Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast
Results 701 to 800 of 1117

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #701
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Apparently Albertans don't want to hear the TRUTH.

    Thanks everyone who takes the time to correct or dispute the crap that he posts.
    Sorry but........ making stuff up from the fairy tale world of advocacy isn't a refutation.

    There's a real world the advocates don't know about where real people are harmed by nonsensical political policies.

    In Ontario where they shut the coal plants down 60,000 people were disconnected from the grid because they can't afford electricity.

    300,000 Germans too. The "leaders" in solar power.

    Grownups in the real world need to educate themselves and make tough decisions. Decisions based on the reality that there's a cost to everything. There's a cost to shutting down coal plants, and that cost is also in human lives. Not everybody will die of global warming 100 years from now. Many will die of pneumonia, shivering in thier unheated condos........ in Alberta.
    emphasis added.

    no making stuff up from the fairy tale world of advocacy in that conclusion eh?

    oh, wait... i see what you're doing there.

    you're actually providing us real world examples of making stuff up from the fairy tale world of advocacy so we'll recognize it when we see it in our search for the TRUTH and be able to discount it!

    that makes much more sense of most of your posts than trying to take them at face value.
    In your fairy tale world, what is happening to the 60,000 Ontarians, and 300,000 Germans who have been disconnected from the grid?

    This is exactly the problem with climate change advocates. They just wish away bad thoughts. And when 60,000 tons of aged broken solar panels are brought to the dump a magical company will step in and make a profit separating the heavy metals from the broken glass.
    so what is happening to those 360,000 people???

    i don't know what's happening to them either but i'm pretty sure it's probably not pneumonia:

    [http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20171110-1?inheritRedirect=true]

    "From the 4.9 million deaths reported in the European Union (EU) in 2014, 118 300 were due to pneumonia. Women (59 900 deaths) and men (58 400 deaths) were almost equally affected. 90% of these deaths concerned people aged over 65.In absolute terms, the United Kingdom (28 200 deaths, or 24% of the EU total) was the Member State that recorded the most deaths from pneumonia in 2014, followed by Germany (16 700, 14%), Poland (12 300, 10%), France (11 100, 9%), Italy (9 100, 8%) and Spain (8 400, 7%).However, for a relevant country comparison, these absolute numbers need to be adjusted to the size and structure of the population.

    Death rate from pneumonia highest in Portugal and the United Kingdom, lowest in Finland

    With nearly 55 deaths from pneumonia per 100 000 inhabitants, Portugal registered the highest rate among the EU Member States. It was followed by the United Kingdom (49), Slovakia (45) and Poland (43). At the opposite of the scale, the lowest rate of deaths due to pneumonia was recorded in Finland (with 4 deaths per 100 000 inhabitants), ahead of Greece and Austria (both 9), Hungary (10) and Croatia (11). At EU level, the rate stood on average at 25 deaths from pneumonia per 100 000 inhabitants in 2014."

    i can't find similar numbers for canada as influenza and pneumonia are treated and counted the same way by statscan as a potential cause of death. what i can determine is that approximately 265,000 people died in canada in 2015 and approximately 7,600 of them died of influenza or pneumonia (or about 21 deaths from influenza and pneumonia combined per 100,000 inhabitants)

    by the way, you do know that germs (e.g., bacteria, viruses, fungi) are the main causes of pneumonia - along with workplace contaminants - not exposure to the elements?

    Last edited by kcantor; 05-06-2018 at 03:04 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  2. #702

    Default

    "by the way, you do know that germs (e.g., bacteria, viruses, fungi) are the main causes of pneumonia - along with workplace contaminants - not exposure to the elements?"

    Moreover, the best place to contract these diseases is in a hospital.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  3. #703
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  4. #704
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    Good for him. Thankfully there isn't a lot of that going on in Canada or Alberta, although Kenney certainly likes to play footsie with the deniers. The problem though, is what's going on in the US, and the policy it's resulting in.

  5. #705

    Default The TRUTH.

    Fellow Edmontonians and Albertans.......... Learn about climate change. Be aware that the CBC is lying to you, and threatening you about climate change, almost on a daily basis..........
    Why not send some e-mails? Why not send some letters? Why not ask them why they're lying?T

    The CBC doesn't dare have a climate skeptic on, but they'll report every climate kook theory any dingbat says. Climates change is always all about threatening people. Now a degree of warming is going to wake up dormant volcanoes.........."•

    Canada has dormant volcanoes. Climate change could wake them up."

    But guess what? It's because of volcanic activity there's life on earth.

    Could somebody send a 10 year old over to the CBC and tell them how the universe works?

    The CBC goes on to report more nonsense from the CEO of Suncor.......

    "•Canada, provinces lack clear plan to adapt to climate change, auditors say"A

    Guess what? Alberta has a plan to adapt to climate change...........
    We'll take off a layer and enjoy the warmer weather.
    Farmers will grow crops over a longer season.
    Maybe we won't have to plug in our cars at night.
    Could somebody send a 5 year old over to the CBC and have him explain what we'd do if Alberta was warmer?

    "Climate change is science. Hardcore science."

    A software simulation is hardcore science?????

    "Climate sensitivity" is an unknown variable. Pretending to know the value of an unknown variable isn't "hardcore science", it's astrology.

    Could somebody send a 12 year old, who is familiar with basic programming, to the CBC so he can explain to the them that a programmer can give you any value you want from a software simulation?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 07-06-2018 at 10:33 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  6. #706
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    Are you claiming that CBC made up statements by the CEO of Suncor, an oil company, out of whole cloth? If yes, then you're totally disconnected from objective reality. If no, then what does the CBC have to do with his comments? They're simply relaying them, and the article had basically no editorializing. Criticize Williams, then. I'd like to hear how an energy company CEO is part of a vast conspiracy to undermine... energy companies.

  7. #707

    Default The TRUTH. Do you like it when the CBC and David Suzuki lie to you?

    "Forest fires are heating up

    “A spark can light a raging inferno,” says University of Alberta wildfire expert Mike Flannigan. Fire has always been an essential part our ecosystem, but now they are becoming more dangerous. 2017 was devastating in western Canada; British Columbia experienced its worst fire on record, almost 900,000 hectares went up in smoke. In 2016, one of the most destructive fires in the country swept through Fort McMurray, destroying nearly 2,500 buildings forcing the evacuating of 90,000 citizens. It was the costliest disaster in Canadian history."
    http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/blo...fecting-canada

    1825 Miramachi fire, 1.5 million hectares, 300 dead.
    1950 Chinchaga fire, 1.5 million hectares.
    1916 Matheson fire, 223 dead
    Last edited by MrCombust; 07-06-2018 at 04:22 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  8. #708

  9. #709
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    What is the point he's even trying to make there?

    Also still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.

  10. #710

    Default

    This is the first and last time I'll post in this thread.

    Science has nothing to do with it.

    Climate denial is all politics. Rhino party politics.

    Only utter creeps do it. Utter creeps who always vote the same, rhino party vote, now euphemistically called Conservative, Republican, or whatever else.

    But the problem is not the creeps.

    The problem is the supposedly decent people who vote the same way with the creeps.

    Because by doing so they descend not to the level of the creeps, but below them.

    To engage in debate with creeps is meaningless.

    To insult the self-made sub-creeps out of their sub-creepiness is about the only thing you can do.

    Because otherwise the path to rhino party rule is guaranteed.

    And we have all seen what that is like.

    Steve Williams in his own polite way has just said the same thing, in the context of climate change and its denial.

    But the total context is, unfortunately, considerably wider.

    And that is the real context in which the rhino party creeps exist, and drag us down -- below them.

  11. #711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    This is the first and last time I'll post in this thread.Science has nothing to do with it.Climate denial is all politics. Rhino party politics.Only utter creeps do it. Utter creeps who always vote the same, rhino party vote, now euphemistically called Conservative, Republican, or whatever else.But the problem is not the creeps.The problem is the supposedly decent people who vote the same way with the creeps.Because by doing so they descend not to the level of the creeps, but below them.To engage in debate with creeps is meaningless.To insult the self-made sub-creeps out of their sub-creepiness is about the only thing you can do.Because otherwise the path to rhino party rule is guaranteed.And we have all seen what that is like.Steve Williams in his own polite way has just said the same thing, in the context of climate change and its denial.But the total context is, unfortunately, considerably wider.And that is the real context in which the rhino party creeps exist, and drag us down -- below them.
    NASA says sea level rise is at 3.2mm per year and accelerating, but their most advanced satellite has an accuracy of 33mm.You're damn right it's politics, cuz it sure ain't science.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  12. #712

    Default The TRUTH. Liberals lose in a landslide and lose party status

    Well, so much for the 97% consensus. Liberals shut down the coal plants in Ontario, invested heavily in solar, doubled the price of electricity, and introduced a carbon tax. Now they've lost party status. This isn't a new phenomenon. As predicted in one of my earlier posts, the public does not like a carbon tax. Liberals are committing suicide on the fake science climate change sword.Look for a similar loss in Alberta, and Federally after that.Climate denial is the majority now. And yes, the hoax of climate change is over. (Somebody tell the CBC)
    Last edited by MrCombust; 08-06-2018 at 09:41 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  13. #713

    Default

    The coal plants were planned to be decommissioned long before the liberals took power.

    Its becoming more and more clear your agenda. You're all about BigCoalCo. polluting the world, raising temperatures, and sea levels.

  14. #714
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    Since when does public opinion determine the validity of scientific theories? Public policy needs to take opinion in to account, sure, and no tax is ever going to be popular. But I must have missed Einstein taking public opinion polls on whether he should publish special and general relativity.

    Also still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.

