Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Aug 3, 2020.
There are also none for shoveling 2nd rate propaganda.
As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
You couldn't even get that right.
I've stopped trying to argue with oil propagandists.
I simply point out that they're doing propaganda, and anytime they want to stop faking it, they can publish in a climatology journal like everyone else (that's for real).
No, that's what anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers are doing. It is sooooo obvious.
But as you know, and the climategate emails proved, they cant. That is very much the point.
AGW has faced a ton of challenges in the journals. Occasionally one still gets printed, but repeatedly going back over things that were settled 20 years ago is not science.
IOW, that's a lie. Or you could call it propaganda.
How about we just call it BS today.
Out of kilotons submitted and rejected. Scientists are not stupid. They have figured out that genuflecting to anti-fossil-fuel hysteria gets them published and promoted, challenging it gets them rejected and unemployed.
Pretending issues were settled 20 years ago when they indisputably were not is what is really not science.
IOW, that's a lie. Or you could call it propaganda.
How about we just call it BS today.
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."
Now should I believe NASA, or an internet "expert".
That claim is baldly false. No such finding has ever been made. The consensus is that human activities have CONTRIBUTED to warming, not that warming is DUE TO human activities. Maybe you are not intelligent enough to understand the difference, but I am.
But somehow, none have any specific mandate from their members to do so...
I don't claim to be an expert, just someone with a reasoned, informed, and honest opinion on a scientific question. So believe whoever you want. I will continue to be proved right by ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS, like the continued non-disappearance of arctic sea ice and the continued non-appearance of millions of "climate refugees."
Exactly right. Even if a scientist said man is only responsible for 1% of warming he's put on the "due to human activities" side of the ledger" .
Last I heard he was beating up hookers in a cheap motel
The thread opener was absurd. It postulated that because there is ice in the Arctic requiring ice-breakers there is no global warming causing the melting of ice in the Arctic. Using that conclusion one would have to assume the same about the ice at the Southern as well as Northern poles and one would have to ignore the plethora of research providing with objective data the rising water levels and decreasing ice in both regions.
The thread starter would ask people to believe ice existing requiring ice breakers means ice is not melting. He would have everyone believe he is that simplistic and limited in his inferences and not grasp that its possible there continues to be ice and ice formations while the preponderance of ice masses continue to break up and decrease. The idea that both can be happening just don't seem a possibility in his postulation.
I can however understand why. We then see this thread starter is in fact a Trumpee trumpeting Trumpisms and apparently as well wants oil drilled in the Northern Pole region.
I hate to stereotype because I assume there must be one person who supports Trump who is not simplistic, but it seems everytime a Trumpee comes on this forum, they can only speak in simplistic all or nothing terms and not grasp things could have more than one extreme possibility.
Interestingly most of the Arctic is in Canadian territory. That's where I live. Now my people have what are called Inuit. They live in the Arctic and know it better than anyone. I go by what they say and they claim there is indeed a climate change occuring and they can see it in the patterns of ice formations, diminishing ice caps, changes in animal species and amount of specific animal species. They confirm what most scientists have said.
However one must keep in mind Trump supporters ignore science. Trump trumps Science he is an all knowing Messiah and when he pronounces something, it transcends all science and is truth because Donald says so.
Here's the thing-we Canadians have a little more caution in our politics when it comes to the environment. An oil spill in the Arctic would be disasterous and we know this and it has nothing to do with political ideology. All of us from left to right know this.
We also know Exxon Valdiz's oil spill caused severe ocean waters and coastal damage to British Columbia and Alaska that to this day still cause lethal effects and have permanently destroyed certain ecosystems. We don't need another disaster.
So Trumpeters can toot all they want but their ignorance of the Arctic and short sighted belief you need to get oil from there is a Trumpism. As someone concerned about my country's environment, I can only hope you Americans are concerned about Alaska as well and worse comes to worse, Trump will have another 4 years if his clogged arteries allow.
By the way, Trump's boyfriend Putin has his sights set on the same potential oil deposits as Trump. Hey now what a coincidence-Trump and the Russian mob both interested in the same thing?
You can do better then that. Come now. Produce some crap now about Biden, Harris. I mean you are on high ground there. God knows your Messiah Trump has never used prostitutes. I mean come on his buddy Epstein only invited him to his bar mitzvah.*
Yah Donald never frequented whore houses in Moscow, Slovania and hey now Melania an escort in a high priced agency? Oh come on now. She was a model.
You need to be careful when you throw that sewage upwind.
