• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conservatives and climate change

Status
Not open for further replies.
DC said:
more psychological projection from you, typical for you religious fanatics.
Click to expand...
No, I make my rational conclusions based strictly on science, although I do admit my approach may not be understandable to those who after abandoning traditional religion have been suckered into a religion nuevo sort of a 19th century mechanistic althiest progressiveness steeped in Marxist theory of hot air (eg, climate).

There is no study of mathematics of chaos in that approach and it must be abandoned. I suggest instead that we consider the Heisenberg principle as it may affect climate.

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/antarctic-ice.htm

Dr. Frost also described ongoing research into the application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to climate studies. Her concern is that the large number of climate researchers that are now observing the climate system are actually changing the Earth's climate because of their observations, and believes this effect needs to be taken into account in computerized climate models.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Congratulations. I listened to it about two years ago and thought it good.

A question.

Is a "Denier", then, someone who thinks "Global Warming is not a Crisis"? Or are you simply labeling those scientists who took that side in the debate in that fashion?

Because there are implications....
Click to expand...

If you deny or repeatedly attempt to refute, without compelling evidentiary support, the body of findings and understandings of current mainstream science, then you are a "denier" of science.
 
I'm still waiting for refutations of the basic science, none of which have appeared here. We have seen the most pathetic, silly derailments, we have seen the "but one of them maybe might haver kinda-sorta cheated" approach, we have seen attempts at utterly bizzare Heisenburg-inspired woo, but no, we haven't seen anyone even try to refute the radiative properties of CO2 or the atmospheric measurements.

Until that happens, everyone is agreeing that AGW exists, or, alternately, that they don't know what they are talking about.
 
mhaze said:
No, I make my rational conclusions based strictly on science, although I do admit my approach may not be understandable to those who after abandoning traditional religion have been suckered into a religion nuevo sort of a 19th century mechanistic althiest progressiveness steeped in Marxist theory of hot air (eg, climate).

There is no study of mathematics of chaos in that approach and it must be abandoned. I suggest instead that we consider the Heisenberg principle as it may affect climate.

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/antarctic-ice.htm

Dr. Frost also described ongoing research into the application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to climate studies. Her concern is that the large number of climate researchers that are now observing the climate system are actually changing the Earth's climate because of their observations, and believes this effect needs to be taken into account in computerized climate models.
Click to expand...

:dl:

lol somehow i suspect mhaze bases his science denial on his traditional sky daddy religion. No wonder he didn't like me mocking the bible qouting politicster.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
What was your original user name?
Click to expand...

three-body problem

Newton solved the 2 body problem for a planet orbiting a Sun; piece of cake. Added a second planet and it stumped the greatest minds in mathematics for centuries. As simple as it seems there's no analytic solution to the problem, the equations are unsolvable.

The Earth's climate is infinitely more complex. There's no solution to the problem of "What's going to happen to the climate". A reasonable approximation? Only if we put the necessary restrictions on our variables. But then the restrictions themselves are pretty much useless.

You want my opinion? Chances are we've already screwed up the climate to such an extent that it will never return to what it was before we started burning fossil fuels. We've changed the entire face of the planet and the human perturbation will never return to "equilibrium". We have to deal with the consequences as they arise. Deal with the change. If the train is derailed it's a lot easy to move the track than it is the train.
 
Furcifer said:

three-body problem

Newton solved the 2 body problem for a planet orbiting a Sun; piece of cake. Added a second planet and it stumped the greatest minds in mathematics for centuries. As simple as it seems there's no analytic solution to the problem, the equations are unsolvable.

The Earth's climate is infinitely more complex. There's no solution to the problem of "What's going to happen to the climate". A reasonable approximation? Only if we put the necessary restrictions on our variables. But then the restrictions themselves are pretty much useless.

You want my opinion? Chances are we've already screwed up the climate to such an extent that it will never return to what it was before we started burning fossil fuels. We've changed the entire face of the planet and the human perturbation will never return to "equilibrium". We have to deal with the consequences as they arise. Deal with the change. If the train is derailed it's a lot easy to move the track than it is the train.
Click to expand...
You're right that we can't return to pre-industrial CO2 levels within any short term timeframe, or at a reasonable cost. But we do have an obligation to stop it getting significantly worse. There's already a significant lag in the heating from what we've already put into the air. Even if we (unrealistically) stopped all CO2 emissions immediately the warming would continue for another 30 years or so until equilibrium is reached, before starting to drop as natural sequestration processes remove the CO2 from the atmosphere over a timescale of 1000+ years.