  15. #715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Since when does public opinion determine the validity of scientific theories? Public policy needs to take opinion in to account, sure, and no tax is ever going to be popular. But I must have missed Einstein taking public opinion polls on whether he should publish special and general relativity.Also still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.
    You invoke the consensus when it suits you, and deny its validity when it doesn't. "Thread: The TRUTH about climate changeby Marcel Petrin Replies:713Views:26,643 Ah yes, Roy Spencer. One of the few denialists... "
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  16. #716
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Since when does public opinion determine the validity of scientific theories? Public policy needs to take opinion in to account, sure, and no tax is ever going to be popular. But I must have missed Einstein taking public opinion polls on whether he should publish special and general relativity.Also still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.
    You invoke the consensus when it suits you, and deny its validity when it doesn't. "Thread: The TRUTH about climate changeby Marcel Petrin Replies:713Views:26,643 Ah yes, Roy Spencer. One of the few denialists... "
    for someone expressing a desire to teach and not preach you’re a lot better at avoiding and ignoring simple questions than you are at answering them.

    if you expect your students to learn anything you’ll have to overcome that... unless of course you really do have nothing to teach or offer and simply and simplistically expect others to convert based solely on the strength of your own faith and belief in the one and only true TRUTH.
    Last edited by kcantor; 08-06-2018 at 11:45 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  17. #717
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Since when does public opinion determine the validity of scientific theories? Public policy needs to take opinion in to account, sure, and no tax is ever going to be popular. But I must have missed Einstein taking public opinion polls on whether he should publish special and general relativity.Also still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.
    You invoke the consensus when it suits you, and deny its validity when it doesn't. "Thread: The TRUTH about climate changeby Marcel Petrin Replies:713Views:26,643 Ah yes, Roy Spencer. One of the few denialists... "
    Consensus of knowledgeable experts and active researchers in the field, yes. Consensus of joe six pack who couldn't pass Math/Chem/Physics 30? Not so much.

    Also still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.

  18. #718

    Default

    "consensus of joe six pack who couldn't pass Math/Chem/Physics 30?" ?? That's a broad assumption that they could actually pass the level 20 courses...

  19. #719
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    To be fair to the critics though, one of my friends who is the most vociferously against climate change and attendant policies has a masters in mechanical engineering. He's a very, very smart guy. Unfortunately, beliefs often override rationality, and none of us is immune to it. But I wish he'd "smarten" up.

  20. #720

    Default The TRUTH. The advocates on this form setting an example

    See how the advocates of climate change insult and mock millions of Ontarians. They call the consensus "invalid" while pretending they have a consensus. Anybody who doesn't agree with them is "joe six pack". Then they beg me to answer their inane posts. They set an example of exactly what climate change is made of. Then they arrogantly tell you it's "science".
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  21. #721
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    Still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.

  22. #722

    Default The TRUTH. Looks like the CBC lied to us again

    In this issue of Quirks and Quarks Bob McDonald interviews a scientist that tells us rice will be less nutritious when CO2 rises............

    http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1251434051781

    By now you should all know elevated CO2 is causing crops to grow faster around the world. Of course the scientists in this research don't measure that. They just tell you some of the B vitamins will be reduced as a percentage.

    So rather than tell you the massive benefits of a significantly increased overall yield, they cherry pick some of the vitamins that may not increase as much as the overall yield, and tell you the rice is "less nutritious". In fact, due to the increased overall yield there may be as much of the vitamins in question, just not as much of the vitamin as a percentage. This is what they seem to deem as "less nutritious".

    The article itself discussed the millions, or even billions, of people that may be affected. In evaluating the effect of CO2 it is crucial to consider the affect on the yield. But this aspect is not evaluated. Considering the gravity of how this will affect billions of people this kind of "science" is outrageous.

    Even if the CBC isn't the researcher they are complicit. It is well known in the scientific community CO2 will positively affect plant growth. It is time to address the fraud rather than parade this nonsense on the radio, and award research grants.

    Here's a video of how CO2 affects plant growth..................

    Last edited by MrCombust; 11-06-2018 at 01:56 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  23. #723
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    In this issue of Quirks and Quarks Bob McDonald interviews a scientist that tells us rice will be less nutritious when CO2 rises............

    http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1251434051781

    By now you should all know elevated CO2 is causing crops to grow faster around the world. Of course the scientists in this research don't measure that. They just tell you some of the B vitamins will be reduced as a percentage.

    So rather than tell you the massive benefits of a significantly increased overall yield, they cherry pick some of the vitamins that may not increase as much as the overall yield, and tell you the rice is "less nutritious". In fact, due to the increased overall yield there may be as much of the vitamins in question, just not as much of the vitamin as a percentage. This is what they seem to deem as "less nutritious".

    The article itself discussed the millions, or even billions, of people that may be affected. In evaluating the effect of CO2 it is crucial to consider the affect on the yield. But this aspect is not evaluated. Considering the gravity of how this will affect billions of people this kind of "science" is outrageous.

    Even if the CBC isn't the researcher they are complicit. It is well known in the scientific community CO2 will positively affect plant growth. It is time to address the fraud rather than parade this nonsense on the radio, and award research grants.

    Here's a video of how CO2 affects plant growth..................

    don't you think that's a bit of disingenuous argument?

    increased levels of co2 are potentially advantageous for plant growth even if it might negatively effect their nutrient value)? so what.

    if that same level of increased co2 is bad for human health, does it really matter that it might be good for plant growth?

    https://www.netl.doe.gov/publication...on-seq/169.pdf

    http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications...213_part_4.pdf

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  24. #724

    Default

    For decades it’s been openly stated that the cost/benefit effects would be uneven. Canadian prairies might even benefit.

    However, established settlements and coastal regions might go under water displacing tens or hundreds of millions of people. Moreover, the possibility of vast areas of cropland potentially turning into deserts doesn’t mean matching areas of desert could become cropland - at least not for thousands of years. As with many things in life, destruction can occur far far faster than creation.

  25. #725

    Default

    With few pockets remaining of any particular living thing, changes may wipe out all of a particular type, whereas in the past numerous other populations might have survived.


    Scientists shocked by mysterious deaths of ancient trees - BBC News

    Excerpt:

    “Unexpectedly, they found that eight of the 13 oldest and five of the six largest baobabs had either completely died or had their oldest parts collapse.

    Baobab trees have many stems and trunks, often of different ages. In some cases all the stems died suddenly.

    "We suspect this is associated with increased temperature and drought," Dr Patrut told BBC News. "It's shocking and very sad to see them dying."

    The trees that have died or are dying are found in Zimbabwe, Namibia, South Africa, Botswana and Zambia. They are all between 1,000 and more than 2,500 years old.”
    ...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44418849
    Last edited by KC; 11-06-2018 at 08:07 PM.

  26. #726

    Default The TRUTH. Fake science sometimes reports CO2 as harmful

    But kcantor's documentation clearly shows that, like most substances important to life, CO2 is well tolerated in low quantities..............

    Thanks for the data.........................

    "Atmospheric CO2 at ~0.037% (370 ppm) poses no threat to human health"
    "SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CARBON SEQUESTRATION RICE - 4
    Table 4: Effects of Continuous or Repeated CO2
    Exposure Population Effects

    0.5 - 1.5% Repeated daily Healthy individuals Well tolerated"

    1.5% is more than 40 times current levels.


    Last edited by MrCombust; 12-06-2018 at 02:40 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  27. #727
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    But kcantor's documentation clearly shows that, like most substances important to life, CO2 is well tolerated in low quantities..............

    Thanks for the data.........................

    "Atmospheric CO2 at ~0.037% (370 ppm) poses no threat to human health"
    "SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CARBON SEQUESTRATION RICE - 4
    Table 4: Effects of Continuous or Repeated CO2
    Exposure Population Effects

    0.5 - 1.5% Repeated daily Healthy individuals Well tolerated"

    1.5% is more than 40 times current levels.


    and 0.5% only 13 times more...

    the problem with your trying to cherry-pick and down play is two fold.

    firstly, the problem for people is that carbon dioxide is heavier than air so whatever the increase is will likely be concentrated in the lower portion of the atmosphere we live in.

    secondly, in those portions of the lower atmosphere we live in we tend to live in clusters - we call them cities. and those portions of that portion of our lower atmosphere are already disproportionally affected by higher levels of pollution and carbon dioxide.

    it’s not only a question of “how much”, it’s a question of “where” and while the plants might be okay my guess is humans will start to experience issues long before we get to even 13 times.

    if you want to test this for yourself, you can probably buy carbon dioxide from praxair...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  28. #728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    But kcantor's documentation clearly shows that, like most substances important to life, CO2 is well tolerated in low quantities..............

    Thanks for the data.........................

    "Atmospheric CO2 at ~0.037% (370 ppm) poses no threat to human health"
    "SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CARBON SEQUESTRATION RICE - 4
    Table 4: Effects of Continuous or Repeated CO2
    Exposure Population Effects

    0.5 - 1.5% Repeated daily Healthy individuals Well tolerated"

    1.5% is more than 40 times current levels.


    and 0.5% only 13 times more...

    the problem with your trying to cherry-pick and down play is two fold.

    firstly, the problem for people is that carbon dioxide is heavier than air so whatever the increase is will likely be concentrated in the lower portion of the atmosphere we live in.

    secondly, in those portions of the lower atmosphere we live in we tend to live in clusters - we call them cities. and those portions of that portion of our lower atmosphere are already disproportionally affected by higher levels of pollution and carbon dioxide.

    it’s not only a question of “how much”, it’s a question of “where” and while the plants might be okay my guess is humans will start to experience issues long before we get to even 13 times.

    if you want to test this for yourself, you can probably buy carbon dioxide from praxair...
    No, I won't be testing your made up, folksy, theories.

