JFC - you just don’t want to try to get it do you?
You and man made "global warmers" or "climate changers" are impotent on earth compared to the Sun.
Impotent.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
JFC - you just don’t want to try to get it do you?
Those were the respectful words you used to describe Mule’s opinionMyopically stigmatized.
Those were the respectful words you used to describe Mule’s opinion
Those were the respectful words you used to describe Mule’s opinion
The sun. Your point is silly though. If I put a furnace in my house but don't insulate the walls, I lose more heat than I would if I did insulate. The sun is the furnace, but the CO2 in the atmosphere is the added insulation.
We can't adjust the heat source. All things being equal, the heat source is unchanged. Sure we have solar mins and maxes, but those are cyclic. The changes in temperature are not. What does correlate directly with the increased temperature are the CO2 levels, the insulation.See Mule my friend with all due respect here's where your analogy falls short:
Let's just say for the sake of argument here that my house was losing heat because it wasn't properly insulated? Well, the first thing I'd do obviously is increase the intensity of the furnace to generate more heat to try and overcome the lost heat would I not?
Sure I would!
And let's just also say for the sake of argument that I finally came to my senses an increased my insulation factors to retain more of the heat I was losing. Wouldn't my next logical move be to reduce the intensity of my blast furnace running all out to keep me warm, now no longer requiring as much heat?
Sure, otherwise I'd burn up or face a humongous heat bill!
So what's my point? In both instances I'm adjusting the heat source to compensate for the loss/increase of my heat factors am I not?
I most certainly am!
So....Mule, my Man....my main man!!!!! How do we "adjust" the heat source of the Sun? If we're adding too much insulation (greenhouse gases), how do we turn the Sun down? If we're freezing our gonads off (climate change) how do we turn up the Sun's thermostat to keep warm?
I know all of this is elementary to boomer because he's so smart, but he won't (or can't) answer this question for me?
Can you?
Except amongst the scientific communityHistoric temperature readings have been massaged. You and your quack scientist friends have no standing.
How in the hell else would they get Govt $$$$$. It is a necessary evil.Historic temperature readings have been massaged.
Can you speak to how or why they were massaged? Do you have any idea whether the changes made would increase or decrease the appearance of a warming trend? If you are making assumptions, I think you'd be surprised.Historic temperature readings have been massaged. You and your quack scientist friends have no standing.
Except amongst the scientific community
We can't adjust the heat source. All things being equal, the heat source is unchanged. Sure we have solar mins and maxes, but those are cyclic. The changes in temperature are not. What does correlate directly with the increased temperature are the CO2 levels, the insulation.
Can you speak to how or why they were massaged? Do you have any idea whether the changes made would increase or decrease the appearance of a warming trend? If you are making assumptions, I think you'd be surprised.
Particularly when their paychecks depend on it.Do you really think that these climate experts would not want to deliver what they themselves feel really happening. Bias is alive and well in the research community.
I've seen people do bad analyses. I've seen people look to data sets that support what they want to support. I've also seen those people and those methods called out by folks in the scientific community. You don't get 97% agreement when people are skewing things like that.Actually they could. I worked in pharma for over 25 years. Many of our studies were built to a desired outcome. If the study were not trending in that direction, they would abort the study and start a new one using different data points. In the climate space, where funding is involved, how could this not be a reality also. Do you really think that these climate experts would not want to deliver what they themselves feel is really happening. Bias is alive and well in the research community.
Exxon. BP. You think those companies have a financial interest in sowing the seeds of doubt?Particularly when they’re paychecks depend on it.
I've seen people do bad analyses. I've seen people look to data sets that support what they want to support. I've also seen those people and those methods called out by folks in the scientific community. You don't get 97% agreement when people are skewing things like that.
The problem is that the adjustments made to the historical data were to calibrate things so that they were comparing apples to apples. Some of that is due to a change in the method used to measure the temperature (ocean surface temperature for example). Others are reductions in contributions to heat caused by urbanization near some sites. In many cases, those adjustments would tend to decrease support of an overall warming trend. Even with those adjustments, there is a warming trend.
Oh, those evil energy companies, no concern whatsoever for future generations. The travesty of it all.Exxon. BP. You think those companies have a financial interest in sowing the seeds of doubt?
CO2 levels. We've been through this for 8 pages. You can't remove the human factor because the human factor is adding CO2 to the atmosphere at record rates. And, no, those increases aren't due to volcanoes (minimal impact compared to man's).Even if there is mule (debatable) where's the evidence it's caused by Man? What's the measurement data showing when you remove the "human factor"?
It's no worse than the evil scientists who are making fractions of what the energy companies are.Oh, those evil energy companies, no concern whatsoever for future generations. The travesty of it all.
^^^This^^^CO2 levels. We've been through this for 8 pages. You can't remove the human factor because the human factor is adding CO2 to the atmosphere at record rates. And, no, those increases aren't due to volcanoes (minimal impact compared to man's).
