Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

New climate change studies


Daffodil

Recommended Posts

30 min. long.  Fascinating look at history with an eye toward the effects of warming and cooling on major epochs.  Guest's name is Randall Carlson.  Joe Rogan mostly keeps his mouth shut and just lets the man talk.

 

TLDR:  Reasons to question the current model of climate change being all humanity's fault.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, this popped up on my screen as being new, but it looks like it is actually 2 years old.  Still interesting, though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I just can't engage in discussions about the flat earth, reptilian shape shifters or climate change anymore. I just can't. Science and facts become more irrelevant each day. It's like we're in the midst of the fucking Crusades, witch hunts or Dark Ages once again.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
17 minutes ago, florduh said:

I just can't engage in discussions about the flat earth, reptilian shape shifters or climate change anymore. I just can't. Science and facts become more irrelevant each day. It's like we're in the midst of the fucking Crusades, witch hunts or Dark Ages once again.

 

Planet x/Nibiru, you forgot Nibiru florduh - it's supposed to hit us this year!

 

What? No observatory has spotted it? Fake news! Those science people know its coming and are hiding the truth from the public.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, florduh said:

I just can't engage in discussions about the flat earth, reptilian shape shifters or climate change anymore. I just can't. Science and facts become more irrelevant each day. It's like we're in the midst of the fucking Crusades, witch hunts or Dark Ages once again.

 

Florduh,

Have you been speaking to my wife and stepson?

 

Din din conversation last Sunday night left me wondering if we really left the dark ages behind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Here's an interesting short introductory topic on why we (humans as a whole) deny stuff. This one is focused specifically on why people deny climate science, but can relate to a lot of different areas. Often you can identify factors that relate to why Christians deny the facts of archaeology, biblical textual criticism and evolution. The subject of why our brains work the way they do is a fascinating subject. Once you have an idea of what to look for you can reflect on your own biases, and where your primal brain might be leading you astray.

 

If you wish to study the topic in more detail there are some videos by psychology professors that really go into how the brain works, how we accept/deny facts, and reasons for that. All interesting stuff no matter which side you are on.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow that wasn't even the whole video! Very interesting. I'm going to have to look this up on you tube n watch the rest. Thanks for the video daffodil.

 

DB

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change deniers are uncomfortable with the concept of climate change so they deny/ignore it.

Religious folks are uncomfortable with death and so they believe in superstition (life after death).

Most climate change deniers that MOHO has met are xtian/fundamentalist.

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
19 minutes ago, MOHO said:

Climate change deniers are uncomfortable with the concept of climate change so they deny/ignore it.

Religious folks are uncomfortable with death and so they believe in superstition (life after death).

Most climate change deniers that MOHO has met are xtian/fundamentalist.

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

 

Lol, love this :D

 

Might be a bit of false equivalency/ false cause but its funny.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Ahhh love it... the black line is still going up............????

 

And, according to the picture the predictions dictated green policies. If said polices were (as they have been) enacted then this would affect the rate of warming... which means the predictions wouldn't be met because the policies would actually be working!

 

BO you seem to love pointing out how exact predictions haven't been met, but even then YOUR graph still shows temperature rising.

 

Let me guess, unless a prediction can be hit on the head to within 25 decimal points you are going to claim the prediction wasn't met?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Lol, love this :D

 

Might be a bit of false equivalency/ false cause but its funny.

 

Glad you have a sense of humor, LF.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
5 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

No...I am making fun of your narrative.  

 

Of course, of course. The cynicism coming out to play ;)

 

Do you have sources for your graphs please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of the time of this posting...  31,080.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
8 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

As of the time of this posting...  31,080.

 

Bud, you lost me there.... is this supposed to mean something to someone else?

 

7 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

It's called google. :)

 

Of course of course. The common answer to someone who cannot, or who will not back up their assertions with actual sources. (My father does this incidentally when discussing evidence against evolution)

 

So I ask you, why should I have any confidence in your graphs? They could be from some oil company's site which would immediately call its accuracy into question.

 

BTW, for the record, I predicted your response. I betted with myself that you would resort to some form of "go find it yourself". Predictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys this is just an objective point of view but ya'll have just went into the gutter of the popular climate change arguments. What do you think about the study the video brought out? I have my own thoughts about climate change but will save them for now. I would like to here some thoughts on the content of the video.

 

DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now up to ...31,083.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think that he brought out a lot of good point assuming the references he made were accurate. I like the cycle that he showed concerning the ice age and mini ice age. Especially when he brought out the correlation of the two mini ice ages with the plagues and animal extinction.

     However I do wonder, if their is a natural cycle that the earth goes through if the CO2 might hold that cycle off for longer or indefinitely. Which would eventually be catastrophic. 

 

DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
25 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Guys this is just an objective point of view but ya'll have just went into the gutter of the popular climate change arguments. What do you think about the study the video brought out? I have my own thoughts about climate change but will save them for now. I would like to here some thoughts on the content of the video.

 

DB

 

This is ToT DB. If BO had the guts to take part in the discussion in the science forum you would find my conduct different.

 

In the ToT though we just roll the shit out of each other for fun :D 

 

If someone wants a serious answer they should post the question in the science forum. Until then I'll point out some facts and have some fun, BO will post graphs showing opposite and have fun.

 

Posting this topic in ToT is simply going to open up the floor for shenanigans.

 

(You might ask why a guy who takes the topic seriously engages in such? Well I'm still young and like to have fun :D )

 

PS @DarkBishop I'll PM you might thoughts later tonight if you want to have a decent conversation?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol ok I get it. I didn't know. Like BO said. I'm kinda knew so ......... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
3 hours ago, Burnedout said:

1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.

2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.

3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet.

4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.

5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.

6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the North and South poles.

7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.

 8. Define how much has humans affected the climate.

 

:)

 

I've already answered these in other threads. No point in answering again.

 

Take this to the science forum IF you are prepared to declare sources and have an actual conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

I personally think that he brought out a lot of good point assuming the references he made were accurate. I like the cycle that he showed concerning the ice age and mini ice age. Especially when he brought out the correlation of the two mini ice ages with the plagues and animal extinction.

     However I do wonder, if their is a natural cycle that the earth goes through if the CO2 might hold that cycle off for longer or indefinitely. Which would eventually be catastrophic. 

 

DB

 

Hi DB!  Nice to "meet" you!  Climate change is one of the ugly polarizing topics here ?.  Anyway, I watched the entire 3-hour interview and he goes into much more detail.  Apparently, the current consensus on the rock formations we see today is one of a slow, erosion thing.  When you see striations in rock formations, it is the result of millions of years of glacial movement.  But this belief was not always the case.  Early geologists had a catastrophic view of how rock formations came to be.  They felt that some major catastrophe such as a massive flood caused the striations.  Carlson shows that geologists are moving back in the direction of a catastrophic model of how these formations came to be.  It's more complicated than what I am describing, with even more charts and details, including asteroid hits.  It was absolutely fascinating and I didn't even notice the time passing as I watched.  Highly recommend it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
1 minute ago, Burnedout said:

 

Fine...don't answer.  You can't even fully define what you claim to believe in. 

 

I already stated where I will answer and under what conditions. Not my fault you are afraid of the science forum where you actually have to post sources and back your shit up.

 

There's the topic, its still open. Lets see if you can post there without getting all political on me. I'll answer as objectively as I can and attempt to steer clear of my biases if you'll do the same.... if you can. Which I have my doubts since you are a declared unadulterated cynic. (BAA will probably say "LF have you lost your mind!??" :))

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, everyone, he is not a climate change denier.  He says in the interview that he absolutely agrees that humans are having an impact, but he claims it is far more complicated and has different ramifications than what the politicians claim. He also says there are so many things we still don't know about previous warming and cooling periods the earth has gone through and that scientists and historians are coming to different conclusions than the current consensus.  He's a bit unique in that his interests lie in several disparate fields and he tries to make connections that many scientists fail to see because they can't see past their own area of expertise.  It reminds me of the geologist who confounded and angered Egyptologists when he claimed the sphinx was eroded by water, despite the supposed "fact" that that area of Egypt had not seen flooding during the time the sphinx was erected, according to the Egyptologists.  Carlson even mentions that very controversy.  Give him a chance - his ideas make a lot of sense.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
5 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

You can just answer it here and now.  What's wrong?  

 

I could, but have done so at least twice in ToT. Take it to a science forum where it belongs where neither side can bullshit, where sources have to be declared, and objectivity valued.

 

Here its just a shit pile.

 

I am of course making a massive assumption here: That should you take it to the science forum you actually would bind yourself to a scientific discussion rather than your usual cynical mistrust of everything. Herein I doubt my own sanity at even inviting you there. But hey, give a guy a fair chance and all that yeah?

 

Nothings wrong.. oh wait I have a headache and my neck hurts. Pray for me :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
3 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

Sounds like a dodge to me.  Nothing to stop you from doing it here.  There is a wider audience here.  The only time I remember you or possibly some others saying about those questions are that is no correct answer.  If you cannot answer those questions then how can you be so sure?  Unless it is a religion and you are a TRUE BELIEVER? 

 

I'm inviting you to  a serious objective discussion in the science forum where I have stated I'll answer, and that's what you call a dodge? Sounds a bit Trumpish to me.

 

The audience is the same - they can all see the science forum and participate if interested. If they are not interested in a serious discussion then I'm not interested in their opinion.

 

Define True Believer... no don't. I'm not interested in that sort of drivel.

 

Looks like we are at an impasse - I want a serious discussion in the science forum... to, you know, discuss science not politics, you want to keep it here ... for reasons....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.