We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So

[watsup]

I thought I made it clear that I am the wrong person to ask.

Are you going to take my advice to start your research in Beijing?

I'm just not sure why you are trying to discuss it when you clearly don't even understand the basics of AGW, that's all.

 

[watsup]

I at least maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in regards to controversial scientific studies. I have no idea how old you are, however skepticism has served me well. It's mostly computer modeling and bell jar science that doe not take natural variance into account. the same science told us that when Saddam Hussein torched the Kuwaiti oil wells in the aftermath of the 1991 gulf war that it would create a nuclear winter scenario. Such a scenario did not occur. Products over the years have been taken off the market because some moronic grant funded study fed lab rats massive doses of a preservative or chemical that far exceeded the amount a human would consume in a lifetime and declared it carcinogenic. I just do not accept that mans contribution of 0.0016 percent of the .04% volume ofC02 in the atmosphere causes climate change. You are welcome to disagree. However you are just taking someone else's word for it. You do not actually know for sure. You merely trust government grant funded research more then I do.

You clearly need to do more research into the matter..

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Denier talking points.

If you want to have a discussion, discuss the issue. I'll stop reading when I come to the word "denier". It's juvenile.

 

[watsup]

If you want to have a discussion, discuss the issue. I'll stop reading when I come to the word "denier". It's juvenile.

I would love to discuss it in more depth, but you clearly do not have even a basic understanding of the issue, and so you clearly do rely instead on just the standard denier talking points. Again I ask the question: what effect is human-produced CO2 having on the climate? And again I ask you to do some basic research instead of just offering up talking point opinions. That get's really old really fast.
For instance, there is a good explanation at the NASA website as to why the "small amount" of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming, but if you don't even have the curiosity to research that, then what good is trying to have a discussion. Until you become more serious and thoughtful about the matter, it's just peeing into the wind on my part and that of isto.

 

[Ren]

I'm just not sure why you are trying to discuss it when you clearly don't even understand the basics of AGW, that's all.

Don't worry about what I know and don't know.

Your job is to prove that the Earth is in a real state of emergency. I don't see it.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I would love to discuss it in more depth, but you clearly do not have even a basic understanding of the issue, and so you clearly do rely instead on just the standard denier talking points. Again I ask the question: what effect is human-produced CO2 having on the climate? And again I ask you to do some basic research instead of just offering up talking point opinions. That get's really old really fast.
For instance, there is a good explanation at the NASA website as to why the "small amount" of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming, but if you don't even have the curiosity to research that, then what good is trying to have a discussion. Until you become more serious and thoughtful about the matter, it's just peeing into the wind on my part and that of isto.

I have researched all of that and probably read many of the same articles you have read and probably before you did. I am just wise enough to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism over controversial government grant funded science that has been highly politicized. With all due respect to NASA, they are an organization for space exploration, not climate science. And it's you that is lacking seriousness. Your "denier" chants say it all. If you were truly into the science of climate change, you would not default to that term every time you came up against opposing viewpoints. And so-called peer review of man-made climate change has been largely disregarded. The leak of the UN climate science emails should have taught you that.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Don't worry about what I know and don't know.

Your job is to prove that the Earth is in a real state of emergency. I don't see it.

Part of the problem is that libruls are afraid of losing their librul intellectual credentials if they do not join the cult of man-made climate change.

 

[Ren]

Part of the problem is that libruls are afraid of losing their librul intellectual credentials if they do not join the cult of man-made climate change.

That's why it's pointless to engage them in debate.

Better to just put their feet to the fire and make them try to prove their idiotic theories.

 

[istodolez]

I would like to think you can do better then that. I was an adult in the 1970s. I saw the articles and there were far less news sources to write those articles then there is in today's internet era. The 6 to 1 difference in quantity of articles is meaningless. And there have been ongoing climate change alarmists at least as far back as the 1860s. Climate change is as old as the planet. We have had warming and cooling periods that far predate man industrializing the planet. Why is man suddenly getting the blame for the last two cycles? Ever consider natural causes? Or did they just disappear when man industrialized the planet?

Wow. So you don't know much of anything about this topic, do you?

Sorry to hear that. I don't have a lot of time to teach you so, sorry I'm tappin' out. But I WOULD like to point out something to you. As someone who got all his degrees in geology I wanted to let you know that we teach freshmen that the earth's climate has always had changes. So don't go pattin' yourself on the back for discovering "natural forcings". EVERYONE knows about them. In fact the field of PALEOCLIMATOLOGY has existed for many, many, many years.

One of the key factors that arises is that from understanding when the earth's climate changed BEFORE Humans we understand natural forcings pretty well! So when we look at the last 50-60 years or so we see changes we cannot explain using natural forcings alone. In fact more than 50% of the climate change in the last 50 years is likely due to human activities.

But you can learn all this and more if you were to stumble into an intro geology class sometime. Go to your local community college. THey probably have one.

 

[istodolez]

I at least maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in regards to controversial scientific studies.

But one must have a technical understanding of the topic in order for your skepticism to have any value. Otherwise it's just personal incredulity.

I have no idea how old you are, however skepticism has served me well. It's mostly computer modeling and bell jar science

You don't know science either? That's too bad. Modeling is key to almost all of the sciences. SOrry to break it to you.

that doe not take natural variance into account.

CLEARLY YOU DON'T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT THIS TOPIC if you believe that. Just a cursory examination of LITERALLY ANY article on this topic factors in natural forcings.

Wow. Fractally ignorant of a topic does NOT make for good skepticism.

 

[watsup]

Don't worry about what I know and don't know.

Your job is to prove that the Earth is in a real state of emergency. I don't see it.

Nobody cares what a chatter in an online forum "sees", only about the research and data of climate scientists..

 

[watsup]

I have researched all of that and probably read many of the same articles you have read and probably before you did. I am just wise enough to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism over controversial government grant funded science that has been highly politicized. With all due respect to NASA, they are an organization for space exploration, not climate science. And it's you that is lacking seriousness. Your "denier" chants say it all. If you were truly into the science of climate change, you would not default to that term every time you came up against opposing viewpoints. And so-called peer review of man-made climate change has been largely disregarded. The leak of the UN climate science emails should have taught you that.

m
How on Earth can I quit referencing denier talking points when you keep filling up your posts with them?????? See
post #254.

 

[watsup]

That's why it's pointless to engage them in debate.

Better to just put their feet to the fire and make them try to prove their idiotic theories.

Psychological projection.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

m
How on Earth can I quit referencing denier talking points when you keep filling up your posts with them?????? See
post #254.

Don't blame me. It's your lack of confidence that motivates you. I am not denying climate change in any way shape of form. I am just highly skeptical of the man-made claim. Climate change has been going on for billions of years.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Wow. So you don't know much of anything about this topic, do you?

Sorry to hear that. I don't have a lot of time to teach you so, sorry I'm tappin' out. But I WOULD like to point out something to you. As someone who got all his degrees in geology I wanted to let you know that we teach freshmen that the earth's climate has always had changes. So don't go pattin' yourself on the back for discovering "natural forcings". EVERYONE knows about them. In fact the field of PALEOCLIMATOLOGY has existed for many, many, many years.

One of the key factors that arises is that from understanding when the earth's climate changed BEFORE Humans we understand natural forcings pretty well! So when we look at the last 50-60 years or so we see changes we cannot explain using natural forcings alone. In fact more than 50% of the climate change in the last 50 years is likely due to human activities.

But you can learn all this and more if you were to stumble into an intro geology class sometime. Go to your local community college. THey probably have one.

You do not know have of what you think you do. You are just following the cult.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

You clearly need to do more research into the matter..

Once again, I have likely read everything you have read. maybe more. I just do not buy into politicized research as easy as you do. Research is often refuted by future research. And again, I am still waiting for the global cooling that similar government grant funded research promised me in the 1970s. You do accept that it was wrong then, don't you?

 

[watsup]

I have researched all of that and probably read many of the same articles you have read and probably before you did. I am just wise enough to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism over controversial government grant funded science that has been highly politicized. With all due respect to NASA, they are an organization for space exploration, not climate science. And it's you that is lacking seriousness. Your "denier" chants say it all. If you were truly into the science of climate change, you would not default to that term every time you came up against opposing viewpoints. And so-called peer review of man-made climate change has been largely disregarded. The leak of the UN climate science emails should have taught you that.

Let's review this particular post. You claim that the AGW science is "politicized", which is a form of denial. You deny that NASA has a valid mission in climate science in spite of their extensive work in the area. You scoff at peer review, which is a form of denial. And this post is quite similar to all your others. And then you can't figure out why we call you all deniers. Really.

 

[watsup]

Don't blame me. It's your lack of confidence that motivates you. I am not denying climate change in any way shape of form. I am just highly skeptical of the man-made claim. Climate change has been going on for billions of years.

What is the prime driver of climate change this time?

 

[watsup]

You do not know have of what you think you do. You are just following the cult.

"The cult". Yet another standard denier talking point. They never end!!!!!!!

 

[watsup]

Once again, I have likely read everything you have read. maybe more. I just do not buy into politicized research as easy as you do. Research is often refuted by future research. And again, I am still waiting for the global cooling that similar government grant funded research promised me in the 1970s. You do accept that it was wrong then, don't you?

Isto explained that all. Go back and review that particular post.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Let's review this particular post. You claim that the AGW science is "politicized", which is a form of denial. You deny that NASA has a valid mission in climate science in spite of their extensive work in the area. You scoff at peer review, which is a form of denial. And this post is quite similar to all your others. And then you can't figure out why we call you all deniers. Really.

You are spinning it as you go along. Anyone who does not accept that climate science has been highly politicized is in utter denial. And you are just pushing off opposing view points as "denier", whether those opposing viewpoints come from forum posters or scientists. There is significant disagreement in the scientific community on the suggestion of man-made climate science. and which part of "Peer review" is largely ignored or discouraged by the man-made climate crowd do you not understand. it's you that seems allergic to peer review. I welcome actual peer review in climate science just as in the medical field. Unfortunately the man-made cult does not accept it.

 

[watsup]

You are spinning it as you go along. Anyone who does not accept that climate science has been highly politicized is in utter denial. And you are just pushing off opposing view points as "denier", whether those opposing viewpoints come from forum posters or scientists. There is significant disagreement in the scientific community on the suggestion of man-made climate science. and which part of "Peer review" is largely ignored or discouraged by the man-made climate crowd do you not understand. it's you that seems allergic to peer review. I welcome actual peer review in climate science just as in the medical field. Unfortunately the man-made cult does not accept it.

Do you have any actual sources for your accusations, or are they all just more of your "opinions" without actual merit or backup?

 

[watsup]

You are spinning it as you go along. Anyone who does not accept that climate science has been highly politicized is in utter denial. And you are just pushing off opposing view points as "denier", whether those opposing viewpoints come from forum posters or scientists. There is significant disagreement in the scientific community on the suggestion of man-made climate science. and which part of "Peer review" is largely ignored or discouraged by the man-made climate crowd do you not understand. it's you that seems allergic to peer review. I welcome actual peer review in climate science just as in the medical field. Unfortunately the man-made cult does not accept it.

You get upset about me using the term "denier", and yet you make accusations of "highly policitized" and "utter denial"and "largely ignored" and "cult". Double-standard?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Do you have any actual sources for your accusations, or are they all just more of your "opinions" without actual merit or backup?

Which part of the UN climate emails leaking out did you not understand? True peer review has never been accepted by the man-made warming cult. You are proving that yourself with your instant default to "Denier" every time you see an opposing viewpoint. Take care. I am signing off until tomorrow.

 

[istodolez]

You do not know have of what you think you do. You are just following the cult.

At least one can read my posts!