    I do find it odd you make claims about the effects of elevated CO2 and then provide three links that prove you're wrong. And even when I point out what YOUR own links say, you still pretend CO2 is bad and then tell me how wrong I am. This is why I don't care much for discussing with advocates.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 13-06-2018 at 10:00 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  29. #729

    Default

    Man... this thread... MrCombust.... lolllllll....

  30. #730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Man... this thread... MrCombust.... lolllllll....
    Crops are growing faster, benefitting billions of starving people all over the world. Scientists come on the radio and lie. They tell us that more nutritious crops are less nutritious.

    Nothing funny about that.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 13-06-2018 at 10:30 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  31. #731

    Default

    no, I was laughing at all the misinformation, and misrepresentation of data that you keep reposting, reposting, reposting, in hopes that it will finally be true....

  32. #732
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,670

    Default

    I listened last Saturday to the Quirks & Quarks segment Mr. Combust cited above. Couldn't help thinking at the time, the deniers are going to have a field day with this one.

    I believe the women being interviewed was identified as a grad student after the segment.

    Bob McDonald did his best to sound incredulous during the interview, and images of malnourished women, children and babies in rice dependent countries were left floating in the air.

    All because some experiment showed that certain strains of rice absorb certain nutrients from the soil at a lower rate (folic acid and some Vitamin B compounds were mentioned) due to rice absorbing more carbon (i.e. growing faster) at elevated CO2 levels (I recall 580 ppm being mentioned).

    Nowhere in the segment was it mentioned that these lower nutrient levels in rice could be addressed through plant breeding and/or genetic modification, or in a worst case scenario by taking vitamin supplements. Taking additional folic acid in supplement form is already recommended during pregnancy.

    People like Bob McDonald who sincerely think global warming is a threat need to stop airing interviews that don't even convince listeners like me, let alone people who doubt or deny that warming is happening.

  33. #733

    Default The TRUTH. Who are the real "deniers"?

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    I listened last Saturday to the Quirks & Quarks segment Mr. Combust cited above. Couldn't help thinking at the time, the deniers are going to have a field day with this one.

    I believe the women being interviewed was identified as a grad student after the segment.

    Bob McDonald did his best to sound incredulous during the interview, and images of malnourished women, children and babies in rice dependent countries were left floating in the air.

    All because some experiment showed that certain strains of rice absorb certain nutrients from the soil at a lower rate (folic acid and some Vitamin B compounds were mentioned) due to rice absorbing more carbon (i.e. growing faster) at elevated CO2 levels (I recall 580 ppm being mentioned).

    Nowhere in the segment was it mentioned that these lower nutrient levels in rice could be addressed through plant breeding and/or genetic modification, or in a worst case scenario by taking vitamin supplements. Taking additional folic acid in supplement form is already recommended during pregnancy.

    People like Bob McDonald who sincerely think global warming is a threat need to stop airing interviews that don't even convince listeners like me, let alone people who doubt or deny that warming is happening.
    The scientist on the show lied. It wouldn't take much for Bob Mcdonald to know that. In fact, he probably does.

    You shouldn't call me a "denier". The people lying are the deniers. Deniers of the truth. The scientist in the interview, Bob McDonald, and the CBC, they are the "deniers", if you feel the need to call names. Aside from that, nice to see someone weigh in without the usual playbook.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  34. #734

    Default

    He’s not a scientist, but he understands capitalism:

    GMO's Grantham: capitalists need to wake up to climate change reality

    “ Grantham cited a slew of data showing how climate change is impacting soil, grains, temperature as well as general human health. Those numbers, coupled with Grantham's speech delivery, scared a lot of people in attendance at the conference.

    Grantham also pointed out that many of the problems with how capitalists deal with climate change stem from the very nature of corporations. "A corporation's responsibility is to maximize profit, not to spend money and figure out how to save the planet," he said. “

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/13/gmos...e-reality.html



  35. #735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    I listened last Saturday to the Quirks & Quarks segment Mr. Combust cited above. Couldn't help thinking at the time, the deniers are going to have a field day with this one.

    I believe the women being interviewed was identified as a grad student after the segment.

    Bob McDonald did his best to sound incredulous during the interview, and images of malnourished women, children and babies in rice dependent countries were left floating in the air.

    All because some experiment showed that certain strains of rice absorb certain nutrients from the soil at a lower rate (folic acid and some Vitamin B compounds were mentioned) due to rice absorbing more carbon (i.e. growing faster) at elevated CO2 levels (I recall 580 ppm being mentioned).

    Nowhere in the segment was it mentioned that these lower nutrient levels in rice could be addressed through plant breeding and/or genetic modification, or in a worst case scenario by taking vitamin supplements. Taking additional folic acid in supplement form is already recommended during pregnancy.

    People like Bob McDonald who sincerely think global warming is a threat need to stop airing interviews that don't even convince listeners like me, let alone people who doubt or deny that warming is happening.
    The scientist on the show lied. It wouldn't take much for Bob Mcdonald to know that. In fact, he probably does.

    You shouldn't call me a "denier". The people lying are the deniers. Deniers of the truth. The scientist in the interview, Bob McDonald, and the CBC, they are the "deniers", if you feel the need to call names. Aside from that, nice to see someone weigh in without the usual playbook.
    but you are the one thats denying the TRUTH. In fact, you've gone on quite a long thread about denying the TRUTH.

  36. #736
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    ^

    you’re confusing truth with “the TRUTH”... although you’re not the only one - it started 735 posts ago.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  37. #737

    Default

    is TRUTH an acronym for something?

  38. #738
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    is TRUTH an acronym for something?
    Teach Really Upholding Total Heresy?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  39. #739

    Default The TRUTH. UAH satellite data update.

    This is the latest temperature graph from UAH. If you've been reading my posts you should know that satellite RSS data, and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show a similar trend.

    NASA's GISS, which is based on land weather stations, shows much more warming. You should also know that land based stations are corrupted by the growing heat island effect as cities grow around land based stations. GISS is also corrupted by NASA's constant fudging of the data. You can argue about the validity of the fudging, but you can't say it's not happening. Earlier versions of GISS are available on the internet and NASA's website. Liar blogs and advocates use GISS exclusively to demonstrate "global warming" as it validates their claims. But some of the most ardent climate advocate scientists no longer use GISS as a reference and have admitted to the now 20 year "pause".

    Climate advocates look at the statistical warming trend and tell you CO2 is the cause. Skeptics look at the large natural variability and aren't convinced a marginal amount of warming is evidence of a CO2 footprint.

    If you look at the year 2000 most of the graph to the left is below zero, and most to the right is above. The large 1990's spike of "global warming" is being spread over a growing time period. The "Climate change" literature is being rewritten as the advocates cling to an ever decreasing, and unconvincing trend. Naturally, the liar blogs, and sadly the CBC, will never show you this.

    In this graph the present temperature anomaly of .2 degrees is .1 degrees above the 1981 anomaly of .1 degrees with the 2016 El Nino (a warming oscillation) continuing to fade.......

    www.drroyspencer.com

    Last edited by MrCombust; 23-06-2018 at 11:52 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  40. #740
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    ^ The long term upward trend looks pretty clear to me, about 0.3 - 0.4°C since 1979. With 1998-99 being in the middle of that graph, it has no influence on the slope of the trendline, only the intercept. The statistical trend would be identical if 1998 was unusually cold instead of unusually warm. Not to mention that the global maximum in that graph was in 2016, not 1998.

  41. #741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ The long term upward trend looks pretty clear to me, about 0.3 - 0.4°C since 1979. With 1998-99 being in the middle of that graph, it has no influence on the slope of the trendline, only the intercept. The statistical trend would be identical if 1998 was unusually cold instead of unusually warm. Not to mention that the global maximum in that graph was in 2016, not 1998.
    You do understand the earth's temperature varies naturally, don't you? And if it does, it's not a matter of an "upward trend". It's a matter of demonstrating the trend is being caused by CO2. Pointing to an "upward trend" and saying "CO2 did it", is the same as pointing to rain and saying "CO2 did it". It rained here yesterday, was that caused by man made CO2?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  42. #742

    Default The TRUTH. The CBC lies almost daily about "climate change". It's time they got called on it.

    Here's their latest article......................

    "East Coast salt marshes to be restored to battle effects of climate change.
    Restoration a bid to help absorb rising sea levels and storm surges brought on by climate change.

    A strip of Nova Scotia coastline is shown in this undated handout photo.
    The federal government and Saint Mary's University are teaming up to take on one of the worst problems caused by climate change: rising sea levels.
    A sinking dike is shown in this undated handout photo."
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ored-1.4721044

    The CBC uses "undated photos" in their article about the damage done by "climate change". Doesn't anybody else find this to be fraud?

    Rising sea levels caused by "climate change"?????

    Let's look at the Halifax tide gauge..................

    Halifax shows the sea has been rising for 100 years or more. Does it look like sea level rise is accelerating due to CO2?
    e to man made CO2?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 25-06-2018 at 02:17 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  43. #743

    Default

    yes it does

    /thread

  44. #744
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    This is the latest temperature graph from UAH. If you've been reading my posts you should know that satellite RSS data, and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show a similar trend.

    NASA's GISS, which is based on land weather stations, shows much more warming. You should also know that land based stations are corrupted by the growing heat island effect as cities grow around land based stations. GISS is also corrupted by NASA's constant fudging of the data. You can argue about the validity of the fudging, but you can't say it's not happening. Earlier versions of GISS are available on the internet and NASA's website. Liar blogs and advocates use GISS exclusively to demonstrate "global warming" as it validates their claims. But some of the most ardent climate advocate scientists no longer use GISS as a reference and have admitted to the now 20 year "pause".