One scenario that is definitely unsustainable is 'business-as-usual'.
 
Mikemcc said:
Even if we (unrealistically) stopped all CO2 emissions immediately the warming would continue for another 30 years or so until equilibrium is reached
Click to expand...

At a bare minimum, it might take as long 1000 years, we just don't know. And this is the one thing the confusionalists don't seem to get, the weight of uncertainty is on the high side, there is very little uncertainty that things might not be as bad as predicted but very high uncertainty surrounding whether things will be much worse than anticipated.
 
Last edited:
Furcifer said:
DC you're not making sense. GDP means "Gross Domestic Product". I think you may be confused. :confused:
Click to expand...

no im not, you are just extremely dishhonest.

here your words.

You don't need time on a super computer to figure out if you don't use energy you don't have a GDP.
Click to expand...

that confused me a bit, so i asked this :

and where did you get the idea that we have to stop using energy?
Click to expand...

as answer you wrote science while linking to a paper.

and the paper does not promote the idea that we have to stop using energy.

when you do not have the idea that wae have to stop using energy, why did you not just say so instead of linking to a paper that does not support you?
 
DC said:
no im not, you are just extremely dishhonest.

here your words.



that confused me a bit, so i asked this :



as answer you wrote science while linking to a paper.

and the paper does not promote the idea that we have to stop using energy.

when you do not have the idea that wae have to stop using energy, why did you not just say so instead of linking to a paper that does not support you?
Click to expand...

No you're dishonest.

I NEVER EVER IN MY LIFE EVER, NOT ONCE, NOT EVEN KIDDING AROUND SAID WE HAVE TO STOP USING ENERGY.

I said it's a simple fact and easy to show, if you don't use energy you won't generate a GDP.

It's not even remotely the same. I honestly have no idea what you're going on about but you're very wrong.
 
Furcifer said:
No you're dishonest.

I NEVER EVER IN MY LIFE EVER, NOT ONCE, NOT EVEN KIDDING AROUND SAID WE HAVE TO STOP USING ENERGY.

I said it's a simple fact and easy to show, if you don't use energy you won't generate a GDP.

It's not even remotely the same. I honestly have no idea what you're going on about but you're very wrong.
Click to expand...

and why on earth did you not just say so when i asked where you got the idea that we have to stop using energy?
laughable.
 
Mikemcc said:
But we do have an obligation to stop it getting significantly worse.
Click to expand...

We have an obligation to maintain the increase in standard of living for everyone. It's going to "get worse" if you mean +ppm.

You have to look at what we've achieved as a society during the period of increased fossil fuel and CO2 emissions and weigh that against what the downturn in the economy will do.

It's foolish to think we can do anything to curb emissions in the next 50 years world wide barring a significant technological breakthrough. Or a war.

You ever seen that Star Trek episode where they go into a nebula and the stuff starts sticking to the hull? The junk piles up on the hull and they're so far in by the time they realize it they have no choice but continue. That's us, we've got to "Push On Through" and hope for the best. The sooner you realize this the happier you will be. :)
 
DC said:
and why on earth did you not just say so when i asked where you got the idea that we have to stop using energy?
laughable.
Click to expand...

yah, I said as much about 4 hours ago. I thought you were mistaken and meant "reduce" when you said "stop". I gave you the benefit of the doubt because the notion we could stop using energy is one of the most absurd things I've heard. I specifically asked you if it was an attempt at reductio ad absurdum.
 
Furcifer said:
yah, I said as much about 4 hours ago. I thought you were mistaken and meant "reduce" when you said "stop". I gave you the benefit of the doubt because the notion we could stop using energy is one of the most absurd things I've heard. I specifically asked you if it was an attempt at reductio ad absurdum.
Click to expand...

LOL

you bring up the strawman " You don't need time on a super computer to figure out if you don't use energy you don't have a GDP."

you brought up no energy, noone in this topic has brought that up, only you

but now it is me that is mistaken.

laughable.

dont make strawmen arguments when you cannot handle them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom