Climate Change Lecture by Dr Jim White

[Geezer]

12 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Science is not a democracy! It's a consensus.

 

It seems to me like it's a lot of educated guesses expressed as theories. And it also seems to me that a consensus, all to often, is the result of coercion, group think, and political pressure. That is especially true when a lot of money is involved. 

 

Just like the Bible, scientific evidence is subject to "interpretation". And it seems there is always a lot of ways to interpret the evidence.

[disillusioned]

This drawing of parallels between science and religion smacks of ignorance. I see this kind of thinking all the time in my professional life. It is disturbing to see it here.

 

Yes, sometimes scientists get carried away. And, just like all humans,  they can be corrupted. But there is no conspiracy. There is no faith required. Where there is a need for interpretation,  there are clear guidelines regarding how to interpret data correctly. There's no subterfuge, in general. But we do sometimes need to go beyond what we can see with our own eyes. That's just the way things are.

 

We must be careful not to equate "I don't understand X" with "X cannot be understood". Yes, we should be skeptical. But there is a very significant difference between skepticism and cynicism. Say "I'm not convinced by X" if you must. But to insist that X is actually bullshit is to make another claim entirely. Just saying.

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

We must be careful not to equate "I don't understand X" with "X cannot be understood". Yes, we should be skeptical. But there is a very significant difference between skepticism and cynicism. Say "I'm not convinced by X" if you must. But to insist that X is actually bullshit is to make another claim entirely. Just saying.

 

This is all very good and worth a close consideration. 

 

One thing that probably needs clarification is what people are placing as X, exactly. I see it breaking down (all conspiracy and assorted asides, aside) as going in two primary directions of claim at the bottom of it all. 

 

(1) Alarm. 

(2) Not Alarm.

 

Setting all details aside for a moment, one could easily look at this discussion as opening with a suggestion for (1). It seems to be saying science suggests X ( 1. Alarm). 

 

I'm of the opinion that, "I'm not convinced by X."

 

Going further, I'm not convinced of X because science itself in not currently convinced of X as a whole. And I'm skeptical of the notion of 'settled science' when it comes to X. The earth may be warming, CO2 may be a large contributor, and yet X may turn out to be unwarranted nonetheless. This is a very concise way of breaking down the discussion. I don't see the need to go further and claim that X is actually bullshit. It could be right, I'm just not convinced of the validity of X. 

 

 

[TruthSeeker0]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This is all very good and worth a close consideration. 

 

One thing that probably needs clarification is what people are placing as X, exactly. I see it breaking down (all conspiracy and assorted asides, aside) as going in two primary directions of claim at the bottom of it all. 

 

(1) Alarm. 

(2) Not Alarm.

 

Setting all details aside for a moment, one could easily look at this discussion as opening with a suggestion for (1). It seems to be saying science suggests X ( 1. Alarm). 

 

I'm of the opinion that, "I'm not convinced by X."

 

Going further, I'm not convinced of X because science itself in not currently convinced of X as a whole. And I'm skeptical of the notion of 'settled science' when it comes to X. The earth may be warming, CO2 may be a large contributor, and yet X may turn out to be unwarranted nonetheless. This is a very concise way of breaking down the discussion. I don't see the need to go further and claim that X is actually bullshit. It could be right, I'm just not convinced of the validity of X. 

 

 

I have a problem with the word alarm in itself. It doesn't have a neutral connotation at all. What's wrong with using global warming? The fact that it has actually been proven to be happening lately regardless of causes? Or does using that term imply that one belongs in one camp or another? 

[disillusioned]

Alarm is not part of the science. Alarmed is what some people become when they learn about the science. Obviously if one is skeptical of climate change, one will not be alarmed by it.  But one can accept that it is happening, and that CO2 emissions are driving it, and still not be alarmed by it. So no, it doesn't boil down to alarm or no alarm. People's reactions may boil down to that,  but that's not the claim.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

Alarm is not part of the science. Alarmed is what some people become when they learn about the science. Obviously if one is skeptical of climate change, one will not be alarmed by it.  But one can accept that it is happening, and that CO2 emissions are driving it, and still not be alarmed by it. So no, it doesn't boil down to alarm or no alarm. People's reactions may boil down to that,  but that's not the claim.

 

For example, despite BO's claims, I do not think the world will be destroyed. There is NO science to even suggest this. I do think the science shows that we are impacting our environment, and that in turn will affect where we live and the way we live. Now I am not alarmed by this. I live in an area that hopefully won't see too many adverse effects. Of course there are global economic knock on effects and we will deal with those as they arise.

