Gulf Stream slowing down

[Jack Fabulous]

We all will be so happy when you review the paper in detail and give us your expert theory on thermohaline circulation, of which I'm sure you know more than the authors of the paper.

Why so defensive?

And you should maybe not put quite so much emphasis on the "expertise" required to come to the conclusion that if a theory revolves around the idea that salinity levels have decreased then there should be evidence that salinity levels have, well, decreased.

 

[Fletch]

It's science.

You wouldn't understand.

What I understand is that alarmists like yourself seek to empower the state to control the individual. That's political science. You know. What this site is all about. Or is it you that doesn't understand?

 

[Threegoofs]

What I understand is that alarmists like yourself seek to empower the state to control the individual. That's political science. You know. What this site is all about. Or is it you that doesn't understand?

In my world, Political Science exists in part to deal with the reality that we comprehend via real Science.

In your world, Political Science is used as reality instead of actual science.

 

[Verax]

Your ignorance of Germany makes a weak argument.

Your worthless blog vomit makes a weak argument. Kids that haven't even hit 20 yet learn blogs and biased websites are not legitimate sources of information.

 

[Jack Hays]

Your worthless blog vomit makes a weak argument. Kids that haven't even hit 20 yet learn blogs and biased websites are not legitimate sources of information.

Now you're just being petulant. The FAZ is Germany's New York Times.

 

[Dovkan]

I'll leave this here. None of us are climate scientists, anyone can find an article or be skeptical of any scientific paper or evidence, including the fact of evolution, gravity, atoms... But the thing is, we need to look at the disagreements within the scientific community, and evaluate the evidence, and all evidence shows the Gulf Stream is slowing down. I'd rather listen to actual scientists then think tanks funded by the Koch brothers on climate change issues, and its funny, there's not one peer reviewed university paper that denies climate change caused, in part, by humans. The denialist side goes throughout history, with the flat earth, relativity, gravity, evolution.. Just because you'll "never have evidence you specifically want" is no reason, blah, never mind.

 

[Verax]

Now you're just being petulant. The FAZ is Germany's New York Times.

So? Do you trust what is printed in the NYT? You don't even trust what is printed in the journal Nature, Science, or PNAS. Taking statements from a scientist and printing them in a newspaper article means little, especially as interpreted from your blogs.

 

[Jack Hays]

So? Do you trust what is printed in the NYT? You don't even trust what is printed in the journal Nature, Science, or PNAS. Taking statements from a scientist and printing them in a newspaper article means little, especially as interpreted from your blogs.

On the contrary, I have full confidence in the good faith of the publications you named.

 

[VanceMack]

Read any scientific paper that's not straight physics, and you'll see qualifier words used all over the place, because most phenomena in science are expressed by statistics.

Statistics are quantifiable data. When 'scientists create theoretical data to prove 'settled science', they tend to use a bunch of vague words like could, should, might, possibly, etc. When 'scientists' are caught gaming models and data sets because by their own words they arent getting the results they are expecting, thats what we call 'sketchy'...but you call 'settled science'.

Be honest...you are doing the EXACT same thing. You constantly scan for the next new article that can 'prove' your bias.

 

[Dovkan]

Statistics are quantifiable data. When 'scientists create theoretical data to prove 'settled science', they tend to use a bunch of vague words like could, should, might, possibly, etc. When 'scientists' are caught gaming models and data sets because by their own words they arent getting the results they are expecting, thats what we call 'sketchy'...but you call 'settled science'.

Be honest...you are doing the EXACT same thing. You constantly scan for the next new article that can 'prove' your bias.

And yet, you refuse to show evidence that these scientists are wrong.

 

[Verax]

On the contrary, I have full confidence in the good faith of the publications you named.

You're calling into question an article published in Nature in this very thread because of something some blogs said and a quote from a German newspaper.

 

[blackjack50]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus
And yes, but we are large contributors.

Sure. We are pollution monsters. I'm not big on all the ridiculous science polls. They really don't matter: I've read the lorax. That pretty much sums it up.

But if we ARE warming up, and it IS going to happen...how much, and what do we do? Certainly not issue pollution credits to companies so bigger companies can pay more to pollute. All that was vaguely reminiscent of indulgence.

