% of the people on this thread are believing and analyzing the information that is coming from someone else, so if that's the case it boils down to who you believe, who has creditability. Not just me, but all of us.
BTW Your come back gave me a good chuckle, and I do not consider you my enemy. You see when people get nasty it is usually because of emotions. I try never to let emotions guide my lips. Of course I am not perfect, after all I am a husband.
--------
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] A wife asks her husband, "Please go shopping for me and buy one carton of milk and if they have avocados, get 6."
A short time later the husband comes back with 6 cartons of milk.
The wife asks him, "Why did you buy 6 cartons of milk?"
He replied, "They had avocados."
If you're a woman, I'm sure you're going back to read it again. Men will get it the first time.
I know wrong thread
DS
[/FONT]
I have to give credit where credit is due. That's a good come back.
However what I mean is not just what people say about GW. For an example Nancy P. says we have to pass this bill to see what's in it. That has to be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard from any politician. Granted you can't evaluate her on one statement, but with her it's every time she opens her mouth. Why would I believe what she has to say on GW. As I see it 99% of the people on this thread are believing and analyzing the information that is coming from someone else, so if that's the case it boils down to who you believe, who has creditability. Not just me, but all of us.
BTW Your come back gave me a good chuckle, and I do not consider you my enemy. You see when people get nasty it is usually because of emotions. I try never to let emotions guide my lips. Of course I am not perfect, after all I am a husband.
--------
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] A wife asks her husband, "Please go shopping for me and buy one carton of milk and if they have avocados, get 6."
A short time later the husband comes back with 6 cartons of milk.
The wife asks him, "Why did you buy 6 cartons of milk?"
He replied, "They had avocados."
If you're a woman, I'm sure you're going back to read it again. Men will get it the first time.
I know wrong thread
DS
[/FONT]
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 06:45
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,834
Re: Is this hipocrsity
The real science is already here. It shows that global warming is real and that it is being caused by humans vastly increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Politics is certainly getting in the way by pretending the truth is not already resolved. Unfortunately people like you will only accept what you want hear regardless of the evidence.
I have already debunked your claim. I won't bother repeating my explanation.
The real science is already here. It shows that global warming is real and that it is being caused by humans vastly increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Politics is certainly getting in the way by pretending the truth is not already resolved. Unfortunately people like you will only accept what you want hear regardless of the evidence.
I have already debunked your claim. I won't bother repeating my explanation.
Dick7Access
Dick S
- Local time
- Today, 14:45
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,329
Re: Is this hipocrsity
I am going to miss you guys. Both sides. Right now I should be packing my truck.
I am going to miss you guys. Both sides. Right now I should be packing my truck.
Dick7Access
Dick S
- Local time
- Today, 14:45
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,329
Re: Is this hipocrsity
[FONT="]HHS board rules transgender Medicare recipients can seek coverage for sex-change surgery[/FONT]
[FONT="]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/30/medicare-coverage-ban-lifted-on-transgender-sex-change-surgery/?intcmp=latestnews[/FONT]
[FONT="]My wife and I have worked a combination of 102 years and have paid into the system. She is denied a hearing aid, and they are going to consider paying for a sex change operation. Do you think I would believe these people on anything they said? They don’t have the brains that come out of the rear end of a goose.[/FONT]
[FONT="]HHS board rules transgender Medicare recipients can seek coverage for sex-change surgery[/FONT]
[FONT="]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/30/medicare-coverage-ban-lifted-on-transgender-sex-change-surgery/?intcmp=latestnews[/FONT]
[FONT="]My wife and I have worked a combination of 102 years and have paid into the system. She is denied a hearing aid, and they are going to consider paying for a sex change operation. Do you think I would believe these people on anything they said? They don’t have the brains that come out of the rear end of a goose.[/FONT]
Similar threads