    Climate advocates look at the statistical warming trend and tell you CO2 is the cause. Skeptics look at the large natural variability and aren't convinced a marginal amount of warming is evidence of a CO2 footprint.

    If you look at the year 2000 most of the graph to the left is below zero, and most to the right is above. The large 1990's spike of "global warming" is being spread over a growing time period. The "Climate change" literature is being rewritten as the advocates cling to an ever decreasing, and unconvincing trend. Naturally, the liar blogs, and sadly the CBC, will never show you this.

    In this graph the present temperature anomaly of .2 degrees is .1 degrees above the 1981 anomaly of .1 degrees with the 2016 El Nino (a warming oscillation) continuing to fade.......

    www.drroyspencer.com

    Since you keep posting the same nonsense and misunderstandings about satellite data, I'll keep repeating the facts from my response in #687 above:

    Most satellite data is measured at altitude and not at the earth's surface. Satellite data is useful especially in measuring how temperature changes higher up in the atmosphere compared to temperature changes in the earth's land and oceans where people live and on which we depend. The higher the elevation above the earth's surface the less pronounced warming has been with even some cooling observed in the lower stratosphere. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strato...ture_Trend.jpg

    GISS is only one of dozens of earth surface temperature time series and not even the most cited one. GISS makes a handy foil for the climate change deniers because of its association with James Hansen.

    Why don't all the "skeptics" get together and develop their own surface temperature time series? Oh right, former skeptic Richard Muller already did this with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project.

    BEST's time series found slightly more warming than most of the other temperature time series because BEST did not make adjustments in station data to remove urban heat islands for instance. Of course, no sooner did Muller report BEST's findings than he was disowned and attacked by the deniers.

  45. #745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    This is the latest temperature graph from UAH. If you've been reading my posts you should know that satellite RSS data, and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show a similar trend.

    NASA's GISS, which is based on land weather stations, shows much more warming. You should also know that land based stations are corrupted by the growing heat island effect as cities grow around land based stations. GISS is also corrupted by NASA's constant fudging of the data. You can argue about the validity of the fudging, but you can't say it's not happening. Earlier versions of GISS are available on the internet and NASA's website. Liar blogs and advocates use GISS exclusively to demonstrate "global warming" as it validates their claims. But some of the most ardent climate advocate scientists no longer use GISS as a reference and have admitted to the now 20 year "pause".

    Climate advocates look at the statistical warming trend and tell you CO2 is the cause. Skeptics look at the large natural variability and aren't convinced a marginal amount of warming is evidence of a CO2 footprint.

    If you look at the year 2000 most of the graph to the left is below zero, and most to the right is above. The large 1990's spike of "global warming" is being spread over a growing time period. The "Climate change" literature is being rewritten as the advocates cling to an ever decreasing, and unconvincing trend. Naturally, the liar blogs, and sadly the CBC, will never show you this.

    In this graph the present temperature anomaly of .2 degrees is .1 degrees above the 1981 anomaly of .1 degrees with the 2016 El Nino (a warming oscillation) continuing to fade.......

    www.drroyspencer.com

    Since you keep posting the same nonsense and misunderstandings about satellite data, I'll keep repeating the facts from my response in #687 above:

    Most satellite data is measured at altitude and not at the earth's surface. Satellite data is useful especially in measuring how temperature changes higher up in the atmosphere compared to temperature changes in the earth's land and oceans where people live and on which we depend. The higher the elevation above the earth's surface the less pronounced warming has been with even some cooling observed in the lower stratosphere. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strato...ture_Trend.jpg

    GISS is only one of dozens of earth surface temperature time series and not even the most cited one. GISS makes a handy foil for the climate change deniers because of its association with James Hansen.

    Why don't all the "skeptics" get together and develop their own surface temperature time series? Oh right, former skeptic Richard Muller already did this with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project.

    BEST's time series found slightly more warming than most of the other temperature time series because BEST did not make adjustments in station data to remove urban heat islands for instance. Of course, no sooner did Muller report BEST's findings than he was disowned and attacked by the deniers.
    Satellite data is especially appropriate to global warming. CO2 in the troposphere is where the theory says warming should be the most. The fact that the trend there is lower actually disproves the global warming theory.

    Not only that, there are a number of papers from prominent climate change scientists and the IPCC that have re-written predictions based on the clear evidence global warming has stopped.

    Your argument that land based stations are where "people live" is EXACTLY what makes the land based stations inappropriate to use.

    If you REALLY want to refute satellite data you have to refute............

    1) Climate change scientists acknowledging the pause. (I've posted a number of papers on that, and I can post more, including the IPCC itself)
    2) The heat island effect.
    3) NASA's numerous fudging of the land based record upwards.
    4) Explain the "invisible shield" between the troposphere and the land temperatures and why they differ.
    5) Explain why the troposphere "hot spot", (where climate change theory says most of the warming should occur), doesn't exist.


    "Most satellite data is measured at altitude and not at the earth's surface."

    EXACTLY why satellite data is used instead of GISS...................
    Yes, that is a GISS weather station you see.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 25-06-2018 at 04:42 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  46. #746

    Default

    Doesn't increases in CO2 in the troposphere weaken something allowing more radiation through, which allows more heating on the surface?




  47. #747

    Default The TRUTH. Here's a video discussion various tricks used to "create" global warming

    In this video Dr. Jennifer Marohasy describes various tricks used to fabricate global warming. She discusses the Amberley weather station in Australia. A perfectly operational station for many years undergoes a >1 degree fudge by NASA's "homogenization" algorithm. A long term cooling trend is turned into a long term warming trend.



    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  48. #748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    In this video Dr. Jennifer Marohasy describes various tricks used to fabricate global warming. She discusses the Amberley weather station in Australia. A perfectly operational station for many years undergoes a >1 degree fudge by NASA's "homogenization" algorithm. A long term cooling trend is turned into a long term warming trend.




    this is a guest post by ClimateDenierRoundup
    The big news in denierworld this week is obviously the latest (and peer-reviewed) #ExxonKnew study.
    But before Exxon stole the spotlight on Tuesday, the newest paper of note in the Denivory Tower was one published earlier this month in an obscure and soon-to-be discontinued journal. The paper claims current warming is driven by natural forces, and is not uniquely human-caused.
    Despite being based entirely on usually denier-derided computer modeling, the study was immediately–and lazily–championed by the climate denial fake news apparatus. Co-author Jennifer Marohasy wrote about the study in an op-ed for the Spectator and at her own blog; her description of her findings was uncritically copy-and-pasted into a Michael Bastasch story at the Daily Caller, reposted at WUWT and TallBloke, praised by James Delingpole at Breitbart and briefly linked to at Drudge (complete with an irrelevant photo of Al Gore).
    Yet a quick fact check on science Twitter shows the study’s conclusions are “based on inaccurately cited data that's incorrectly scaled & incorrectly aligned in time.” What’s more, even if the authors had used the data correctly, it’s still “essentially just a complicated curve-fitting exercise,” as And Then There’s Physics points out in a short and simple debunking of this complicated exercise. Marohasy et al’s paper tries to use machine learning to find natural patterns in warming unrelated to carbon pollution, and admits that it doesn’t take actual real world physics into account. As And Then There’s Physics concludes, the study uses a “naive approach – that completely ignores [the] physics” that govern the climate system.
    Given that the study itself admits as much, it’s a bit bizarre that the authors couldn’t have seen these many intelligent criticisms about their artificial intelligence paper coming. Unless, of course, they did, and the allure of fawning fake news coverage and a convenient talking point about the denier-beloved Medieval Warming Period was just too great to resist.
    There’s also the added bonus that the study was funded by a denier and that the authors work for an Australian industry-funded think tank. Doesn’t take any intelligence, artificial or otherwise, to deduce what’s going on here.
    You can lead AI to denial, but you can’t make it think.


    https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/08/2...-gets-schooled

  49. #749

    Default The TRUTH. Climate advocates are funny

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    They talk about science all day long but completely ignore it.

    NASA fudges that data of a perfectly operational weather station by a full degree of warming.

    Medwards refutes it by ignoring the topic and reposts cheap slander from a liar blog.

    " Climate chànge" is what it is. Fake data, lies, and slandering anyone who questions it. The advocates call this "science."

    I recommend you all go to desmogblog and look at that site for what it is. A cesspool of slandering anyone who questions climate change. Fake science any high school kid could see through.

    And nothing about why NASA fudged the data of a perfectly operational weather station.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  50. #750

    Default

    Ever read what you write and look in the mirror and find it funny how applicable it is to you? Are you that naive and ignorant?

  51. #751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Ever read what you write and look in the mirror and find it funny how applicable it is to you? Are you that naive and ignorant?
    All the time. Even in this case. I still want to know why NASA is changing the data from operational weather stations. Your cheap slander from a liar blog isn't a scientific answer.

    In fact, you respond frequently to my posts but almost never post anything close to science. Is this what you think science Is? Slander on a liar blog?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 27-06-2018 at 12:10 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  52. #752
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    They talk about science all day long but completely ignore it.

    NASA fudges that data of a perfectly operational weather station by a full degree of warming.

    Medwards refutes it by ignoring the topic and reposts cheap slander from a liar blog.

    " Climate chànge" is what it is. Fake data, lies, and slandering anyone who questions it. The advocates call this "science."

    I recommend you all go to desmogblog and look at that site for what it is. A cesspool of slandering anyone who questions climate change. Fake science any high school kid could see through.

    And nothing about why NASA fudged the data of a perfectly operational weather station.
    So are you going to actually refute what was said and show how it was wrong, or are you just going to throw out "Liar Blog" and call it a day?