 

If I lived on the sea shore and watching the beach get eaten away I would be alarmed. First you have natural erosion, but on top of that some areas are expected to see a fairly decent rise in sea level if current trends hold true.

 

Any "alarm" I may have generally boils down to its sad to see we are affecting our world this way. The only world known so far to harbour life and our species is having a negative impact on it. But that's a personal view aside from the science.

 

Now the media will report things in 'alarm' style. Why? Because it sells. Just saying oh well things are going as predicted blah blah doesn't sell.

 

"COMING ICEAGE, EUROPE WILL BE UNLIVIABLE" sells... followed by SCIENTISTS WRONG, NO ICEAGE (Incidentally it was the media that made up the imminent ice age that they are now debunking  )

[florduh]

21 hours ago, Burnedout said:

I don't trust any institutions

 

Just curious, do you trust anything or anyone with information that goes beyond your own personal experience? I don't mean bloggers or conspiracy websites but actual legitimate institutions, hands on researchers and such.

[florduh]

8 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

Why the prejudice against alternative websites?  I am not saying I trust them either, but it appears to be hypocritical to dismiss everything just because it is not of the institutionally approved.  Don't you see that?  

I was trying to reference sources that might have useful/true data. That would limit the field to those with hands on investigation, those who examine and test hypotheses, those who run controlled experiments and trials, and not those with nothing more than an opinion and a computer.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

 

Oh, I was thinking of people like Dr. John Christy, Dr. Judith Curry, and others who have just been dismissed by others on here.  They have been even peer reviewed.  Again, I am not saying they are 100% trustworthy, but I find it kind of odd when people dismiss them out of hand or make all kinds of excuses about who funds them when the institutions for the mainstream writers are not clean themselves.  

 

They have been peer reviewed, and their papers are not widely accepted by their peers. The fact they might be funded by oil conglomerates is second to whether their conclusions are sound.

 

BO, in science people, hopefully smarter than you and I, put together their conclusions on a particular subject. Now there will be differing opinions and this all gets hashed around until what we call a consensus emerges. Kind of like what has happened with the free speech subject in ToT where the consensus is pretty much anything goes but don't be a complete dick. Now some disagree with this and think you should be able to be a complete dick, but this doesn't mean we all drop the consensus view simply because there is a differing opinion. The person making the differing opinion has to show why their view should be accepted. And neither the lets be dick advocates, nor the humans do not affect climate advocates has presented strong enough reasons to dismiss the consensus view. That's how stuff works.

 

What I note is that one side has to point to conspiracy or hoax to make their case, the other side merely points to the evidence.... kinda like the old creationists vs evolution debate. 

[LogicalFallacy]

28 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

That may be how YOU see it.  I don't.  It is obvious that you accept what the institutional consensus says and they are either funded by the green technologies or goverment who are lobbied by green tech.

 

Well it's more that's the way things actually work. You try and brush me with a broad sweeping statement that is essentially incorrect. For example I obviously reject the consensus that a God/s exist. I also am on the fence regarding the existence of Jesus which is institutionally very one sided at the moment. Cosmology I watch with great interested, but am well aware that out knowledge is very limited and our current understanding can change. Same with climate change. Based on what limited materials I've studied, with my limited understanding the science stacks up and the dissenting views are soundly rebutted.

 

I do tend to accept the consensus of scientific researchers in their field as I realise my own expertise in most areas is... woefully inadequate. I also take note of dissenting views and watch the debates with interest.

 

28 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

 But there is also something called "The Big Lie" authored by Josef Goebbels.  If enough people say it often enough, long enough, people believe it.

 

Agreed - take Trump for example. Or Hillary.

 

28 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

Those people who disagree with the consensus does not mean they are wrong, it just means they have a differing view point.

 

Yes and no. If you dissent over gravity you don't just have a differing point of view, you are wrong. If you are told that you can't fly, but your view is that you can and you jump off a building you are wrong. We don't give out stars just because you have a different opinion. To get anywhere you have to demonstrate why your view is more in line with reality than mine (Or whoever's)

 

28 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

Also, JUST because they are funded by some industry you find distasteful, does that guarantee they are automatically wrong?  Are you not committing one of your own sins, pssst....a FALLACY?   The majority of government approved scientists in Nazi Germany had a consensus that Jews and other races were inferior. Was the consensus right?  Nope.  It was group think. 