* I have had my Bar Mitzvah but I never got to invite underage girls to have sex with and all my relatives wanted to do was over-eat and complain about their medical issues-I did try hit on my cousin's new wife who told me to wait until my voice finished changing
I’m well aware gore beating up hookers in a cheap motel makes the cult cringe but it’s fact
What does the fact that Al Gore beats up hookers have to do with the issue of climate change or drilling in vulnerable environments? Absolutely nothing. It doesn't make me cringe. All it shows is you engage in personal attacks against Gore because you have nothing intelligent to offer.
You parrot back your beloved leader's behaviour. You provide a classic example of how when people have nothing intelligent to offer or discuss they over-compensate for their lack of substantive content with purile name calling.
Get back to me when you can discuss anything about climate change and its impact on the ocean water levels and why any drilling in the Arctic brings with it considerable environmental risk. You started an issue you can't discuss and I sure as hell won't be lowered in the gutter with you.
Have a nice day.
p.s. I am no leftist nor do I defend the amount of carbon print Gore ran up zipping around the world to give out his message and yes I am aware many things in his presentations were inaccurate and he made a lot of personal money with his global environmental tours but that does not discuss or deal with the issues neither does discussing his penis, where he puts it and what happens when he gets into fights with hookers but coming from a Trump cultee you might want to concentrate on your Messiah's behaviour before you point fingers at others-you sure as hell aint consistent with the Messiah you idolize when it comes to moral standards
Don't bring up Gore if his beating up hookers in a cheap motel offends you because that is what he is now known for. Something like that doesn't go away and it now defines him.
Trump says he will just use nukes to create a nuclear winter to cool us down, he has it all under control, and no, he is not playing it down, Trust him
I have no use for Al Gore or his anti-fossil-fuel hysteria campaign, but this accusation appears to be grossly false. In the cases the Net is aware of, he allegedly made sexual advances towards -- i.e., in no sense "beat up" -- three masseuses -- i.e., not "hookers" -- in luxury hotels -- i.e., not "cheap motels." None of these allegations have been proved in court, and police investigations found no grounds for prosecution.
It's easy to smear powerful and successful men by throwing allegations of sexual misconduct at them. But trying to make a big deal out of what amount to private acts of poor judgment or questionable taste -- such as those committed by Gore, Louis CK and Al Franken -- just dilutes the rightful public anger when genuine sexual assaults such as those committed by Bill Cosby, Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein come to light.
Strawman. The gist was rather that there is no imminent possibility that arctic sea ice will decline to any substantial extent.
No informed person denies that the earth has returned to more normal Holocene temperatures since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years ended less than 200 years ago. But research showing that the natural cyclical factors that caused thousands of previous such century-scale warming episodes have somehow become inoperative? Not so much.
There is no credible empirical evidence that "the preponderance of ice masses continue to break up and decrease." Ice has been decreasing in some places, increasing in others. That is inevitable, nothing but the natural local variability that has been happening for millions of years. The idea that both can be happening just doesn't seem to be a possibility in your postulation.
No. More is in Russian territory.
Most scientists agree that over the last 200 years the earth has returned to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. However, there is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- that this warming trend has been caused primarily by increased atmospheric CO2, and not by the natural cyclical factors that caused thousands of previous, similar century-scale warming episodes. Inuit lore goes back some centuries, but does not antedate the Little Ice Age, let alone the Holocene Optimum. Until the remains of Norse settlements were discovered in Greenland in the 20th century, the Inuit were unaware that their ancestors had traded with those Viking farmers ~1000 years ago.
bringiton, your response to suggesting icebreakers exist and break ice was clearly stated as inference for stating Arctic ice was not melting otherwise there would be no ice to break. You raised it. I challenged it. That is not a strawman or any other kind of man to challenge it. You claim the gist was rather that there is no imminent possibility that arctic sea ice will decline to any substantial extent-that is not what you initially stated and in fact if it is what you stated then my original comment could not be a strawman argument but would be directly on point challenging your assumption Arctic ice is not declining to a substantial extent because you say so or because you think icebreakers still exist in the Arctic.
You then stated:,, "No informed person denies that the earth has returned to more normal Holocene temperatures since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years ended less than 200 years ago." Again you make an unsubstantiated allegation based on a stereotyped assumption of people who might disagree with you. It is absurd to try contend you have spoke to every person on earth who has warned about rising sea levels and the effect on the Southern and Northern icecaps, let alone you know they are all not informed. You simply blirt out a hyperbolic generalization for the sole purpose of suggesting anyone who questions you is wrong. You have yet to prove once iota pof evidence for your claims that ice caps are not receding significantly.