    Remember, you're the one trying to show people the TRUTH, the onus is on you to refute the climate change believers.

  53. #753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    They talk about science all day long but completely ignore it.

    NASA fudges that data of a perfectly operational weather station by a full degree of warming.

    Medwards refutes it by ignoring the topic and reposts cheap slander from a liar blog.

    " Climate chànge" is what it is. Fake data, lies, and slandering anyone who questions it. The advocates call this "science."

    I recommend you all go to desmogblog and look at that site for what it is. A cesspool of slandering anyone who questions climate change. Fake science any high school kid could see through.

    And nothing about why NASA fudged the data of a perfectly operational weather station.
    So are you going to actually refute what was said and show how it was wrong, or are you just going to throw out "Liar Blog" and call it a day?

    Remember, you're the one trying to show people the TRUTH, the onus is on you to refute the climate change believers.
    No. You got it wrong. You advocates are always screaming about "science". You prefer a liar website blog over a published PhD scientist?

    Don't talk about "science" if all you can do is cut and paste from liar website blogs.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  54. #754

    Default

    99.99999% of scientist around the world agree that global warming and climate change are being extremely accelerated by man-made CO2 emissions, yet you refute all that because a very small percentage disagree, and you call everything that refutes your entrenched position as 'liar blogs'...






    Then you state "Don't talk about "science" if all you can do is cut and paste from liar website blogs" which is terrible funny, because just about every single post of yours has been a copy/paste of the same material over and over and over again... I mean how many times have you posted that same graph that's easily debunked but yet you persist?



  55. #755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    99.99999% of scientist around the world agree that global warming and climate change are being extremely accelerated by man-made CO2 emissions, yet you refute all that because a very small percentage disagree, and you call everything that refutes your entrenched position as 'liar blogs'...

    Then you state "Don't talk about "science" if all you can do is cut and paste from liar website blogs" which is terrible funny, because just about every single post of yours has been a copy/paste of the same material over and over and over again... I mean how many times have you posted that same graph that's easi
    Where'd you get this consensus data from? Another liar website blog? Yes.

    Like I said, you advocates scream about "science", but ignore it.

    Let's actually look at the science, instead of a liar blog.........................

    The American Meteorological Society polled their members to see if they believed global warming was mostly man made and got this result.........

    According to a new survey of AMS members, only 29% think the change is "largely or entirely due to human activity".

    29% think the change is "largely or entirely due to human activity", this lines up with YOUR statement on climate change that "climate change are being extremely accelerated", so according to the AMS's poll, only 29% of their members believe it.

    http://blog.ametsoc.org/news/new-sur...limate-change/

    That's not even close to a 99.9999999999% consensus. 71% of AMS members are deniers.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 29-06-2018 at 11:40 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  56. #756

    Default The TRUTH. Nobody should believe in "climate change" this morning

    The weather network predicted 12mm of rain last night. Using software simulations, and decades of computer modelling, meteorologists cannot predict weather events accurately within hours.

    "Climate change" mongers think they can use software simulations to predict 100 years into the future?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  57. #757

    Default

    Without software, but with just a few years of experience I could predict that in a few months temperatures will cool and snow will fall. However, I can’t predict the temperature tomorrow.

  58. #758
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The weather network predicted 12mm of rain last night. Using software simulations, and decades of computer modelling, meteorologists cannot predict weather events accurately within hours.

    "Climate change" mongers think they can use software simulations to predict 100 years into the future?
    you want us to believe you are a purveyor of the TRUTH when it comes to climate change but you don’t understand the difference between local weather and global climate??? really???
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  59. #759

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The weather network predicted 12mm of rain last night. Using software simulations, and decades of computer modelling, meteorologists cannot predict weather events accurately within hours.

    "Climate change" mongers think they can use software simulations to predict 100 years into the future?
    This shows your complete lack of understanding on how weather forecasting works, and weakens any argument you have made in the past and the future. However, I'm Jacks complete lack of surprise.

    Some TRUTH for you to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probab..._precipitation

    Warning: real scientists ahead.
    Last edited by Medwards; 03-07-2018 at 10:25 AM.

  60. #760
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The weather network predicted 12mm of rain last night. Using software simulations, and decades of computer modelling, meteorologists cannot predict weather events accurately within hours.

    "Climate change" mongers think they can use software simulations to predict 100 years into the future?
    This post should be stickied so that anyone new coming to the thread can disregard anything you say.

  61. #761

    Default The TRUTH. Are you upset about clear cutting, logging, and deforestation?

    Calculations based on empirical evidence show that enhancement of plant growth by man made CO2 is larger than all other negative effects put together.

    Environmentalists may need to rethink thier philosophy.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  62. #762

    Default

    when confronted, just tune them out. La-La-La. Disappear for a few days. Pretend like it doesn't exist.

  63. #763
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Calculations based on empirical evidence show that enhancement of plant growth by man made CO2 is larger than all other negative effects put together.

    Environmentalists may need to rethink thier philosophy.
    wtf does that mean?

    that's like telling someone not to bother quitting smoking because the negative effects of everything from heart disease to stroke to bad breath to innumerable cancers to burning your house down aren't as large as the measurable enhanced ability to achieve and maintain weight loss just because that's the only effect you can actually measure on a daily basis...

    combine that with the fallacy of your only measuring the impact of one thing - like co2 - and not measuring the concurrent impact of others - like higher winds or more rain or less rain or longer or shorter growing seasons - and you're only proving how much you don't know about the TRUTH, not how much you do know.

    although i have to give you credit for finding new and incredible ways to reduce your credibility. you know, using expressions like "calculations based on empirical evidence" to support your opinion while insisting that "calculations based on empirical evidence" that don't agree with your opinion are simply the fodder of liar blogs and fake news groups like nasa...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  64. #764

    Default The TRUTH. Top climate advocates and skeptics debate......

    In this video 2 top climate change advocates, and 2 top skeptics state their case and answer questions.


    Watch the advocates and listen to what they say, their case is mostly about threatening people. The only assessment of climate change you ever get from advocates is "we're all going to die". Also Michael Mann defends his hockey stick graph and says our current temperatures are higher than they've been in 10,000 years. In some of my posts you'll see a video of Michael Mann lying to a senate committee on global warming. In another of my posts you'll see that Michael Mann's software will create a hockey stick graph out of random data. In other posts I put up you'll see ice core records showing a 3,000 year warm period called the Holocene in which the 1km thick Athabasca glacier used to be a forest. I don't know why anybody would believe anything this guy says. Canada's Patrick Moore directly addresses, and refutes, almost everything Michael Mann says.....................….


    
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  65. #765

    Default The TRUTH. Climate change lawsuits thrown out of court

    California, and other states, initiated lawsuits against big oil for "climate change" damages. Saying "climate change" is causing unprecedented sea level rise, storms, floods, and droughts. They wanted to sue Exxon and others for damages.

    Some of the lawsuits have been thrown out of court...……….

    "Judge tosses out climate suit against big oil"

    "A federal judge just tossed out a lawsuit brought against the world's largest oil companies for selling fuels they knew would boost sea levels and disrupt the global climate."

    https://mashable.com/2018/06/26/clim.../#Mvyo7PfuvPqx
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  66. #766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    when confronted, just tune them out. La-La-La. Disappear for a few days. Pretend like it doesn't exist.


  67. #767
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    Further proof that MrCombust and MrOilers are the same person

    Or just use the same techniques. I guess you have to when you don't have much to go off.

  68. #768
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    In this video 2 top climate change advocates, and 2 top skeptics state their case and answer questions.


    Watch the advocates and listen to what they say, their case is mostly about threatening people. The only assessment of climate change you ever get from advocates is "we're all going to die". Also Michael Mann defends his hockey stick graph and says our current temperatures are higher than they've been in 10,000 years. In some of my posts you'll see a video of Michael Mann lying to a senate committee on global warming. In another of my posts you'll see that Michael Mann's software will create a hockey stick graph out of random data. In other posts I put up you'll see ice core records showing a 3,000 year warm period called the Holocene in which the 1km thick Athabasca glacier used to be a forest. I don't know why anybody would believe anything this guy says. Canada's Patrick Moore directly addresses, and refutes, almost everything Michael Mann says.....................….


    
    sometimes it sounds like you're the shill trying to sell tickets for the generals vs the globetrotters by convincing the crowd to ignore the previous record between the two teams. the globetrotters weren't advocates for their record, they earned their record. scientists talking about global warming aren't "advocates" any more than a physicist teaching newton's theories is and "advocate" for gravity. things that are don't need advocates to convince others of the truth of their being even if you have identified two skeptics to argue otherwise. those skeptics will be in the same 3% minority tomorrow as they were yesterday and just as wrong. maybe this is simple enough

    https://www.facebook.com/itsokaytobe...5779345012821/
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  69. #769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Calculations based on empirical evidence show that enhancement of plant growth by man made CO2 is larger than all other negative effects put together.

    Environmentalists may need to rethink thier philosophy.
    wtf does that mean?

    that's like telling someone not to bother quitting smoking because the negative effects of everything from heart disease to stroke to bad breath to innumerable cancers to burning your house down aren't as large as the measurable enhanced ability to achieve and maintain weight loss just because that's the only effect you can actually measure on a daily basis...

    combine that with the fallacy of your only measuring the impact of one thing - like co2 - and not measuring the concurrent impact of others - like higher winds or more rain or less rain or longer or shorter growing seasons - and you're only proving how much you don't know about the TRUTH, not how much you do know.

    although i have to give you credit for finding new and incredible ways to reduce your credibility. you know, using expressions like "calculations based on empirical evidence" to support your opinion while insisting that "calculations based on empirical evidence" that don't agree with your opinion are simply the fodder of liar blogs and fake news groups like nasa...
    Ignoring the shift in the normal curve. Who knows - in many places any fertilization effect may be undone by desertification, drowning, etc.

