How does that support your premise? We have historical data that shows us rising temperatures.
Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
- Thread starter Pospecteer
- Start date
You keep pointing out things that haven't changed. Look at what has.Mule as a hypothetical...let's just say we wanted to heat the earth 25 degrees over the next 12 years. I mean deliberately warming it up. How would we do that?
Then regarding the analogy you mentioned about greenhouse gases, how little impact is our rotation around the Sun relative to what otherwise occurs in nature? In other words what do we do to alter those natural processes and how much less are those natural processes in relation to our domination over them?
Do you know?
In my opinion it's zero. Know why? The oceans heat up too. We aren't anywhere down there and at some depths we can't even go there! How are we causing any "climate change" 300 miles below sea level?
Don't tell me its not happening down there either other wise I'll blast you with Scientific data exposing your error.![[winking]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/wink.r191677.gif "Winking [winking]")
I'm simply asking mule if we're so effective heating up the climate, what are we doing that's also heating up the sea 300 miles below the surface of our human activity?
I can't explain that, can you? If so, please explain it to me. I asked another Leftist this very same question the other day in a discussion we were having similar to this, and he told me it's analogous to boiling water.
![[eyeroll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/rolleye/rolleye0011.r191677.gif "Eye roll [eyeroll]")
Made sense. Only he forgot one thing. That's the Sun heating up that water, not us! But then he claimed were just making it worse with our greenhouse effect.
My point is without the Sun, we can't do anything to heat up earth. So that's why I'm asking how much more impact we have over 'ol Sol? What do we do that obviates the Sun's natural and normal heating of the planet?
Understand?
Appreciate the civil dialogue...btw, you rock!
.
We have inaccurate data that suggest rising temps...When we are talking temperature rise in the .01 % range, a small data error can lead to over/under modeling predictions. Just like everything else, what is the P value of these models?
If you had read even a basic article on climate change, you would understand these concepts. Simple concepts like “how are we effecting the levels of heat in our planet”, “how will this heat our oceans”, “why is climate different from weather”, “what importance do trees play in the process”, “how do we know what the planet’s atmosphere was like in the past” are answered pretty regularly by men and women who devote their lives to understanding the problem and finding solutions.I'm simply asking mule if we're so effective heating up the climate, what are we doing that's also heating up the sea 300 miles below the surface of our human activity?
I can't explain that, can you? If so, please explain it to me. I asked another Leftist this very same question the other day in a discussion we were having similar to this, and he told me it's analogous to boiling water.
Made sense. Only he forgot one thing. That's the Sun heating up that water, not us! But then he claimed were just making it worse with our greenhouse effect.
My point is without the Sun, we can't do anything to heat up earth. So that's why I'm asking how much more impact we have over 'ol Sol? What do we do that obviates the Sun's natural and normal heating of the planet?
Understand?
Appreciate the civil dialogue...btw, you rock!
.
But you don’t read the material, obviously. Yet you accuse the science as being biased and the information as being a hoax. It’s pathetic, imo. And it frustrates me to no end when someone that claims to be an informed American citizen passionate about truth and policy that benefits the nation is in reality just ignorant of even the most basic facts about an issue they seem to be so sure about.
Temperatures are rising. In the ocean and on the surface, it’s not inaccurate.
Can you tell the P value of any of these "well done" studies...they are predictive models, they should have a P value.
All I wanted to know is how much more control we have over what the Sun already is quite capable of doing? We certainly have no control over it do we? No, we do not.
The way you stomp, and rant, and pontificate about what we are doing to heat the planet vs what the Sun does without us lifting one finger or flipping one switch makes me think you're not only incapable of answering that simple question, but you're actually jealous of how much better the Sun is at heating up earth than we are!
Is that true boom? Are you jealous of the Sun's power heating up earth over ours? I think you are.
Poor boomer...want a cookie?
All I wanted to know is how much more control we have over what the Sun already is quite capable of doing? We certainly have no control over it do we? No, we do not.