Then you state: " But research showing that the natural cyclical factors that caused thousands of previous such century-scale warming episodes have somehow become inoperative?" What research? Next your comment makes no logical sense. The fact there are natural cyclical factors involved with the warming and cooling of earth surface temperatures and ocean temperatures would not mean ice-caps are not significantly decreasing at this time in the North or South pole regions and if anything shows you did no research to understand why this would be the case let alone understand what is currently occuring and what informed people do NOT dispute but you do.
You stated:, "There is no credible empirical evidence that "the preponderance of ice masses continue to break up and decrease." Again you do not debate with counter arguments or positions based on fact you simply throw out an unreferenced allegation and assumption and it is again absurd as it would have people believe you read all the empirical evidence that exists let alone understood it. You clearly could not have because you think cycular warming and cooling trends mean there is no decrease of ice caps in the North and South Pole.
You then even admit you are wrong stating "ice has been decreasing in some places, increasing in others. " Just that comment alone contradicts what you said. The fact that you think it has increased in some places and decreased in others shows you do not understand the phenomena. To start with both have always occurred and this does not mean significant ice caps have decreased because the two occur. You are not only void in logic but again make defective inferences from phenomena you do not understand.
Then you stated, :That is inevitable, nothing but the natural local variability that has been happening for millions of years. " You provide again no source for your subjective opinion you again blurt out with no reference. What millions of years? What natural local variability? You throw out unreferenced buzz words to try make yourself sound learned on the topic.
Ice caps to start with are not "local". The fact you even use that term shows a miserable lack of understanding of what ice mass is and where its situate and how it moves let alone grows or shrinks.
You stated, "No. More is in Russian territory." Bull ****. The North Pole and extreme North is not more in Russian territory than it is in Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Norway, etc.
Then you throw out the statement, "Most scientists agree that over the last 200 years the earth has returned to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years." Wh are these most scientists?
Then you stated, "However, there is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- that this warming trend has been caused primarily by increased atmospheric CO2, and not by the natural cyclical factors that caused thousands of previous, similar century-scale warming episodes. Inuit lore goes back some centuries, but does not antedate the Little Ice Age, let alone the Holocene Optimum." This last statement again is unreferenced and anyone can go on public domain and find the evidence.
Then you stated: " Until the remains of Norse settlements were discovered in Greenland in the 20th century, the Inuit were unaware that their ancestors had traded with those Viking farmers ~1000 years ago." Again you provide no reference for this and you claim to speak for Inuits now? Your ridiculous sweeping statement about Inuit and what they knew and did not know is past idiotic. You know nothing of what In uits know or do not know of their own culture or their envrionment and pose as if you know them all and their culture. Absolute bullshit. Inuit know of their origins from Mongolia and have never denied other civilizations may have visited anywhere. You clearly haven't a clue about Inuit culture or the environmental understanding they have of ocean currents,land migration of specific species, knowledge of ocean species of whales, fish, crustaceans and how they predict and measure cycles of temperature.
The OP was from josephwalker, not me.
You just made that up. I made no such claim.
I know people who claim the earth's polar caps are melting are all uninformed because their claim is clearly false.
I don't have to prove a negative.
That was my point.
It would mean there is no reason to attribute such decreases exclusively to CO2.
I have read enough.
I said the opposite: the recent decrease has been caused by natural cyclical trends.
No it doesn't. Don't be absurd.
No, the fact that you would deny it proves you don't.
Arctic sea ice is not an ice cap.
<sigh> Oh, go look at a map. There is more land north of the Arctic Circle in Russia than in any other country:
Including territorial waters, there is FAR more.
?? Who do you think?
But you somehow haven't....
No, I am speaking about the Inuit.
It is fact.
They know now because Western science has told them.
<yawn> Folklore is not science, sorry.
Kavenaugh had to prove his innocence so gore does too . Guilty until proven innocent. It’s the democrats new justice.
Nobody is claiming the arctic is ice free. What is happening is that the arctic is gradually losing ice over decades. Obviously there are short-term fluctuations with winter or cold years, but this is a long-term trend we are seeing because the planet is warming.
I did not bring it up Bring did. I responded to it being brought up and said it was irrelevant to the issues you and I are challenging Bring about.
You have no disagreement from me on the fact that what Al Gore does with hookers is not germaine to the issues you and I both are challenging.
Bringinton let me respond to you clearly:
1-the fact that icebreakers break ice does not have anything to do with whether ice caps are melting and at what rate;
2-I responded directly to a quote you made and challenged it then you responded denying you made the quote which is nonsensical;
3-you responded to me that 'you know people" who claim earth's polar cap's are melting and that they are all uninformed in response to me challenging you making a sweeping statement all people who claim the earth's polar cap's are melting are uninformed-qualifying "all people" ot "people you know", is equally as problematic-the fact you may know someone you disagree with doesn't mean your familiarity with that person determines the credibility of what they may or may not have said-it simply shows you disagree with them-more to the point it shows you do not know anyone at all otherwise you would have mentioned their names, the materials they provided and then provided materials to indicate what the basis of why you disagree with their statements;
4-you stated you do not have to prove a negative-Bringinton if you can't provide an objective basis for your subjective opinions they are meaningless;
5-you made a response to me again with no source making the sweeping statement that natural cycles of cooling and warming necessarily rules out CO2 having an effect on the cooling and warming-that is illogical and in fact objective data shows and you still can not grasp it, that the fact there has always been natural cycles of climate change does NOT mean CO2 emission has not caused a negative impact on climate conditions and the ecosphere-in your world everything is all or nothing-in the world of science natural cycles of warming and cooling occur and can be accelerated or slowed down by man made activities particularly chemicals released in the air that trap gases and/or reduce the ozone layer;
6-you claim you have read enough-the fact you make such a statement shows you think you are an expert and have closed your mind to anything you do not want to read-statements such as that one simply reflect you have a closed mind and are ignorant-know one, not you, not I know enough let alone read enough-learning is a never ending process, people who feel they know enough simply state they are know it alls do better then that;
7-you again responded to me without any science or basis claiming the decrease in ice caps is caused by natural cycles of warmth nothing else-the fact you keep repeating it without any sources does not make it true;
8-your statement Arctic sea ice is not an ice cap is just past absurd-where the hell do you think the ice came from-more to the point when ice caps break up into ice flows, its phacking ice;
9-your arghument that there is more Arctic in Russia then in other countries is ridiculous-the nationality of the ice does not determine whether its breaking up or not and why and the combined ice in the Solar regions, Alaska, Canada Greenland and territory the responsibility of the UK, Norway, Sweden and Finland is as large and as significant in consequence as simply the region in Russia-it is a global phenomena where the nationality of the country is immaterial to the issue;
10-your comments about the Inuit are past ignorant-you dismiss Inuit knowledge of climate and the earth's ecosphere as folklore because you display arrogance and ignorance as to their culture-in fact their knowledge of the ecosphere and properties of the North are used by Western scientists and quite compatible with Western scientists because their awareness comes from observation and then recording cause and effect patterns that repeat from those observations-you are a fool to think an experienced hunter or someone connected to land and lives off it does not acquire the same knowledge as scientists-science respects native folklore and for that matter the observation of seasoned hunters-they often ask them to work with them in sharing information;
11-your ignorant statement that Inuit did not know about the rules of nature until Western science told them is ignorant.
Bringinton you clearly have a preconceived bias about the environment and climate conditions based on your political beliefs and have closed your mind to any possibilities and explanations other than the ones you agree to. You don't debate, you state subjective, unsourced opinions and compound them with negative unsubstantiated generalizations about what you think others believe or your absurd dismissal of inuits or an attempt to engage me in semantics as to what ice is or where its situated.
If you can provide just one source to base your opinions I would be glad to debate it. Your personal subjective assumptions and prejudices do not interest me just as mine do not interest you.
Provide something of substance to debate and I will be glad too. By the way I say what I say with respect. I have nothing against your beliefs or opinions its just they have been limited to your words which are all subjective so my responses have necessarily become subjective. I would prefer to debate positions that are sourced and not question you personally. I do not believe in all or nothing positions on this matter and might very well agree with things you say if I could see what you are basing your comments on. Thank you. I sound like a snot in response. I am not. I enjoy debating you. I do not think I am a know it all on this matter. Please understand that. If I am a snot face its for other reasons other than this topic lol. Also Al Gore is fat but it has nothing to do with the issues. I just put that out there. He is like a large mound too but he does not melt. Humour people. We need humour. This is all kidding aside a serious issue. To argue the cycle of climate change has not been altered by man made activities such as wide spread burning of forests, i.e., Amazon, Indonesia, or that the amount of hurricanes has only increased naturally is silly.
I myself argue the actual scheme for reducing harmful emissions whereby countries like China and India can by credits is nonsense and I do not agree with my own Prime Minister's approach but like many I am very aware if we do not wake up and address our issues of how we interact with our environment we will leave it permanently damaged for the next generations. Quality of air, pollution, disposal of plastics, chemicals, specific non organic materials that can not break-down, radioactive waste, carcinogenic waste these are life and death issues for the next generations.
Separate names with a comma.