 

No they are not automatically wrong. And if you read my posts properly you'd know that. Comparing Nazi's (There goes that law about the word Nazi in threads) to scientific consensus is stupid. Sorry but its just plain stupid. The Nazis were fuelled by an ideology that had little to do with science and much to do with feelings of national superiority. What a stupid comparison to make!

 

28 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

But go ahead, blindly take the word for it. And if it doesn't come true, I will remind you of it.   As for me, I will push my elected officials to completely cut the funding off 100%.  If the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can kiss my ass.  REALLY!

 

Remind me again who is ideologically opposed?

 

At this point I'm pretty sure you could look at water lapping Fort Pickens and still deny the water was rising. Not sure if either of us will live long enough to see if the probable effects actually happen.

 

I am a bit curious - I posted an article about the Arctic breaking up for the first time in recorded history. This was due to extreme climate conditions which caused warming. Everybody thought that would be the last area of ice to ever break up. I'm wondering, if you don't think the earth is warming (Regardless of cause) what do you think is happening? Also many areas posted record temperatures over the northern summer. Again...?

[mwc]

12 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

"COMING ICEAGE, EUROPE WILL BE UNLIVIABLE" sells... followed by SCIENTISTS WRONG, NO ICEAGE (Incidentally it was the media that made up the imminent ice age that they are now debunking  )

 

     Be careful with this.  We're in an interglacial period.  We should be heading towards a glacial phase.  I'll just steal from Wikipedia:

Without the human influence on the greenhouse gas concentration, the Earth would be heading toward a glacial period. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that in absence of human-made global warming the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now[18] (see Milankovitch cycles).

 

But due to the ongoing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth is instead heading toward a greenhouse Earth period.[5] Permanent ice is actually a rare phenomenon in the history of the Earth, occurring only in coincidence with the icehouse effect, which has affected about 20% of Earth's history.

     Problem is that people really screwed all this up and we wound up with some idea that an ice age was coming in the next few years.  That's the idea that needs to be debunked not that we were never heading towards an ice age since that was what was supposed to have happened.  The problem is we may be messing up the natural cycle and moving towards an greenhouse state and, in a worse case, a runaway greenhouse like Venus.

 

          mwc

 

 

[Joshpantera]

18 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I have a problem with the word alarm in itself. It doesn't have a neutral connotation at all. What's wrong with using global warming? The fact that it has actually been proven to be happening lately regardless of causes? Or does using that term imply that one belongs in one camp or another? 

 

What I mean is that the arguments break down to whether or not people think the warming is cause for alarm, which is what the thrust of the climate change movement is based upon. My take is that it all remains uncertain. If the warming trends tops off and starts falling things change. If we develop ways of balancing out carbon emissions, things change. There's just a lot of variables at play. So I'm not convinced of X = not alarmed at the fact that warming has occur'd. 

 

18 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Alarm is not part of the science. Alarmed is what some people become when they learn about the science. Obviously if one is skeptical of climate change, one will not be alarmed by it.  But one can accept that it is happening, and that CO2 emissions are driving it, and still not be alarmed by it. So no, it doesn't boil down to alarm or no alarm. People's reactions may boil down to that,  but that's not the claim.

 

But that is the claim of every media outlet and scientist who speak publicly about alarm. And those are the voices we're considering in all of these videos. The purpose of showing a warming trend is cause alarm to the issue. Otherwise, there'd be no point in even having the discussion, showing the models, or any of it. That's why I've broken it down this far. All proponents are working towards the underlying agenda of alarm. All of the skeptics condense down to those not buying the alarm. That's the entire argument in a nut shell. 

 

The OP is aimed at taking an alarming view of climate change within the context of a climate scientist trying to 'educate' a group of meteorologists. He makes claims about sea surface temperature steady rising. I pointed out that following this video his team at Colorado had to change their hurricane forecast for 2018 because of unusually low sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic at the outset of the season. And as Potholer pointed out there's problems with trying to pin either intensity or frequency on global warming for reasons of not having a data set going back in time far enough to make firm conclusions about whether it's natural or not. I would think this extends into other areas as well such as the claims about forest and brush fires, for instance. The better case is made for intensity, but, there's no straight line of increasing intensity. Last year people had to keep posting the history of hurricane size and intensity charts on facebook because so many claims about last year's hurricanes being caused by global warming were circulating around. 

 

So it's very hard to separate peoples (including the very scientists in question) reactions from the claims. Because the claims themselves are always given within the context of presenting alarming data or information. 