 

[Threegoofs]

Sure. We are pollution monsters. I'm not big on all the ridiculous science polls. They really don't matter: I've read the lorax. That pretty much sums it up.

But if we ARE warming up, and it IS going to happen...how much, and what do we do? Certainly not issue pollution credits to companies so bigger companies can pay more to pollute. All that was vaguely reminiscent of indulgence.

Actually, that's precisely what will work. A cap and trade system has been shown to work very well in the past to reduce SO2 emissions and reduced acid rain quickly and more cheaply than anyone thought possible, and should work the same for CO2.

A better solution is a Carbon Tax, or a revenue neutral carbon tax, but that's less politically tenable (as will be demonstrated here by the future screaming about taxes).

 

[countryboy]

"BBUTTT, GLOBAL WARMING'S A CONSPIRACY THAT DOESN'T HAVE A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, OR ANY EVIDENCE LALALALA" But in all seriousness, the effects on our climate are evident, and we need to take action.

Yes! And that action means transferring wealth from the United States to third world **** holes. Of course, this will do nothing to alleviate emissions, but it will make the Marxists feel better. :roll:

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes! And that action means transferring wealth from the United States to third world **** holes. Of course, this will do nothing to alleviate emissions, but it will make the Marxists feel better. :roll:

In other words, your political science is telling you that the actual science can't be true.
:roll:

 

[countryboy]

In other words, your political science is telling you that the actual science can't be true.
:roll:

I am certainly skeptical of the "science". But that aside, the only solutions offered by leftists do nothing to solve the alleged problem. What do wealth transfer schemes have to do with reducing CO2 emissions?

 

[Threegoofs]

I am certainly skeptical of the "science". But that aside, the only solutions offered by leftists do nothing to solve the alleged problem. What do wealth transfer schemes have to do with reducing CO2 emissions?

So come up with another idea.

Revenue neutral carbon tax seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[countryboy]

So come up with another idea.

Revenue neutral carbon tax seems pretty reasonable to me.

I rest my case. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

 

[Dovkan]

Yes! And that action means transferring wealth from the United States to third world **** holes. Of course, this will do nothing to alleviate emissions, but it will make the Marxists feel better. :roll:

I don't subscribe to marxism, and I don't think you understand carbon tax.

 

[Threegoofs]

I rest my case. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

What? That you can't come up with any ideas?

Like I said, you don't like the solutions, so you pretend the problem doesn't exist.

 

[countryboy]

I don't subscribe to marxism, and I don't think you understand carbon tax.

Which is why your avatar is Karl Marx?

And no, carbon tax doesn't reduce emissions.

 

[Dovkan]

Which is why your avatar is Karl Marx?

And no, carbon tax doesn't reduce emissions.

It does though, and Karl Marx himself wrote that he does not subscribe to the "Marxism" going around, Marx contributed to sociology, and his commentary on capitalism is insightful.

 

[jmotivator]

I am certainly skeptical of the "science". But that aside, the only solutions offered by leftists do nothing to solve the alleged problem. What do wealth transfer schemes have to do with reducing CO2 emissions?

The most effective CO2 emission control in history was the 2007 recession. When you hear the Church of Climate Change demanding CO2 control they are really demanding an economic state equivalent to the return of the 2007 recession.

 

[Dovkan]

The most effective CO2 emission control in history was the 2007 recession. When you hear the Church of Climate Change demanding CO2 control they are really demanding an economic state equivalent to the return of the 2007 recession.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory, and I think it's hilarious how you call it "The church of climate change," you clearly have no idea what a church actually is, climate change has substantial evidence, it's not a "church"

 

[jmotivator]

Sounds like a conspiracy theory, and I think it's hilarious how you call it "The church of climate change," you clearly have no idea what a church actually is, climate change has substantial evidence, it's not a "church"

No, there isn't "substantial evidence". There are a bunch of pet theories and models tat don't mesh with the instrumental record sold with an emotional appeal via weather disasters.

And no, it isn't a "conspiracy theory". The CO2 controls demanded by the Church of Climate Change can only be achieved through a restriction on productivity equivalent to a global recession.