Houston..
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
Thanks for taking the time to write some explanation. However, you didn't address one of my fundamental questions, which was which sources DO you trust? Who/what do you use in order to inform yourself and make your decisions about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of climate change?
Red
Well-Known Member
Tantric, hey? Well, see about getting your chakras cleansed....
Red
Well-Known Member
I'll be dead before the worst consequences of global warming impact humans. Some think it's too late to mitigate in the fashion outlined by the Paris Climate Accord. That said, sorry to see the present administration take the ostrich approach of burying one's head in the sand and call it all a hoax. Pretty obvious this approach is in the interests of the fossil fuel industry and its profits, no doubt to the detriment of future generations.
There are some interesting developments that don't bespeak of the fatalistic attitude you seem to be advocating. Not sure just giving up is the answer...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-search-is-on-for-pulling-carbon-from-the-air/
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/switzerland-giant-new-machine-sucking-carbon-directly-air
Sure Karia. I remember when Al Gore was claiming 350 ppm was the point at which there was no return.
Guess what, science proves only 15 ppm, or 3.75% originates from fossil fuels. Global warming is a natural phenomenon it is not man made.
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/7273/2014/acp-14-7273-2014.html
Settled science.
Red
Well-Known Member
Nope. Dead wrong. You're just another failed spokesman for ignorance. Keep trying, and you'll continue to lose:
https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ou-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5
Abstract
Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.
How cute Katia. Tryin ta lawyer yer way round tha scientific facts I exposed ya to stead of addressing tha data directly.
BTW even NASA admits H2O is the most important GHG an there is a cyclical effect of higher temperatures creates higher atmospheric water vapor which warms the planet which creates more evaporation. Guess what causes evaporation? The sun.
Sun cycles, earth cycles. CO2 ain't nuthin but a political ploy an somethin ta git politicized scientists research funding.
Red
Well-Known Member
You're were also just repeating a common myth used by AGW deniers. The information at this link can straighten you out:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
Of course, we have entered the post-fact era, and you're a good example of how for many Americans the truth is whatever they feel like the truth should be, or whatever they want it to be. And we can go back and forth on this subject as a result. But the bottom line is how flawed the arguments are of the AGW contrarians when their papers are closely examined. It does beg the question how they made it into reputable peer reviewed venues. But, then peer reviewed venues themselves have come under criticism and scrutiny in recent years, and for several reasons....
Red
Well-Known Member
No, I'm just not holding my breath, waiting for you to catch up to reality. You're living in an alternative universe. The information I posted blows you out of the water, and you actually want more? Don't be such a glutton for punishment. I'm not sadistic, for heaven's sake. Read the material I left for you, examine the motives for your own detachment from reality, maybe you can learn. I don't know, I'll hope for the best....
Red
Well-Known Member
Propagating alternate realities as justifications for policies that affect the planet itself is by its very nature irrational. Amazing to think we are living through such an effort. Denial of human caused climate change is part of the general tide of reaction against rational thought and all sources of authority, including science in general, and part of the effort of fossil energy corporate interests to delay the inevitable.
Scott Pruitt's utteryings are just one component of the Big Lie, part of the same propaganda that created the "fake news" mantra. Amazing thing to see the wool pulled over so many eyes.
I believe the truth will out. I do believe History will judge harshly both Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump. But the ascendency of ignorance is a sight to behold.
https://www.thenation.com/article/for-scott-pruitts-epa-climate-change-denial-is-mission-critical/
"Scientists who discuss solid physics and universally accepted concepts with regard to climate change are not politicizing the agonizing moment in which Texans find themselves. They are offering explanations, and useful cues for how to respond to an era of “super storms.” And they have been doing so in a reasoned, nuanced manner that does not casually blame hurricanes and tropical storms on climate change but that instead points to evidence that hurricanes and tropical storms are becoming more severe because of global warming.
The scientists are dealing in facts, and logic.
They are not “politicizing” the debate.
The debate has been politicized by corporate interests that seek to deny reality—and by an EPA administrator who is so beholden to those interests that he is turning an essential federal agency into an increasingly absurd and dangerous reflection of his jaundiced worldview."