    The melting of ice caps and shifting of the weight of water may cause changes in tectonic pressures and things like volcanoes erupting and further changing climate.

  70. #770

    Default The TRUTH. Dedicated advocates can't handle reality

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Calculations based on empirical evidence show that enhancement of plant growth by man made CO2 is larger than all other negative effects put together.

    Environmentalists may need to rethink thier philosophy.
    wtf does that mean?

    that's like telling someone not to bother quitting smoking because the negative effects of everything from heart disease to stroke to bad breath to innumerable cancers to burning your house down aren't as large as the measurable enhanced ability to achieve and maintain weight loss just because that's the only effect you can actually measure on a daily basis...

    combine that with the fallacy of your only measuring the impact of one thing - like co2 - and not measuring the concurrent impact of others - like higher winds or more rain or less rain or longer or shorter growing seasons - and you're only proving how much you don't know about the TRUTH, not how much you do know.

    although i have to give you credit for finding new and incredible ways to reduce your credibility. you know, using expressions like "calculations based on empirical evidence" to support your opinion while insisting that "calculations based on empirical evidence" that don't agree with your opinion are simply the fodder of liar blogs and fake news groups like nasa...
    Ignoring the shift in the normal curve. Who knows - in many places any fertilization effect may be undone by desertification, drowning, etc.

    The melting of ice caps and shifting of the weight of water may cause changes in tectonic pressures and things like volcanoes erupting and further changing climate.
    Notice the responses from advocates who believe the lies. They can't square reality with the media's (including our own CBC) daily dose of threats and disaster...........

    Empirical evidence......., real evidence you can measure, show plants are growing faster all over the world.

    KC counters with the fake threats from the lying media (or just making up bad stuff)..............

    "higher winds" not proven
    "or more rain or less rain" ?????? not proven "More rain", or "less rain" is worse than plants growing faster all over the world?
    "or longer or shorter growing seasons" ????? Which one?
    "any fertilization effect may be undone by ..........drowning" ???????

    The "more" or "less" argument is quite common, even in the scientific community. If something happens "more" it's bad, if it happens "less" it's bad. No matter what happens, it's always worse. The climate change arguments are fundamentally, logically, and trivially erroneous. The fundamental argument from the scientists and the media always boils down to "Man is bad, everything/everybody is going to die, we need lots of money to study the problem".

    Until we get real, honest assessments all funding should be cut off. The media, including the CBC, and scientists should be held accountable for the relentless lies, and ridiculous assessments. And the reason the can say whatever they want...... "more rain", "less rain", "more wind", "less wind", is because none of the crap is based on empirical evidence.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 13-07-2018 at 11:44 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  71. #771
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Calculations based on empirical evidence show that enhancement of plant growth by man made CO2 is larger than all other negative effects put together.

    Environmentalists may need to rethink thier philosophy.
    wtf does that mean?

    that's like telling someone not to bother quitting smoking because the negative effects of everything from heart disease to stroke to bad breath to innumerable cancers to burning your house down aren't as large as the measurable enhanced ability to achieve and maintain weight loss just because that's the only effect you can actually measure on a daily basis...

    combine that with the fallacy of your only measuring the impact of one thing - like co2 - and not measuring the concurrent impact of others - like higher winds or more rain or less rain or longer or shorter growing seasons - and you're only proving how much you don't know about the TRUTH, not how much you do know.

    although i have to give you credit for finding new and incredible ways to reduce your credibility. you know, using expressions like "calculations based on empirical evidence" to support your opinion while insisting that "calculations based on empirical evidence" that don't agree with your opinion are simply the fodder of liar blogs and fake news groups like nasa...
    Ignoring the shift in the normal curve. Who knows - in many places any fertilization effect may be undone by desertification, drowning, etc.

    The melting of ice caps and shifting of the weight of water may cause changes in tectonic pressures and things like volcanoes erupting and further changing climate.
    Notice the responses from advocates who believe the lies. They can't square reality with the media's (including our own CBC) daily dose of threats and disaster...........

    Empirical evidence......., real evidence you can measure, show plants are growing faster all over the world.

    KC counters with the fake threats from the lying media (or just making up bad stuff)..............

    "higher winds" not proven
    "or more rain or less rain" ?????? not proven "More rain", or "less rain" is worse than plants growing faster all over the world?
    "or longer or shorter growing seasons" ????? Which one?
    "any fertilization effect may be undone by ..........drowning" ???????

    The "more" or "less" argument is quite common, even in the scientific community. If something happens "more" it's bad, if it happens "less" it's bad. No matter what happens, it's always worse. The climate change arguments are fundamentally, logically, and trivially erroneous. The fundamental argument from the scientists and the media always boils down to "Man is bad, everything/everybody is going to die, we need lots of money to study the problem".

    Until we get real, honest assessments all funding should be cut off. The media, including the CBC, and scientists should be held accountable for the relentless lies, and ridiculous assessments. And the reason the can say whatever they want...... "more rain", "less rain", "more wind", "less wind", is because none of the crap is based on empirical evidence.
    emphasis added...

    "empirical evidence!" he shouted.

    empirical evidence indeed.

    where is the empirical evidence that the increased co2 levels that "show plants are growing faster all over the world" is healthy for other organisms including fish and animals and humans?

    or do you simply expect us all to evolve to anaerobic creatures given enough exposure?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  72. #772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Calculations based on empirical evidence show that enhancement of plant growth by man made CO2 is larger than all other negative effects put together.

    Environmentalists may need to rethink thier philosophy.
    wtf does that mean?

    that's like telling someone not to bother quitting smoking because the negative effects of everything from heart disease to stroke to bad breath to innumerable cancers to burning your house down aren't as large as the measurable enhanced ability to achieve and maintain weight loss just because that's the only effect you can actually measure on a daily basis...

    combine that with the fallacy of your only measuring the impact of one thing - like co2 - and not measuring the concurrent impact of others - like higher winds or more rain or less rain or longer or shorter growing seasons - and you're only proving how much you don't know about the TRUTH, not how much you do know.

    although i have to give you credit for finding new and incredible ways to reduce your credibility. you know, using expressions like "calculations based on empirical evidence" to support your opinion while insisting that "calculations based on empirical evidence" that don't agree with your opinion are simply the fodder of liar blogs and fake news groups like nasa...
    Ignoring the shift in the normal curve. Who knows - in many places any fertilization effect may be undone by desertification, drowning, etc.

    The melting of ice caps and shifting of the weight of water may cause changes in tectonic pressures and things like volcanoes erupting and further changing climate.
    Notice the responses from advocates who believe the lies. They can't square reality with the media's (including our own CBC) daily dose of threats and disaster...........

    Empirical evidence......., real evidence you can measure, show plants are growing faster all over the world.

    KC counters with the fake threats from the lying media (or just making up bad stuff)..............

    "higher winds" not proven
    "or more rain or less rain" ?????? not proven "More rain", or "less rain" is worse than plants growing faster all over the world?
    "or longer or shorter growing seasons" ????? Which one?
    "any fertilization effect may be undone by ..........drowning" ???????

    The "more" or "less" argument is quite common, even in the scientific community. If something happens "more" it's bad, if it happens "less" it's bad. No matter what happens, it's always worse. The climate change arguments are fundamentally, logically, and trivially erroneous. The fundamental argument from the scientists and the media always boils down to "Man is bad, everything/everybody is going to die, we need lots of money to study the problem".

    Until we get real, honest assessments all funding should be cut off. The media, including the CBC, and scientists should be held accountable for the relentless lies, and ridiculous assessments. And the reason the can say whatever they want...... "more rain", "less rain", "more wind", "less wind", is because none of the crap is based on empirical evidence.
    emphasis added...

    "empirical evidence!" he shouted.

    empirical evidence indeed.

    where is the empirical evidence that the increased co2 levels that "show plants are growing faster all over the world" is healthy for other organisms including fish and animals and humans?

    or do you simply expect us all to evolve to anaerobic creatures given enough exposure?
    Why do you keep pretending CO2 is poisonous when YOUR OWN LINKS in post 723 say it isn't? How could I convince you of anything when you don't even believe the evidence YOU post? You're so brainwashed you don't believe anything unless it's evidence we're all gonna die.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  73. #773
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Calculations based on empirical evidence show that enhancement of plant growth by man made CO2 is larger than all other negative effects put together.

    Environmentalists may need to rethink thier philosophy.
    wtf does that mean?

    that's like telling someone not to bother quitting smoking because the negative effects of everything from heart disease to stroke to bad breath to innumerable cancers to burning your house down aren't as large as the measurable enhanced ability to achieve and maintain weight loss just because that's the only effect you can actually measure on a daily basis...

    combine that with the fallacy of your only measuring the impact of one thing - like co2 - and not measuring the concurrent impact of others - like higher winds or more rain or less rain or longer or shorter growing seasons - and you're only proving how much you don't know about the TRUTH, not how much you do know.

    although i have to give you credit for finding new and incredible ways to reduce your credibility. you know, using expressions like "calculations based on empirical evidence" to support your opinion while insisting that "calculations based on empirical evidence" that don't agree with your opinion are simply the fodder of liar blogs and fake news groups like nasa...
    Ignoring the shift in the normal curve. Who knows - in many places any fertilization effect may be undone by desertification, drowning, etc.

    The melting of ice caps and shifting of the weight of water may cause changes in tectonic pressures and things like volcanoes erupting and further changing climate.
    Notice the responses from advocates who believe the lies. They can't square reality with the media's (including our own CBC) daily dose of threats and disaster...........