The way you stomp, and rant, and pontificate about what we are doing to heat the planet vs what the Sun does without us lifting one finger or flipping one switch makes me think you're not only incapable of answering that simple question, but you're actually jealous of how much better the Sun is at heating up earth than we are!
Is that true boom? Are you jealous of the Sun's power heating up earth over ours? I think you are.
Poor boomer...want a cookie?
LOL! You really do have no clue how stupid you are. HAHAHAHA.
Question boomer...if these folks "spend their lives" studying solutions to these 'global warming' issues, why is it their "solutions" always and only involve more big Government income redistribution?
Isn't there another strategy available that doesn't involve income confiscation and large inefficient government controls over free enterprise Capitalism? Why isn't elimination of inefficient and wasteful Socialist big Government never suggested as a solution, only dismantling of Capitalism and the wealth it produces?
Do Socialists not pollute?
I really don't understand how someone makes 250K and can't find at least one dollar to donate to the poor or write some gifts off to needy charities.
That is not only stupid, but incredibly selfish.
You won't get an answer. He's much too intelligent to be bothered with such trivial details.
I really don't understand how someone makes 250K and can't find at least one dollar to donate to the poor or write some gifts off to needy charities.
That is not only stupid, but incredibly selfish.
It is your story that I didn't donate. Maybe if you understood taxes better, you could figure out whether or not I actually donated and whether or not I could claim those donations as itemized deductions or not. You seem to be a tax expert just like you're a climate science expert. Keep telling us all about those bad trees emitting CO2. LOL! "Trees are bad for us." Your posts are just like scenes from the move "Idiocracy." Plants need electrolytes. LOL!
There is nothing in the tax law preventing you from donating to charity, in fact it encourages it! For you to cite restrictions in the current tax code that prevented you from donating just 2% of a quarter million dollar income to the poor then claim some sort of superior knowledge of the intricacies of the tax code is not only disingenuous, but selfish and incredibly self deluding.
A poor child could have been fed by just one of those dollars you kept for your your own greedy purposes. You didn't contribute your "fair share" and kept the money you stole from the poor for yourself!
You are EVIL....and rich. Exactly what is wrong with this country!
No it isn't. YOU said you didn't itemize your 2018 returns and YOU claimed your income was 250K so itemizing your returns would not have helped your tax liabilities.
That's YOUR story, not mine. So I'm just befuddled how at least donating to charity would not have benefitted your particular tax liability as it does almost everyone else who writes off donations to charity?
Explain.
A glass of water goes to room temperature. If room temperature rises, so would the temperature of the water in the glass.I'm simply asking mule if we're so effective heating up the climate, what are we doing that's also heating up the sea 300 miles below the surface of our human activity?
I can't explain that, can you? If so, please explain it to me. I asked another Leftist this very same question the other day in a discussion we were having similar to this, and he told me it's analogous to boiling water.
Made sense. Only he forgot one thing. That's the Sun heating up that water, not us! But then he claimed were just making it worse with our greenhouse effect.
My point is without the Sun, we can't do anything to heat up earth. So that's why I'm asking how much more impact we have over 'ol Sol? What do we do that obviates the Sun's natural and normal heating of the planet?
Understand?
Appreciate the civil dialogue...btw, you rock!
.
You are jumping to the conclusion that since I did not itemize deductions, I didn't donate to charities. You might want to check your assumptions. Seriously, there is something wrong with you, no offense.
Prospective models for future temperatures surely have a probability value. But do we use Bayesian statistics to chart observable data from recorded past values?
Yeah, I think I'm going to put him back on ignore. While some of the stupid stuff he says is amusing, it is futile trying to have a conversation with someone who has the intelligence of a 10-year old.
My house thermostat reads 68 degrees, but the back bedroom which has full sun is at 75. What is the temp. of the house? How do I calculate the real temperature? Now, let's try and do this with the world. We have sun flares, storms, the world is dark/daylight or a mix. By not taking into account all of these, it will throw off thousands of data points, etc, by varying degrees. We are talking calculating 1/10ths of degrees in temp change and conflating it for 10-1000 years. This is not knowing that the boiling point is 100 and freezing is 0!
I love to swim, one thing I can tell you that real, is hot/cold patches in the water. One second the water is 70 and I take two more steps and it's 65, how does that happen? Did you ever think that changing currents might have an impact on rigid (within 5 meters) temperature gauges?
Just this year, Buffalo recalculated snow totals because they realized that the past data was not done by professionals. They realized that some of the data was some guy going out in the snow with a yard stick and recording the inches. He also did not use the same spot or even the same yard stick...
These are simple examples of potential bad data issues, we won't even get into how they weigh the data to calculate for an entire planet.
JFC. It’s a matter of observation of the problem, and finding solutions that can reverse the trend. The solutions require the changing of the energy market, transportation methods, altering processes in fisheries and farming markets, and aiding developing nations to avoid the same negative effects the US produced to the issue throughout the late 90’s. Not to mention it requires investment in new environmental technology such as man made coral, man made trees (that produce oxygen while sucking up CO2 - like real trees btw), and others that have no real market other than reversing the effects.
In addition, we need to ration the amount of CO2 being produced on a global level. While the US has dropped significantly in their production of CO2, we have developed to a place where it’s possible only because we produced the most CO2 globally for decades. We can’t expect other developing nations to reduce their levels without helping them.
OK. I will give you it's my assumption that you didn't donate to charity because you said you didn't itemize your return.
So my next question would be why would you donate and not write that off on your income taxes especially since you were complaining that you got no benefit from the tax cuts even though you made over quarter million dollars?
Who gives to charity at that income level and doesn't find a way to claim some of it as a deduction on their taxes?
Last edited:
That’s why temp is measured in multiple places, and those methods are highly scrutinized by the scientific community in order to create a legitimate observation. This process has been refined over a 40 year period now.
Alright then Boomer so then why are those developing nations always exempted from the very restrictions we are placed under?
And once again I never see socialist countries attacked for their inefficiency waste and pollution only capitalist countries why is that?
China pollutes more than us they are never held to the same standards we are why not?
If you measured the temperature in one single room while adding more and more insulation to the walls of the room every month over the periods of several years, the values you gathered from the observation of the ONE room would give you a very accurate idea of what the effect of insulation has on room temperatures and what the trend would be if you added insulation to the other rooms of your home.
This is 100% a socialist post...America bad, the rest of the world good, we need a new world order or we are doomed...I guess the Justice League needs to save us.
Let's pivot to China for a second, they have the 2nd largest economy in the world, are you saying that the US needs to give them money to help them with their energy needs?
The Paris Accords held them to a standard. The problem in the geopolitical arena with regards to a global effort to combat climate change is that holding nations to the same standards now is unfair (really it is). We caused the majority of the issue with our industrial dominance over the last 60 years. We owe it to the global community to both contribute more to the effort, and to allow developing nations the opportunity to continue to develop.
Let's go one step further and ask why all of the pollution is always centered over the United States on the North American continent?
Why is it most of the other filth and waste generated around the world primarily by Socialist sh*t holes never included as part of the solution to the warming we're causing in America?
That is not even close to proving that climate data is accurate. The world is not a controlled environment, it is ever changing. Thank you again for proving my point...Climate data is not collected in a lab, it is collected by climate enthusiasts (lets not not even get into who these people are and how they collect data) who can't duplicate one day from the next. It is impossible to prove that climate data is accurate, just add a p value in the estimates (which would indicate that any real change in temperature is within the margin of error)....look at the bright side, maybe we are underestimating our impact, that would surly make you happy.
So then why do we have to change our Capitalist system and they're allowed to keep their Socialist systems?
Who is requiring China to send the money it generates to developing nations to help them combat climate change?
That is just not true...they are trying to become more accurate, but they are not there, and they never will, unless we can use satellites and calculate using yet to be discovered new identifiers. Now lets go back before 40 years...you need that data to prove climate change...are you admitting that that data might be flawed?
