ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

Yeah, and that is another example of non-critical thought happening in the other direction.

The person who is convinced that we'll have boiling oceans and the one who thinks carbon dioxide and methane has zero effect on the atmosphere are both making the same huge cognitive error and could probably use a refresher on grade-school level understanding of science.

And if you don't believe carbon dioxide acts the same way, replicate the experiment on a very small scale ( you can probably use a small plastic dome ) before you say anything..
 
jimw1960 said:
Apparently, in the denier universe a bunch of magazine and newspaper articles all citing the same dubious source carry as much weight as thousands of actual peer reviewed science journals. I guess they carry even more weight if you post them over and over again to hijack the thread.
Click to expand...

Go back and learn. Punxr told me " NO EXPERTS CLAIMED A ICE AGE WAS COMING, BACK IN THE 70S....he denied it.

I would have never posted all the links/magazine articles/ newspaper clippings otherwise. I only did it, to prove his claims were 100% wrong, but as we can see, it was a waste of effort, because he still could not admit his errors.

Its very simple, the so called experts, can post all the graphs, data, projections, satelitte images they want, and it still cannot be proven by us peons in society, if all that data is accurate AND, if it proves this planet will warm up by a global temperature of 8 degrees by the year 2080, which will result in oceans rising 2 feet, blah , blah blah,..and then we must accept their claims that all this stuff they tell us, is not only true, but its all taking place because of humans ...THEN....we should accept more taxations, to solve the problem.

The majority of the data from the 1970s, proved the ice age was coming, and they even provided the same type of so called " impressive data, projections, charts, graphs...AND, they provided longterm satelitte images. This was all supposed to be proof of the ice age returning.

I was a sucker back then, and fell for the ice age hysteria claims , along with trusting these types of experts on many other things, which later proved to be massive errors or outright lies.
 
Much of the info the experts tell us, cannot be proven by us peons in society. Even simplier things, for example :

they tell us there are 7.5 billion people on earth. Yeah, I go along with the stat, but the reality is, how in da hell can I prove it ? None of us have the ability to go around the earth and count each person.

To often, this supposed accurate data , we are told by so called experts,and govt officials, cannot even be validated by us in society. We are expected to just accept it as factual , and if you question any of it, well then, you may be labelled as a " anti science" person. Well guess what, I wish I woulda been that " anti-science" guy, decades ago, because I wouldn't have been so guillable to have fallen for the lies and errors of these so called experts.

THE ICE AGE IS COMING.....HOW TO PREPARE FOR IT...AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH :roll:

WMDS IN IRAQ......but, but..it had to be true, they had all the data and satelitte images showing them .
 
Right, so your mind is as closed as punx0r's.

A peon with a little knowledge could go and replicate results if they wanted to. It's not impossible. All the signs that ice is melting in the arctic are there.

A few years back, i read a study about how carbon dioxide increases allergens on the planet by spurring plant growth. The study used a small dome and co2 generator. About a thousand dollar setup. Anthony Watts could do this experiment with his funding, creating a 10000000000000000:1 sized ecosystem.. but he would risk his readership if he found the truth, and probably lose his funding from the oil companies if he told the truth. Pretty sad.

Name me a climate researcher in the denial camp who has done the measurements to disprove the basic effects of carbon dioxide and/or methane though, i'd like to see their methodology and results.
 
neptronix said:
Right, so your mind is as closed as punx0r's.

A peon with a little knowledge could go and replicate results if they wanted to. It's not impossible. All the signs that ice is melting in the arctic are there.
Click to expand...

All the signs were there in the 1970s, that the ice sheets were expanding, global cooling was happening, and the ice age was on the way. The longterm satellite images back then, also proved this. The climate experts agreed with it. :wink:

Hey, let the govt tax us even more, to save the planet from global warming as a result of humans. Ill find a way to deal with it either way.


I guess the billions of dollars extra, consumers have paid, by purchasing new vehicles that are supposedly 90% better for the environment then the vehicles of just a few decades ago, isnt near enough. Tax the slaves at a global warming rate of 20% !

Then hopefully ,5 years after they raised our taxes for global warming, they come out with new data, and tell us, " its helping a little bit, but if we added even more taxes, it would be better. :lol: They may even tell us, it helped to much, and now the new evidence suggests we are back to global cooling and a new ice age.
 
In the 1970's, we did not even have proper measurements of sea ice.
We still only have two and a half decades of data, but also the vostok ice cores as a compliment.

You shouldn't have believed the global cooling hypothesis either if you looked for proper data, because the data didn't exist.

This is not the same.

Please do us a favor and learn to understand science better before you speak about it further.
 
neptronix said:
In the 1970's, we did not even have proper measurements of sea ice.
We still only have two and a half decades of data, but also the vostok ice cores as a compliment.

