Global warming

[Laniakea]

No, that is not a "win". That is just not a humiliating loss. Trump knows that he is a joke. But he opened up his big yap and challenged Biden to debate him. It was pretty hard to run away like a coward at that point.

Ending up as the nominee is a win. That's what he did.
Also, how does a nominee challenge his opponent to a debate without actually "opening his yap"?
And in case you're not familiar with the American political scene, presidential contenders normally do have debates before the election.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ending up as the nominee is a win. That's what he did.
Also, how does a nominee challenge his opponent to a debate without actually "opening his yap"?
And in case you're not familiar with the American political scene, presidential contenders normally do have debates before the election.

You were not talking about the nomination. You were talking about the debate. And yes, I agree that since Trump is so incompetent, as are far too many of his supporters, it was a good strategy for him to chicken out and not debate. The same applies to all of his lawsuits against him. He always tells his sheeple that he will testify so that justice is done. Of course the last thing that he ever wants is justice so he always goes back on his word. He knows that he is guilty of so many crimes that he is afraid if he testifies at one trial he will convict himself at another.

 

[Laniakea]

You were not talking about the nomination. You were talking about the debate. And yes, I agree that since Trump is so incompetent, as are far too many of his supporters, it was a good strategy for him to chicken out and not debate. The same applies to all of his lawsuits against him. He always tells his sheeple that he will testify so that justice is done. Of course the last thing that he ever wants is justice so he always goes back on his word. He knows that he is guilty of so many crimes that he is afraid if he testifies at one trial he will convict himself at another.

Sounds like you're just sore that he won the nomination.
I'll leave you to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like you're just sore that he won the nomination.
I'll leave you to it.

Not "sore". Disappointed. I was a Republican until Trump came along. The party had been getting worse and worse but I could still support them. It would be nice to vote Republican again some day, but that does not appear to be too likely. Did you know that at one time the Republican Party was the party of fiscal conservatives? Sadly that has not been the case for twenty years or more.

 

[Laniakea]

Not "sore". Disappointed. I was a Republican until Trump came along. The party had been getting worse and worse but I could still support them. It would be nice to vote Republican again some day, but that does not appear to be too likely. Did you know that at one time the Republican Party was the party of fiscal conservatives? Sadly that has not been the case for twenty years or more.

Tell it to someone who believes you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell it to someone who believes you.

LOL! You believe Trump. In some ways it would be an insult if you believed me.

 

[Pete in Panama]

But what isn't scientifically known is whether a degree or two increase in the global temperature makes any real difference. Politically, it's a nice little scare tactic to increase government spending, raise taxes, and decrease individual rights.

You don't know what you're talking about and are just playing politics while I go by the science. This is why have a serious discussion with you is basically fruitless.

We can approach this scientifically if you want. If you're saying that the global temperature is too high, please tell me what earth's average temperature is now, what it has been, and how this is atypical for temperature trends for the past few tens of thousands of years. Then we can talk about what temperature we want it to be and how we're going to change what we got.

 

[Laniakea]

LOL! You believe Trump. In some ways it would be an insult if you believed me.

Is that why you're here each day trying to convince me of your assertions?
Heck, if you want to be insulted, I can email you many suitable examples.

 

[Laniakea]

We can approach this scientifically if you want. If you're saying that the global temperature is too high, please tell me what earth's average temperature is now, what it has been, and how this is atypical for temperature trends for the past few tens of thousands of years. Then we can talk about what temperature we want it to be and how we're going to change what we got.

If they did manage to change it, then they'd be complaining about "Climate Change".

 

[ChristineM]

We can approach this scientifically if you want. If you're saying that the global temperature is too high, please tell me what earth's average temperature is now, what it has been, and how this is atypical for temperature trends for the past few tens of thousands of years. Then we can talk about what temperature we want it to be and how we're going to change what we got.

It is sort of a scientific subject so for your entertainment...

 

[Regiomontanus]

It is sort of a scientific subject so for your entertainment...


View attachment 93382

This one is interesting too, I think.

The so-called 'hockey stick' graph.

 

[Laniakea]

It is sort of a scientific subject so for your entertainment...


View attachment 93382

Ah, but how were these measurements obtained back in 1860, and how do those methods compare to what we have now? As for the effects of the temperature change, again the differences in the ability to collect data between then and now skews the results. For example, if someone today wants to say we have more storms and that they're more severe than before and therefore it must be because the earth's temp rose a degree and a half, it must be taken into consideration that in the 1860s and early 1900s, we had no way to know anything that was happening elsewhere on the earth. No satellites, no air travel, no telecommunications.

 

[Wirey]

Are there seriously people still questioning climate change science? After the oil industry admitted it was real?

 

[Regiomontanus]

Ah, but how were these measurements obtained back in 1860, and how do those methods compare to what we have now? As for the effects of the temperature change, again the differences in the ability to collect data between then and now skews the results. For example, if someone today wants to say we have more storms and that they're more severe than before and therefore it must be because the earth's temp rose a degree and a half, it must be taken into consideration that in the 1860s and early 1900s, we had no way to know anything that was happening elsewhere on the earth. No satellites, no air travel, no telecommunications.

Brother, the science is so clear on this. You are pissing into a strong wind (you are going to get wet).

Ice cores and climate change - British Antarctic Survey

Introduction Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend …

www.bas.ac.uk

Climate at the core: how scientists study ice cores to reveal Earth's climate history

Like a prehistoric fly trapped in amber during dinosaurs' days, airborne relics of Earth's earlier climate can end up trapped in glacial ice for eons. How do climate scientists turn those tiny relics into a story about Earth's ancient climate?

www.climate.gov

etc.

 

[Laniakea]

Brother, the science is so clear on this. You are pissing into a strong wind (you are going to get wet).

Ice cores and climate change - British Antarctic Survey

Introduction Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend …

www.bas.ac.uk

Climate at the core: how scientists study ice cores to reveal Earth's climate history

Like a prehistoric fly trapped in amber during dinosaurs' days, airborne relics of Earth's earlier climate can end up trapped in glacial ice for eons. How do climate scientists turn those tiny relics into a story about Earth's ancient climate?

www.climate.gov

etc.

In this country, we're allowed to question authority, even if scientists from other countries are being considered the authority.

 

[Laniakea]

Are there seriously people still questioning climate change science? After the oil industry admitted it was real?

Yeah, in a democracy, people are allowed to question.

 

[Regiomontanus]

In this country, we're allowed to question authority, even if scientists from other countries are being considered the authority.

You are not questioning authority, but reality.

Science is not political, even if it is often distorted to such ends.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that why you're here each day trying to convince me of your assertions?
Heck, if you want to be insulted, I can email you many suitable examples.

I do not "make assertions". You are projecting again.

 

[Wirey]

Yeah, in a democracy, people are allowed to question.

That's not how it works. Watch:

Gravity isn't real.

Cancer is caused by tulips.

When the sun shines on skinny people, it goes right through them.

That's not questioning, that's nonsense. The science is real. There are people who are fundamentally incapable of understanding it, whether through a lack of education, pre-set biases, or a surfeit of Kruger-Dunning Effect, but when you question established science, science that is already agreed to by the people with the largest financial motive to ignore it, it's not really questioning. It's just nonsense. And when you're engaging in nonsense, the burden is on you to prove it. Again, a demonstration:

I say there is no gravity. A scientist, with all the experimentation and history in the world behind him, says there is. On which of us does it fall to provide conclusive evidence? The guy spouting nonsense, or the guy with the fact-based, real world, actual knowledge about the subject?

I say cancer is caused by tulips. A medical doctor, fully trained and with an absolute ton of evidence behind his opinion, disagrees. Is it up to me to prove my point, or is it up to him to arrange an entirely new series of experiments to prove me wrong?

Some schleb on an internet message board says climate change isn't real. Every respectable scientific organization on earth says said schleb is spouting nonsense. Is it up tot he scientific community to prove him wrong, or should he be able to provide real, tangible evidence that can be weighed scientifically by the much-smarter people who take care of this stuff. And remember, these aren't just scientists on one side of an argument. Oil companies, governments, universities, the Chinese, and even high school kids performing amazingly boring, and yet informative, school projects can show the effects. Should all of those people throw away 500 years of the scientific method and start over, or should schlebby-Joe put his/her money where their mouth is and provide evidence?

If you (and I use 'you' in the general sense, not calling out anyone in particular) can't prove your point, you're not questioning. You're just spouting nonsense. So, if anyone knows someone who can prove all the scientific community, particularly the ones who work for the petroleum industry, completely wrong, I for one would love to see it. And remember, I'm an oil field guy, with a technical background, so don't feel like you have to dumb it down.

 

[JIMMY12345]

One good thing is we will run out of oil around 2050 so then it’ll cut way back on greenhouse gases so the Earth will begin to repair itself. Sweet.

The rich will inherit the earth (on grounds they will be the only ones who can afford the fuel prices).