 

 

[TruthSeeker0]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/the-future-looks-grim-after-2-years-of-devastating-b-c-wildfires-1.4801181

"For the last two years, the hot and dry weather that has allowed so many large fires to develop in B.C. has been driven by a blocking ridge of high pressure that's been stuck over the province for much of the summer.

The air beneath that ridge sinks, warms and dries, creating perfect conditions for a "raging inferno" if it sticks around for a week or more, according to Flannigan.

 

That stagnant pattern has developed because the jet stream is weakening as the Arctic warms, a phenomenon that could spell more bad news for B.C., he said.

"There is a suggestion [in the] research that … because of the way the Arctic ice is melting, that a favoured position for this ridge is along the West Coast. If that's the case, then odds are that we're going to see a lot of bad fire seasons in British Columbia," Flannigan said.

And so, B.C. is stuck with the question of how to better prepare for the years ahead.

Limiting the release of greenhouse gases might be a good long-term option, but both Gray and Flannigan point out that any positive impacts won't be felt for several decades."

 

Note that he uses the word suggestion. He doesn't make claims that it's all bogus hype one way or the other because it's funded by political or economic interests etc. Responsible people will use words like this, and use scientific evidence and indications to make hypotheses. They don't just get on the internet and air their conspiracy theories and opinions about topics because ya know, they're right. They're actually concerned because even if we try to limit the release of greenhouse gases now, we're looking at a not too great immediate future.

It's kind of amazing how all the armchair critics don't give a damn about the economic costs of dealing with what we are facing in the future.

[disillusioned]

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

But that is the claim of every media outlet and scientist who speak publicly about alarm. And those are the voices we're considering in all of these videos. The purpose of showing a warming trend is cause alarm to the issue. Otherwise, there'd be no point in even having the discussion, showing the models, or any of it. That's why I've broken it down this far. All proponents are working towards the underlying agenda of alarm. All of the skeptics condense down to those not buying the alarm. That's the entire argument in a nut shell. 

 

It is absolutely not the claim of every scientist who speaks publicly about climate change. I've attended lectures on climate change. In all cases, the lecturers emphasised that they are not advocating any particular policy changes, nor are they trying to incite alarm. They are presenting the scientific facts, and the predictions that are drawn from the models that those facts lead to. There is absolutely a point in having this discussion, aside from inciting alarm. All of science aims to learn what the hell is going on. Environmental scientists, atmospheric chemists, etc, are studying the environment, making observations, making models, and making predictions just like all scientists do. They present their results, just like all scientists do. They are working towards science, not alarm.

 

Now, of course, some of them also express their personal opinions with respect to what people should do about this issue. But if and when they do that, they are no longer doing science, they are expressing opinions on social issues. They are perfectly entitled to do this, but they are not speaking as scientists when they do. It's been a while since I watched the video in the OP, so I'm not sure the extent to which the presenter in this particular video crosses into this kind of persuasion. But I've seen plenty of other videos where the speakers either abstained from discussing alarm entirely, or expressed clearly that their recommendations for what humanity should do are just their opinions, and not science.

 

It is absolutely false to claim that all climate scientists are working towards the underlying agenda of alarm.

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

So it's very hard to separate peoples (including the very scientists in question) reactions from the claims. Because the claims themselves are always given within the context of presenting alarming data or information. 

 

No, it isn't.

 

When a doctor says that smoking causes cancer, she is not trying to incite alarm. You can choose to be concerned or not. Science says smoking causes cancer.

 

When cosmologists tell us that the sun will eventually reach the end of its life, that Andromeda is headed our way, or that the vacuum of space is likely unstable, they are not trying to incite alarm. They are just presenting scientific facts. You choose to be alarmed, or not.

 

When biologists tell us that life has not been specially created, it has evolved over millions of years, they are not advocating for atheism. Sure, some of them also advocate for atheism, but that has relatively little to do with the science. Plenty of biologists are religious.

 

When climate scientists tell us that CO2 levels are increasing, and that increased CO2 leads to increased global temperatures, they are not inciting alarm. They are just stating scientific facts. If you find the data alarming, that's your problem. Also, the data does not have to be seen as alarming. It's very possible to accept that climate change is happening, that CO2 emissions are driving it, that it is a very real problem, and even that, unless we take drastic steps, it will have extremely negative effects on our lives, and to still not be alarmed by it. I should know. This is where I sit.

 

Now, of course, some people do get carried away and attempt to incite alarm. But to say that this is the basis of the claims of climate science is simply not correct.