You shouldn't have believed the global cooling hypothesis either if you looked for proper data, because the data didn't exist.

This is not the same.

Please do us a favor and learn to understand science better before you speak about it further.
Click to expand...

I now agree, humans are the cause of global climate change . We must act fast and this is best done thru implementation of a new tax on all of us.

Lets talk about the govt taxes on us, to solve this global climate change crisis, once and for all. I now trust all the data and info told to me by the experts and the govt.

I think we should do a flat tax rate of 20% on everyone"s gross yearly salary . If a person has a gross salary of $100,000 , let uncle sam take $20,000 right off the top . I know this seems aggressive, but we must be aggressive when combating this global warming.

We can keep that tax rate for a period of 5 years. If the experts tell us it didn't help as much as they hoped, we move the global warming tax rate up to 30% .

We really dont need the politicians or the climate experts paying this tax, since they were the ones who saved us all, from ourselves. Besides, if the politicians had to pay it, they would recover it via lobbyists money, insider trading info, tax shelters ,etc....so its silly to even expect them to be a part of the new global warming tax rate.

Im in....lets do this. We will save the planet and humanity, thru higher taxes.
 
neptronix said:
A peon with a little knowledge could go and replicate results if they wanted to. It's not impossible. All the signs that ice is melting in the arctic are there.
Click to expand...
One of the cool things about the greenhouse effect is that you can demonstrate the science with high school science lab items - an infrared source, a tank, some CO2 and a radiometer.
 
billvon said:
neptronix said:
A peon with a little knowledge could go and replicate results if they wanted to. It's not impossible. All the signs that ice is melting in the arctic are there.
Click to expand...
One of the cool things about the greenhouse effect is that you can demonstrate the science with high school science lab items - an infrared source, a tank, some CO2 and a radiometer.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and this 100% correlates with what humans are doing on a global scale. Just like if I lock myself up in my garage , turn on my car, I will die, the same thing is happening globally, because we all know, my small garage is the same amount of space as the whole planet/atmosphere.


Do you agree a 20% tax on everyone's yearly working salary is enough to stop the global climate change ? I like the idea of letting Maxine Waters be in charge of appropriating all that additional global climate change tax revenue , to the scientific community.
 
billvon said:
neptronix said:
A peon with a little knowledge could go and replicate results if they wanted to. It's not impossible. All the signs that ice is melting in the arctic are there.
Click to expand...
One of the cool things about the greenhouse effect is that you can demonstrate the science with high school science lab items - an infrared source, a tank, some CO2 and a radiometer.
Click to expand...

Yes , minus other small factors, like the sun, the wind, the jet streams, the rain, the oceans, the trillions of trees discharging oxygen and intaking carbon dioxide...and just a few other small impactive components. :roll:

But im on board now....I want all of us to pay a 20% climate change tax. If it makes the slaves happy and content, im for it. I have 100% confidence this new tax, will be handled with integrity by our politicians, and it will once and for all solve climate change problems.
 
bill, that's a more basic testing methodology, but it'd probably suffice to prove what degree carbon dioxide does it's thing.

I was thinking that you could make a mold for a mini iceberg, freeze it to a predefined temp, throw it in a little globe, hook it up to some oxygen exchange and co2 exchange, then expose it to the sun, and see what happens. Then retest with a control iceberg sphere at pre-industrial co2 levels, and later do a scenario with double the co2 concentration than we have..

I'm sure this has already been done though and would widely be ignored in favor of arguing about politics or k-12 level science though.
 
neptronix said:
You shouldn't have believed the global cooling hypothesis either if you looked for proper data, because the data didn't exist.
Click to expand...

The " hindsight is 20-20 " view ?

You seem to forget, that the data of the 1970s, embraced by the experts, concluded the ice age was coming or at the very least, earth was entering a definite cooling stage. They claimed they had the data, the charts, the trends, the longterm satellite images. Now thats it has all been proven wrong, sure, its easy for you or anyone to say " well , you shouldn't have believed it back then, even though the experts and scientists claimed it to be true" .


Just think, 30 years from now, someone can make a similar comment, as you have above :

" You shouldn't have believed that global warming data decades ago, it was faulty data and our testing methods were not as good as we currently have , and the proof of this, is we are now entering a cooling phase on earth. " :lol:
 
Can we all agree { for the holiday season, and the sake of happiness and harmony} that the best way to stop this human driven, global climate change, is a 20% tax on our yearly salaries ? I have complete faith that our govt and the experts, will use all that money wisely, and stop global climate change. I really do.
 
rumme said:
Can we all agree { for the holiday season, and the sake of happiness and harmony} that the best way to stop this human driven, global climate change, is a 20% tax on our yearly salaries ? I have complete faith that our govt and the experts, will use all that money wisely, and stop global climate change. I really do.
Click to expand...

When it comes to taxation for the sake of saving the planet and humanity, I say " GIVE TILL IT HURTS..THEN GIVE SOME MORE.
 
rumme said:
rumme said:
Can we all agree { for the holiday season, and the sake of happiness and harmony} that the best way to stop this human driven, global climate change, is a 20% tax on our yearly salaries ? I have complete faith that our govt and the experts, will use all that money wisely, and stop global climate change. I really do.
Click to expand...

When it comes to taxation for the sake of saving the planet and humanity, I say " GIVE TILL IT HURTS..THEN GIVE SOME MORE.
Click to expand...

Our corrupt govt, cant even be trusted with simple things, like S.S funds. You guys wanna trust em for something like a massive global climate change tax ?

Oh well, you evidently have more trust in our corrupt, lying govt, then I do.
 
It is well known and documented that starting in the 1960s the oil industry launched an all-out offensive to counter the "peak oil" and "global warming" concerns being published by a handful of credible sources back then. This was an attempt to stop these researchers and scientists from getting funding and reducing their influence on the public. Their playbook was the same used as what Big Tobacco used a generation earlier (in fact, the same PR firms were used). The goal was to flood the market with FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). No doubt a very large portion of the "experts warn us" articles citied by folks here were a direct result of this misinformation campaign. The fact that Scientific American published precisely ZERO articles on the so-called "global cooling" meme during the 1970s should tell you all you need to know: for them this was not noteworthy.

P.S. my previous post was deleted without any warning. Someone here doesn't like pesky facts.
 
MJSfoto1956 said:
It is well known and documented that starting in the 1960s the oil industry launched an all-out offensive to counter the "peak oil" and "global warming" concerns being published by a handful of credible sources back then. This was an attempt to stop these researchers and scientists from getting funding and reducing their influence on the public. Their playbook was the same used as what Big Tobacco used a generation earlier (in fact, the same PR firms were used). The goal was to flood the market with FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). No doubt a very large portion of the "experts warn us" articles citied by folks here were a direct result of this misinformation campaign. The fact that Scientific American published precisely ZERO articles on the so-called "global cooling" meme during the 1970s should tell you all you need to know: for them this was not noteworthy.

P.S. my previous post was deleted without any warning. Someone here doesn't like pesky facts.
Click to expand...

The fact that Ive been on this site for many years, and use EV , means im doing more then 95% of Americans do .

I am very big into conservation and despise people who throw trash into the environment. I also get irritated at people who waste food at the restaurants, buffets along with people who waste clean water. Just because I question the claims of global warming, doesnt mean I hate the earth and the environment.

I do not believe, new taxes on the people , for the sake of haulting global climate change, is the proper way to attack the issue.

In fact, there is more of a chance of helping the issue, by doing the exact opposite, of adding new taxes. The govt should consider more tax incentives, for people who travel less miles per year, or are willing to join local communities to have a " garbage pickup day" where people voluntarily go around and pickup trash ,etc. Putting more tax money into the hands of corrupt govt, to fix the global climate change hysteria, isnt a wise decision.

A few months ago, I actually went out, on the side of my local hiway, with a big trashbag, and spent time picking up the numerous plastic bottles that people had thrown onto the ground. A officer actually pulled over and got out, and asked me what I was doing.

Anyways, more tqaxes, isnt the answer, IMHO...but, if govt gives people more tax incentives , then its possible enough people will want to conserve more and the reality is, we have to get the people to change their bad habits anyways, for any longterm cures . Just taxing the people more money , would at best, be a temporary bandaid, expecially since all of us know, that tax money would be raided / infiltrated by scumbags who had access to it.

I think people who fall, hook line and sinker for the global warming claims, often forget that we have made some great strides especially concerning the efficiency and cleanliness of todays modern vehicles, compared to vehicles from only a few decades ago. All of us pay extra money for that technology, whenever we purchase a newer motorcycle, scooter, car, truck, etc.
 
neptronix said:
bill, that's a more basic testing methodology, but it'd probably suffice to prove what degree carbon dioxide does it's thing.
Click to expand...

Right. There are three things underpinning any discussion of CO2 and climate change:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means:
a) It allows higher frequency light to pass
b) the ground absorbs the light
c) the ground re-radiates that energy in low frequency IR radiation
d) CO2 blocks the longwave IR from escaping.

The experiment would confirm that CO2 blocks longwave radiation while allowing higher frequency light (i.e. visible light) to pass.

The second part is:

2) We have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

This is pretty easy to prove via math. We burn X tons of carbon. That creates Y tons of CO2. Some is absorbed by the environment (trees, weathering etc.) Z tons remains; that amount, divided by the volume of the atmosphere, gives you the increasing concentration. And indeed we do see an increasing concentration that correlates with the fuels we are burning.

This would suggest that burning carbon increases CO2 in the atmosphere, and that increase causes warming. To see if that happens, we look at the third part of climate change:

3) measured CO2 concentrations vs measured global temperatures.

And indeed we do see rising temperatures as CO2 increases.

There's a lot more to AGW than that of course (i.e. methane forcing, second order effects like clouds, permafrost melting and albedo change) but those are the basics. And all three are easy for anyone relatively well versed in math and science to demonstrate to themselves.
 
billvon said:
neptronix said:
bill, that's a more basic testing methodology, but it'd probably suffice to prove what degree carbon dioxide does it's thing.
Click to expand...

Right. There are three things underpinning any discussion of CO2 and climate change:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means:
a) It allows higher frequency light to pass
b) the ground absorbs the light
c) the ground re-radiates that energy in low frequency IR radiation
d) CO2 blocks the longwave IR from escaping.

The experiment would confirm that CO2 blocks longwave radiation while allowing higher frequency light (i.e. visible light) to pass.

The second part is:

2) We have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

This is pretty easy to prove via math. We burn X tons of carbon. That creates Y tons of CO2. Some is absorbed by the environment (trees, weathering etc.) Z tons remains; that amount, divided by the volume of the atmosphere, gives you the increasing concentration. And indeed we do see an increasing concentration that correlates with the fuels we are burning.

This would suggest that burning carbon increases CO2 in the atmosphere, and that increase causes warming. To see if that happens, we look at the third part of climate change:

3) measured CO2 concentrations vs measured global temperatures.

And indeed we do see rising temperatures as CO2 increases.

There's a lot more to AGW than that of course (i.e. methane forcing, second order effects like clouds, permafrost melting and albedo change) but those are the basics. And all three are easy for anyone relatively well versed in math and science to demonstrate to themselves.
Click to expand...

We can all sit here, till we are blue in the face, typing fancy terms, data tests, etc. In the end, it comes down to, what is the solution ? How do we know, we can fully trust the experts/politicians with our new climate taxation ?

Do we have any fantasies, that once we allowed a new climate tax, that our govt is not gonna raid it or better yet, is never gonna revoke those new taxes ? In other words, once the people okayed the new climate tax, you can bet the people will never get that tax money back and it may become a permanent tax.

Its kinda like, when they used to build a new bridge, and then they said they had to set up toll boths to pay for the bridge, but once the bridge was paid off , they would stop collecting the tolls. Yeah...we see how those promises were broken.

People better think long and hard, before they just throw up their arms and say :

GO AHEAD GOVT, PUT MORE TAXES ON ME, IN THE NAME OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
 
rumme said:
I do not believe, new taxes on the people , for the sake of haulting [sic] global climate change, is the proper way to attack the issue.
Click to expand...

Typical diversion tactic. Nobody but you and a few others are deliberately conflating global warming with taxes. There are plenty of ways to reverse global warming that don't involve "the heavy hand of government". In fact, here is the recipe we need to follow: https://www.drawdown.org/

Can we now stop talking about taxes? Such diversions are not helpful. In fact, I find them repugnant.
 
MJSfoto1956 said:
rumme said:
I do not believe, new taxes on the people , for the sake of haulting [sic] global climate change, is the proper way to attack the issue.
Click to expand...

Typical diversion tactic. Nobody but you and a few others are deliberately conflating global warming with taxes. T
Can we now stop talking about taxes? Such diversions are not helpful. In fact, I find them repugnant.
Click to expand...

I guess you were asleep, for the last week, when Paris was rioting, over proposed new climate taxation ?

There are PLENTY of politicians that would love to see the people get hit with a climate tax. You seem to under estimate the greed of politicians.

Locally, we had to have new water pipes put in, about 15 years ago, in my community. The local water board, told us they had to raise our monthly water bill by 20% , to pay for the new water pipes/ installation. I was at the meeting, and I asked them " how long can we expect our water bills to be inflated, before they go back down " They told me they estimated it would all be paid for in 3 years , and then they would lower our water rates back down. Well, that was 15 years ago, they never lowered our water rates.

For govt, its always about more $$$$$$$$$$$$.
 
MJSfoto1956 said:
P.S. my previous post was deleted without any warning. Someone here doesn't like pesky facts.
Click to expand...

I looked over the moderator log and see no record of one of your posts being deleted by the moderators. Just so you know.

We are for the most part hands off on this subforum, as you can tell by how insane these threads get.

( that being said, i'm bouncing out of this one because having a meaningful discussion is too difficult here )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top