Scott Pruitt's utteryings are just one component of the Big Lie, part of the same propaganda that created the "fake news" mantra. Amazing thing to see the wool pulled over so many eyes.
I believe the truth will out. I do believe History will judge harshly both Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump. But the ascendency of ignorance is a sight to behold.
https://www.thenation.com/article/for-scott-pruitts-epa-climate-change-denial-is-mission-critical/
"Scientists who discuss solid physics and universally accepted concepts with regard to climate change are not politicizing the agonizing moment in which Texans find themselves. They are offering explanations, and useful cues for how to respond to an era of “super storms.” And they have been doing so in a reasoned, nuanced manner that does not casually blame hurricanes and tropical storms on climate change but that instead points to evidence that hurricanes and tropical storms are becoming more severe because of global warming.
The scientists are dealing in facts, and logic.
They are not “politicizing” the debate.
The debate has been politicized by corporate interests that seek to deny reality—and by an EPA administrator who is so beholden to those interests that he is turning an essential federal agency into an increasingly absurd and dangerous reflection of his jaundiced worldview."
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I wish we could have a rational discussion about the actual development of the Houston area. So many subdivisions were unwisely built in flood plains and others without adequate infrastructure for drainage and evacuation. The effects of climate change should be bigly influential in the Houston rebuild. Sadly, one side is too busy trying to grab as much federal money as possible while denying that climate change exists.
What's the point of rebuilding these communities if we're going to ignore science? Regulation is damned yet when disaster strikes they demand my hard earned money for bailouts. They're just going to be destroyed again here in a few years. I'd like to see congress earmark these federal funds to force Houston to rebuild smarter with adequate infrastructure. Otherwise, I feel like my tax dollars will just be pissed away.
I say let Texas pick itself up by its own boostraps. All I've heard from them the past few years was how evil the Feds are and how states do everything better. Now is the perfect time to fire up those bake sales and for "local control" to show the Feds how it's done!
What's the point of rebuilding these communities if we're going to ignore science? Regulation is damned yet when disaster strikes they demand my hard earned money for bailouts. They're just going to be destroyed again here in a few years. I'd like to see congress earmark these federal funds to force Houston to rebuild smarter with adequate infrastructure. Otherwise, I feel like my tax dollars will just be pissed away.
I say let Texas pick itself up by its own boostraps. All I've heard from them the past few years was how evil the Feds are and how states do everything better. Now is the perfect time to fire up those bake sales and for "local control" to show the Feds how it's done!
DutchJazzer
Banned
discussing this for now is totally ,meaningless.
in 10-20-30 years we will see if it is settled science. or if the models of today will be obsulte in 30 years just like those from 30 years ago ar eobsolete and wrong today
in 10-20-30 years we will see if it is settled science. or if the models of today will be obsulte in 30 years just like those from 30 years ago ar eobsolete and wrong today
DutchJazzer
Banned
i was trying to have that, honestly.
Netherlands is a perfect example. with all the dikes etc, and the flood plans. planned flooding of certain areas.
That was a legitimate thing to say 20 years ago. But not today.
DutchJazzer
Banned
what has changed????
suddenly our scientist know everything and our current models are perfect?
There have been 20 additional years of data collection and building/testing of models, obviously. Just what you were saying should happen between now and 20 years from now
I'm dismayed trained "scientists" of today make this kind of semantic mistake, logical mistake, and utterly non-scientific assertion.
extrapolation of whatever data is always hypothetical, never fact.... yet.
The data we have clearly indicate that we do not have a factual knowledge of all that occurs at the onset of any ice age, and that what we have recorded so far in terms of "climate change" on the warm extreme is within statistical norms established in the two decades presaging ice age onsets for the past six ice ages, per the core data we do have.
"scientists" today who are onboard with the "global warming" side "climate change" hypothesis must, from the data available, be reaching that conclusion for political if not monetary (grant funding or position holding) reasons.
For whatever reasons, with the onset of each ice age, the data indicate that global temps, per sediment or ice core estimates. will plunge 10-15C within a span of fifty years from onset, after arriving at temps statistically indistinguishable from todays temps or "climate".
There is a wealth of support for these statements in the lit. Peer-reviewed lit.