[midniterider]

21 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

Don't forget the scientific method.  Oh, forgot, that is just propaganda. 

 

Looks at my watch..."Ok, people, it's going on lunch time....All in favor of Pluto being a planet, raise your hand.... all opposed?  Hokey doke, lets eat!"

[LogicalFallacy]

47 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Looks at my watch..."Ok, people, it's going on lunch time....All in favor of Pluto being a planet, raise your hand.... all opposed?  Hokey doke, lets eat!"

 

And while we are about it might I suggest we eyeball the ocean from our location and make some global proclamations about sea levels? 

[midniterider]

4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

And while we are about it might I suggest we eyeball the ocean from our location and make some global proclamations about sea levels? 

 

Are you doing  something to reduce the effects of global warming? Or is it just important to accept the idea on a web forum?

 

I'm not really doing anything about it, myself. I am glad to see the salmon killing Tesla cars being built, though. *shrugs*

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, Burnedout said:

What makes you SURE they are not playing you for a fool?  You come across as if you are sure.

 

I'm not absolutely sure, but I'm not cynical like you. How do I know that you are genuine in this discussion and not just trolling for shits and giggles? I don't know, but I generally presume that at least some of the time your points are genuine.

 

Quote

Except you are veering away from the subject.  This is not a discussion about gravity.  You can clearly observe gravitational forces on objects any day of the week, any our or minute of the day.  You know...OBSERVE.  GW claims are inconsistent at best and the level of attempted fearmongering is extremely suspect to me.  I have never ONCE seen any of those pro GW researchers coming out and saying the hyberbolic claims put out there by the media.  But then why would they?  They stand to get LARGE sums of from their sugar daddy government.  Silence is consent. 

 

Uh huh, you mean we can observe Newtonian gravity in our day to day lives. What about general relativity? Can you personally observe that?

 

GW is just about "claims". We make observations, draw conclusions, and predict probable outcomes. Observation the earth is warming, observation CO2 affects climate, observation humans in the last 100 years have been pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere above naturally occurring levels, observation ice caps are melting, observation adding more water to a system increases its level. These are all observations. 

 

Quote

Law?  Show me in the cannon of any written laws that it is a law.  It is your little way to try to ridicule a point that you know applies.

 

Whoosh... hear that? That's the sound of my side comment going over your head. Not a legal law, it's merely an observation that the longer an internet thread goes on the more probably Hitler or Nazi's are mentioned in that thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

Quote

 There was plenty of research done by Dr. Mengle on people in the concentration camps.  Affects of cold and fire on living people, and it did follow known science protacols back then.  It may have been an atrocity, but it was research that other people in particular fields of science refer to. 

 

Yes I know that, but Nazi ideology was not a result of science. You must be desperate or ignorant to claim that. And I'm not sure of your point? That's methods can be used for good or bad? Well dud that applies to just about anything.

 

Quote

If the ice is melting, then why is the water NOT rising?  That is the question.  Thus I remain skeptical about that report and cynical about the whole concept that the true believers of GW are being chicken littles about. If they are lying, HELL YES I WANT MY GOVERNMENT STOLEN MONEY REMOVED FROM IT. As for record temperatures, since when?  How long have they been measuring?  Sounds to me as an alarmist whinybot with his tail lit on fire. 

 

 

Record temperatures imply that its since records began. The time varies with records obviously. What is being said is that these records temperatures are consistent with the research that says given current conditions its probable that temperatures will rise. Of course we have proxy temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years which is how we know the earth was warmer way back when.... and the sea level some 500 feet higher.

 

The sea level is rising, at a rate of .8 inch's a year. But that is average, thus some years the rate will be slower, some faster, and the rate of rise in different locations will be different. I'm not going to bother posting the plethora of studies and information showing this because we both know its a waste of time. Unless I can find some independent junkie who has verified seal level rise figures you won't accept my sources.... oh and if there was an independent who did say the same thing as every other organisation, then in your book they'd be corrupt and bought anyway. The fact that organisations around the world from completing countries say the same thing is irrelevant to you. You think its more likely that USA, Russia, China, UK, Canada etc etc are all colluding together to fool us all in some big plot, than it is to accept the simple truth of a warming planet.

 

And yes, I know your eyeball is better than all the equipment and scientists in the world. Amazing you haven't won a Nobel prize yet.. oops sorry they are corrupt. Ah well.

 

 

Oh what the heck, someone might find this interesting https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

 

And the NZ based one https://www.niwa.co.nz/natural-hazards/hazards/sea-levels-and-sea-level-rise

[LogicalFallacy]

34 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Are you doing  something to reduce the effects of global warming? Or is it just important to accept the idea on a web forum?

 

I'm not really doing anything about it, myself. I am glad to see the salmon killing Tesla cars being built, though. *shrugs*

 

I try and do my little bit. I reduce waste as much as possible, live in a small energy efficient home, plant lots of gardens (Both to bring in native birds and to eat up some CO2).

 

To my shame I still drive a gas car, but sadly that is economic reality at the moment.

 

I also try and educate people wherever I can, and vote for governments that are actually taking the situation seriously.

[TruthSeeker0]

40 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Are you doing  something to reduce the effects of global warming? Or is it just important to accept the idea on a web forum?

 

I'm not really doing anything about it, myself. I am glad to see the salmon killing Tesla cars being built, though. *shrugs*

I'm going to venture that the point here is to get people to think and critique their own opinions, biases, and the available evidence. Either that or it's the fact @LogicalFallacylikes a debate.

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I try and do my little bit. I reduce waste as much as possible, live in a small energy efficient home, plant lots of gardens (Both to bring in native birds and to eat up some CO2).

 

To my shame I still drive a gas car, but sadly that is economic reality at the moment.

 

I also try and educate people wherever I can, and vote for governments that are actually taking the situation seriously.

 

I don't plant any oxygen  My home is energy efficient, I think. Still drive the mandatory gas car. Yep. It's good that you educate. I just spew baloney on a web forum.

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I'm going to venture that the point here is to get people to think and critique their own opinions, biases, and the available evidence. Either that or it's the fact @LogicalFallacylikes a debate.

 

I assume gas cars and other fuel burning devices are causing the horrible pollution that's out there. Whether or not they cause global warming, we ought to continue going green to reduce pollution, global warming or no global warming. 

 

It's fun to poke LF a little bit. It's good that he takes helping the planet seriously. I just would not want to get religiously serious about it. Nor religiously serious about other things like disproving geopolymers or 12000 year old meteor strikes, which are kind of irrelevant to our future well-being.

 

By the way, I told my wife about KFL and his Save The Salmon crusade and she said, "We hate salmon! gag. Hate tilapia also." (haha)

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

I don't plant any oxygen  My home is energy efficient, I think. Still drive the mandatory gas car. Yep. It's good that you educate. I just spew baloney on a web forum.

 

Oh on the web I mostly spew baloney as BO will tell you  I no BAA. But with people irl I do try and take a much more ...well educational approach.

 

Hopefully I'm not religious about stuff. Ultimately I don't care too much about what people believe and whatever happens to be with gw predictions... Well if the scientists are right and a few houses do get waterlogged I'll have a laugh and remember these discussions. 

[midniterider]

14 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Oh on the web I mostly spew baloney as BO will tell you  I no BAA. But with people irl I do try and take a much more ...well educational approach.

 

Hopefully I'm not religious about stuff. Ultimately I don't care too much about what people believe and whatever happens to be with gw predictions... Well if the scientists are right and a few houses do get waterlogged I'll have a laugh and remember these discussions. 

 

Laughing from your mountaintop retreat! hahahahaha.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

It isn't even an academic law.  It is phony slang expression.  Nothing more.  

 

Whooooossshhhhhh

 

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

Yet the water is not rising.  AND if is were rising at .8 inches a year, that would be very noticible very quickly.  Nobel?  Please, Obama won one of those for doing nothing.  The claims about temps and water rising, I find dubious and phony fear mongering as usual.

 

It's not fear mongering. Water levels and temperatures have been rising for 10 - 13k years. It's an observation. The "claim" as you would have it is that the increasing CO2 is going to result in this warming and rising happening at an increased rate due to our activities.

 

Yes and apparently there is talk of Trump getting one, who has also done nothing. The only person that's fooled with the NK business is Trump and hardcore supporters. But I was specifically referring to one in the scientific fields for discovering... oh lets say that temperatures are not rising and the whole thing is a Chinese hoax.

 

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

  You are a bit naive.  You might want to get off your little island in the Pacific where you think everything is perfect and try going to a country where it is cutthroad and that will cure you of your naivete.  

 

Why would I go and live elsewhere? We have problems enough here without going and living somewhere where 40% of the population think the earth was created 6000 years ago and where religion is so entwined in politics. You keep your greatest land of free and brave.