    Empirical evidence......., real evidence you can measure, show plants are growing faster all over the world.

    KC counters with the fake threats from the lying media (or just making up bad stuff)..............

    "higher winds" not proven
    "or more rain or less rain" ?????? not proven "More rain", or "less rain" is worse than plants growing faster all over the world?
    "or longer or shorter growing seasons" ????? Which one?
    "any fertilization effect may be undone by ..........drowning" ???????

    The "more" or "less" argument is quite common, even in the scientific community. If something happens "more" it's bad, if it happens "less" it's bad. No matter what happens, it's always worse. The climate change arguments are fundamentally, logically, and trivially erroneous. The fundamental argument from the scientists and the media always boils down to "Man is bad, everything/everybody is going to die, we need lots of money to study the problem".

    Until we get real, honest assessments all funding should be cut off. The media, including the CBC, and scientists should be held accountable for the relentless lies, and ridiculous assessments. And the reason the can say whatever they want...... "more rain", "less rain", "more wind", "less wind", is because none of the crap is based on empirical evidence.
    emphasis added...

    "empirical evidence!" he shouted.

    empirical evidence indeed.

    where is the empirical evidence that the increased co2 levels that "show plants are growing faster all over the world" is healthy for other organisms including fish and animals and humans?

    or do you simply expect us all to evolve to anaerobic creatures given enough exposure?
    Why do you keep pretending CO2 is poisonous when YOUR OWN LINKS in post 723 say it isn't? How could I convince you of anything when you don't even believe the evidence YOU post? You're so brainwashed you don't believe anything unless it's evidence we're all gonna die.
    from the evidence [reports] i posted:

    "The health of individuals near carbon transport and sequestration sites must be considered in site risk characterization. The lethal effects of high CO2 concentrations are well known, but the literature also reveals cause for concern for both the survivors of high-level CO2 exposure and individuals who experience prolonged low-level exposure. These effects are discussed below. This work is part of an on-going project to evaluate the adverse health effects of CO2."

    in the meantime, i guess you're just going to keep me waiting for that
    empirical evidence that the increased co2 levels that "
    show plants are growing faster all over the world
    " is healthy for other organisms including fish and animals and humans?

    because i'm sure it's just a matter of you're wanting to keep us in suspense, not a matter of it not existing, because the TRUTH is out there. isn't it?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  74. #774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Calculations based on empirical evidence show that enhancement of plant growth by man made CO2 is larger than all other negative effects put together.

    Environmentalists may need to rethink thier philosophy.
    wtf does that mean?

    that's like telling someone not to bother quitting smoking because the negative effects of everything from heart disease to stroke to bad breath to innumerable cancers to burning your house down aren't as large as the measurable enhanced ability to achieve and maintain weight loss just because that's the only effect you can actually measure on a daily basis...

    combine that with the fallacy of your only measuring the impact of one thing - like co2 - and not measuring the concurrent impact of others - like higher winds or more rain or less rain or longer or shorter growing seasons - and you're only proving how much you don't know about the TRUTH, not how much you do know.

    although i have to give you credit for finding new and incredible ways to reduce your credibility. you know, using expressions like "calculations based on empirical evidence" to support your opinion while insisting that "calculations based on empirical evidence" that don't agree with your opinion are simply the fodder of liar blogs and fake news groups like nasa...
    Ignoring the shift in the normal curve. Who knows - in many places any fertilization effect may be undone by desertification, drowning, etc.

    The melting of ice caps and shifting of the weight of water may cause changes in tectonic pressures and things like volcanoes erupting and further changing climate.
    Notice the responses from advocates who believe the lies. They can't square reality with the media's (including our own CBC) daily dose of threats and disaster...........

    Empirical evidence......., real evidence you can measure, show plants are growing faster all over the world.

    KC counters with the fake threats from the lying media (or just making up bad stuff)..............

    "higher winds" not proven
    "or more rain or less rain" ?????? not proven "More rain", or "less rain" is worse than plants growing faster all over the world?
    "or longer or shorter growing seasons" ????? Which one?
    "any fertilization effect may be undone by ..........drowning" ???????

    The "more" or "less" argument is quite common, even in the scientific community. If something happens "more" it's bad, if it happens "less" it's bad. No matter what happens, it's always worse. The climate change arguments are fundamentally, logically, and trivially erroneous. The fundamental argument from the scientists and the media always boils down to "Man is bad, everything/everybody is going to die, we need lots of money to study the problem".

    Until we get real, honest assessments all funding should be cut off. The media, including the CBC, and scientists should be held accountable for the relentless lies, and ridiculous assessments. And the reason the can say whatever they want...... "more rain", "less rain", "more wind", "less wind", is because none of the crap is based on empirical evidence.
    emphasis added...

    "empirical evidence!" he shouted.

    empirical evidence indeed.

    where is the empirical evidence that the increased co2 levels that "show plants are growing faster all over the world" is healthy for other organisms including fish and animals and humans?

    or do you simply expect us all to evolve to anaerobic creatures given enough exposure?
    Why do you keep pretending CO2 is poisonous when YOUR OWN LINKS in post 723 say it isn't? How could I convince you of anything when you don't even believe the evidence YOU post? You're so brainwashed you don't believe anything unless it's evidence we're all gonna die.
    from the evidence [reports] i posted:

    "The health of individuals near carbon transport and sequestration sites must be considered in site risk characterization. The lethal effects of high CO2 concentrations are well known, but the literature also reveals cause for concern for both the survivors of high-level CO2 exposure and individuals who experience prolonged low-level exposure. These effects are discussed below. This work is part of an on-going project to evaluate the adverse health effects of CO2."

    in the meantime, i guess you're just going to keep me waiting for that
    empirical evidence that the increased co2 levels that "
    show plants are growing faster all over the world
    " is healthy for other organisms including fish and animals and humans?

    because i'm sure it's just a matter of you're wanting to keep us in suspense, not a matter of it not existing, because the TRUTH is out there. isn't it?
    Quoting out of context is a cheap trick. The low levels they're talking about are not what the levels will ever be. Your link says CO2 at levels higher than what they are now is "well tolerated".
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  75. #775
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    ^

    aaaah no...

    the only way for your denial to be creditable is for those low level increases your own posts both demonstrate and forecast to be equally distributed in the atmosphere. they’re not nor will they be. they are likely to be concentrated in - strangely enough - places with high human populations leading to exactly what you say won’t happen.

    but you don’t have to take my sources or my opinions or interpretations to task.

    all you have to do is post actual empirical evidence like you trumpeted for enhanced plant growth but for fish and animal and human life forms.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  76. #776
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quoting out of context is a cheap trick.
    Coming from the guy who has a signature that is quoting (poorly) out of context...

  77. #777

    Default The TRUTH about the earth, the oceans and the CO2 carbon cycle

    The atmosphere is by far the smallest element of the carbon cycle. The oceans have 93% of CO2, and the earth is also part of the carbon cycle. CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by the oceans and land mass. Ignoring the large controlling factor of the oceans when assessing the residence time of CO2 makes a mockery of the CO2 cycle.

    If the atmosphere is 6% of the carbon cycle, doubling CO2 in the atmosphere is a 6% increase of the entire CO2 cycle.

    It's just a matter of time before CO2 in the atmosphere returns to an equilibrium.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  78. #778

    Default

    Yep.... this thread was the exact dumpster fire I expected it to be! You go Combust! (Where to I’m not exactly sure.)
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  79. #779
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The atmosphere is by far the smallest element of the carbon cycle. The oceans have 93% of CO2, and the earth is also part of the carbon cycle. CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by the oceans and land mass. Ignoring the large controlling factor of the oceans when assessing the residence time of CO2 makes a mockery of the CO2 cycle.

    If the atmosphere is 6% of the carbon cycle, doubling CO2 in the atmosphere is a 6% increase of the entire CO2 cycle.

    It's just a matter of time before CO2 in the atmosphere returns to an equilibrium.
    you could run your car in your garage on the same assumption that the co and co2 concentrated there would - eventually - return to equilibrium with the rest of the atmosphere and indeed “the entire cycle”. and you would be just as right. of course, long before that happened, you would be just as dead. which would make you dead right.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  80. #780

    Default

    ^ lawl.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  81. #781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The atmosphere is by far the smallest element of the carbon cycle. The oceans have 93% of CO2, and the earth is also part of the carbon cycle. CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by the oceans and land mass. Ignoring the large controlling factor of the oceans when assessing the residence time of CO2 makes a mockery of the CO2 cycle.If the atmosphere is 6% of the carbon cycle, doubling CO2 in the atmosphere is a 6% increase of the entire CO2 cycle. It's just a matter of time before CO2 in the atmosphere returns to an equilibrium.
    you could run your car in your garage on the same assumption that the co and co2 concentrated there would - eventually - return to equilibrium with the rest of the atmosphere and indeed “the entire cycle”. and you would be just as right. of course, long before that happened, you would be just as dead. which would make you dead right.
    CO2 won't kill you in an enclosed area. There has never been a death due to CO2 poisoning in an enclosed area. The Thai boys in the cave were a concern depletion of oxygen, not an increase in CO2. Your pretense that CO2 is poisonous is false.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  82. #782
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The atmosphere is by far the smallest element of the carbon cycle. The oceans have 93% of CO2, and the earth is also part of the carbon cycle. CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by the oceans and land mass. Ignoring the large controlling factor of the oceans when assessing the residence time of CO2 makes a mockery of the CO2 cycle.If the atmosphere is 6% of the carbon cycle, doubling CO2 in the atmosphere is a 6% increase of the entire CO2 cycle. It's just a matter of time before CO2 in the atmosphere returns to an equilibrium.
    you could run your car in your garage on the same assumption that the co and co2 concentrated there would - eventually - return to equilibrium with the rest of the atmosphere and indeed “the entire cycle”. and you would be just as right. of course, long before that happened, you would be just as dead. which would make you dead right.
    CO2 won't kill you in an enclosed area. There has never been a death due to CO2 poisoning in an enclosed area. The Thai boys in the cave were a concern depletion of oxygen, not an increase in CO2. Your pretense that CO2 is poisonous is false.
    i’m sure the 1,746 people that died in cameroon in 1986 or the 37 that died in 1984 from co2 and their families will take great comfort knowing that it wasn’t co2 that killed them, it was oxygen deprivation. i’m sure the thousands of miners who died of “choke damp” and their families will take similar comfort. your pretense that co2 isn’t poisonous presumably because it’s inert is not only false, it’s potentially dangerous.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  83. #783

    Default The TRUTH. Tropical cyclones on the decline according to new research

    If climate change is making weather "more extreme", why are tropical cyclones on the decline?