CO2 levels. We've been through this for 8 pages. You can't remove the human factor because the human factor is adding CO2 to the atmosphere at record rates. And, no, those increases aren't due to volcanoes (minimal impact compared to man's).
I've seen people do bad analyses. I've seen people look to data sets that support what they want to support. I've also seen those people and those methods called out by folks in the scientific community. You don't get 97% agreement when people are skewing things like that.
The problem is that the adjustments made to the historical data were to calibrate things so that they were comparing apples to apples. Some of that is due to a change in the method used to measure the temperature (ocean surface temperature for example). Others are reductions in contributions to heat caused by urbanization near some sites. In many cases, those adjustments would tend to decrease support of an overall warming trend. Even with those adjustments, there is a warming trend.
Who could argue with that, ..... those darn scientists.It's no worse than the evil scientists who are making fractions of what the energy companies are.
I watch weather reports(every 7 minutes) during local news. Amazing how often they fail to predict the weather correctly. Yea, they are local but use national resources for predictions. How do the past predictions hold up to scrutiny, about as well as recent predictions, that is why the narrative has moved from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Yes the climate changes daily on the hour as the temperature is checked for the next weather forecast...JFC - you’re a moron. Do you ever watch any weather forecast and discussion about weather, climate science and modern science? That’s rhetorical; I know the answer.
I watch weather reports(every 7 minutes) during local news. Amazing how often they fail to predict the weather correctly. Yea, they are local but use national resources for predictions. How do the past predictions hold up to scrutiny, about as well as recent predictions, that is why the narrative has moved from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Yes the climate changes daily on the hour as the temperature is checked for the next weather forecast...
I'm not proposing radical changes in the immediate future. I'm proposing incremental changes and pushing to lead in the development of cleaner technology. It makes sense. If we lag in this, that will have long term economic impacts on us. If we become leaders in it, that creates jobs, industries, etc that have long-lasting positive impacts on our economy. It really makes sense. In no way am I saying that we stop taking coal, oil, or natural gas out of the ground. If we decrease our reliance on those over the next couple of decades, we have those industries where we can be exporters plus we can be exporters on new, cleaner technologies. It's sound logic. It prepares us for future. I really can't understand the argument against it. Even if climate scientists are wrong about the trend, there's an economic advantage to moving away from fossil fuels in the US.Ok, but the real issues is the year over year impact...when the worst case scenario is a .02 increase with a +/- of .09, that is a 50% swing in the numbers. And let's not forget that prior to 1980's the data is very much a guess and in no way truly accurate. That is my point, we are looking at a 3o trend with inaccurate data but we are ask to do a 180 in how we live. I have stated from the beginning of me being in board is to make common sense adjustments to address our climate, but what is going on now, is just way too crazy to take seriously.
When I read this, I wonder if you pull up a blanket or throw on a jacket when you start to feel a chill. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere have the same effect.I honestly don't think anyone debates humans are adding CO2 Mule. I know I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing if the amount we add is changing what the Sun otherwise does to heat the planet? That's the debate. I don't see the numbers absent the "human factor", and when you add in what we do, how much do things change?
Prior to Biff, this is exactly what we were doing. But now he's trying to undo everything.I'm proposing incremental changes and pushing to lead in the development of cleaner technology..
When I read this, I wonder if you pull up a blanket or throw on a jacket when you start to feel a chill. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere have the same effect.
I'm not proposing radical changes in the immediate future. I'm proposing incremental changes and pushing to lead in the development of cleaner technology. It makes sense. If we lag in this, that will have long term economic impacts on us. If we become leaders in it, that creates jobs, industries, etc that have long-lasting positive impacts on our economy. It really makes sense. In no way am I saying that we stop taking coal, oil, or natural gas out of the ground. If we decrease our reliance on those over the next couple of decades, we have those industries where we can be exporters plus we can be exporters on new, cleaner technologies. It's sound logic. It prepares us for future. I really can't understand the argument against it. Even if climate scientists are wrong about the trend, there's an economic advantage to moving away from fossil fuels in the US.
Prior to Biff, this is exactly what we were doing. But now he's trying to undo everything.
We can make water.If my house is "chilly" I turn up the heat. If it's too warm, I either cut off the furnace, or turn it down. We can't "adjust" earth's furnace as you correctly pointed out, and the "blanket" we can use to keep warmer is inadequate.
My own personal belief is that it's the height of human arrogance to suggest we can alter how the planet heats and cools. It is not within our human capability....no more than we can make a simple molecule of hydrogen or oxygen or "water" which more than 70% percent of this planet's surface consists of.
We cannot make one of these. Impossible
If we can't even make the most simple basic component of the planet's surface, how is it we can actually adjust how rapidly or slowly the planet heats and cools?
We simply do not have that type of providence over the planet.
We can make water.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071031125457.htm
If you are unwilling to agree that we can impact the environment in which we live, then you are turning a blind eye to all the evidence around you.