    "Dominant Role of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation in the Recent Decadal Changes in Western North Pacific Tropical Cyclone ActivityAbstractOver the 1997–2014 period, the mean frequency of western North Pacific (WNP) tropical cyclones (TCs) was markedly lower (~18%) than the period 1980–1996...…………………………………. "

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2017GL076397
    Last edited by MrCombust; 16-07-2018 at 01:57 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  84. #784

  85. #785

    Default The TRUTH

    Medwards has provided a link to the failed software simulation prediction...………………., from the link...…….,

    "Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Models project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario."

    The software simulation predicts an increase, empirical evidence shows an 18% decrease.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 16-07-2018 at 09:35 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  86. #786
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    aren’t you the one who recently said “Quoting out of context is a cheap trick.”?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  87. #787

    Default

    "failed" the only thing that has failed was your logic...

    I'm still sticking with the consensus of all the scientists of the world, not your hair-brained tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theories that have be debunked several several times.

  88. #788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    "failed" the only thing that has failed was your logic...

    I'm still sticking with the consensus of all the scientists of the world, not your hair-brained tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theories that have be debunked several several times.
    I'm becoming more fascinated with the psychology of "climate change", rather than climate change. You talk about "science" but get mad when I post science. You talk about climate change killing us all. When I present evidence it's not happening you call names and get angry instead of being relieved. Empirical evidence shows the software simulation prediction is wrong, but you ignore it and call me names.

    It's not unique to you either. Look at kcantor relentlessly pretending CO2 is poisonous. He has no evidence of this whatsoever. His own links say it isn't.

    I wonder what psychological phenomenon is at work when people scream about science and say we're all going to die. But get really angry when actual science is posted.

    I'd ask you about it, but I've asked advocates this kind of question before. All advocates ever do is get angry when "climate change" is discussed.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 16-07-2018 at 02:03 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  89. #789

    Default

    I've never talked about climate change killing us. I've never seen you post science that hasn't easily been debunked easily. I haven't called you names, at least anymore than you are calling people names - especially towards well respected scientists that probably have a morsel of a more of a clue that you do.I'm not angry at all. I find your tinfoil hat theories amusing, and pretty much the only reason me or anyone here is continuing to engage you at all.You seem quite a bit more up in arms lately. Perhaps because despite your hundreds of posts on this subject where you repeat the same debunked stuff over and over again, not one person has sided with you. Not one person has agreed with you. It must be lonely, and tiring, continually having your errors in your submissions pointed out and you ignore it, dismiss it, you continue to post the same thing over and over again. At some point, try, try again, try again just becomes fail. You're clearly in that state now and frustrated. But go on, repost those same things again I need a laughHere's some reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

    and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effect
    Last edited by Medwards; 16-07-2018 at 02:15 PM.

  90. #790

    Default The TRUTH. ALL EU countries to miss the Paris accord commitments.

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  91. #791

    Default The TRUTH. Your carbon bill has arrived. Please submit $2,000.

    No need. You will be taxed accordingly...………….."Jennifer Winter, economics professor at the University of Calgary, has found out what the bill will be for Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax. Using energy consumption data from Statistics Canada and imputing prices from average transportation fuels and provincial gasoline prices, she calculated the impact of the carbon tax on a typical Canadian household in different provinces. The $50/tonne tax that Ottawa has mandated for 2022 will have the following annual impacts: Nova Scotia ($1,120), Alberta ($1,111), Saskatchewan ($1,032), New Brunswick ($963), Newfoundland ($859), Prince Edward Island ($78, Ontario ($707), Manitoba ($683), Quebec ($662) and British Columbia ($603)." https://www.pressreader.com/canada/n...82076277604407
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  92. #792
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    so?

    that's like saying that 99% of the people that pledge to exercise after joining a gym don't meet their own targets in fighting obesity and taking that to mean that if no-one exercised the resulting ongoing increase in obesity wouldn't be harmful.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  93. #793
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    "failed" the only thing that has failed was your logic...

    I'm still sticking with the consensus of all the scientists of the world, not your hair-brained tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theories that have be debunked several several times.
    I'm becoming more fascinated with the psychology of "climate change", rather than climate change. You talk about "science" but get mad when I post science. You talk about climate change killing us all. When I present evidence it's not happening you call names and get angry instead of being relieved. Empirical evidence shows the software simulation prediction is wrong, but you ignore it and call me names.
    your own psychology of TRUTH is equally fascinating... you ignore science that doesn't agree with you and continue to support science that has been proven wrong. climate change isn't likely to kill us all. but just because we may not all die doesn't mean it's not real. i'm not angry with you - as i said, i find you fascinating in a slightly perverse way - and i've certainly never called you names (calling you out is not the same as calling you names).

    empirical evidence may show some of the specific simulations as being less than completely accurate (not surprising as more information becomes available and as it becomes more accurate) but empirical evidence - even that from your own posts - still demonstrates climate warming so you at best can argue extent and pace, not existence. that's not name-calling.

    It's not unique to you either. Look at kcantor relentlessly pretending CO2 is poisonous. He has no evidence of this whatsoever. His own links say it isn't.

    i already ceded this point to you - co2 may not be considered poisonous. but too much co2 - either as a direct or an indirect consequence of the quantity of co2 - will still kill you. call that fact whatever you will if the word poisonous bothers you so much.

    I wonder what psychological phenomenon is at work when people scream about science and say we're all going to die. But get really angry when actual science is posted.
    that statement makes no more sense the second time you include it in a post than the first time.

    I'd ask you about it, but I've asked advocates this kind of question before. All advocates ever do is get angry when "climate change" is discussed.
    the only one here who seems to be angry and frustrated is you... maybe a little more introspection and a little less projection might help you with that?
    Last edited by kcantor; 16-07-2018 at 03:56 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  94. #794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I've never talked about climate change killing us. I've never seen you post science that hasn't easily been debunked easily. I haven't called you names, at least anymore than you are calling people names - especially towards well respected scientists that probably have a morsel of a more of a clue that you do.I'm not angry at all. I find your tinfoil hat theories amusing, and pretty much the only reason me or anyone here is continuing to engage you at all.You seem quite a bit more up in arms lately. Perhaps because despite your hundreds of posts on this subject where you repeat the same debunked stuff over and over again, not one person has sided with you. Not one person has agreed with you. It must be lonely, and tiring, continually having your errors in your submissions pointed out and you ignore it, dismiss it, you continue to post the same thing over and over again. At some point, try, try again, try again just becomes fail. You're clearly in that state now and frustrated. But go on, repost those same things again I need a laughHere's some reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

    and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effect
    Let me explain something about debunking my posts. The link you provided about Tropical cyclones says the climate models predicted an increase. Tropical cyclones have decreased. The climate model is wrong. My post can't be debunked.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  95. #795

    Default

    I'm sorry, but its been debunked by your own post. You want to cherry pick data? It just makes you look foolish.

  96. #796
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,921
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  97. #797

    Default

    [...] My posts can't be un-bunked.
    ftfy

  98. #798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    [...] My posts can't be un-bunked.
    ftfy
    Tropical cyclones are declining. The climate models predicted more.

    The climate models are wrong.

    Pretending that is debunked doesn't make it debunked.

    Climate advocates are fascinating.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 17-07-2018 at 10:31 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  99. #799

    Default

    cyclones and hurricanes are actually increasing.... if you look at more than the cherry picked small data segment you are looking at....

    but its easy to cherry pick data to suit your agenda, ignoring all the other facts and data points... which is pretty much what you've done since your first post on this thread, also ignoring all the data presented to you, which DEBUNKS your false tales of the TRUTH

  100. #800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    [...] My posts can't be un-bunked.
    ftfy
    Tropical cyclones are declining. The climate models predicted more.

    The climate models are wrong.

    Pretending that is debunked doesn't make it debunked.

    Climate advocates are fascinating.
    Something you don’t seem to understand is that forecasting models are almost never right. They aren’t expected to be right and no professional in any forecast dependent field would ever make 100% forecast dependent decisions.

    Moreover, forecast models are rarely totally wrong either. They are a compilation of selected, necessarily and methodologically limited and certainly not comprehensive historical information and data which then is likely further modified throughout with adjustments, assumptions and and formulas, regressions, etc based on history and employ assumptions and proven rules to project forward. At some level they will very likely be getting something right and something wrong.

    Your own views of the future will also entail you making and applying historical data and experience you have encountered and then projecting it forward based on assumptions you are making. Any forecasts you make will almost certainly be ‘wrong’ as well.
    Last edited by KC; 17-07-2018 at 11:09 AM.

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •