Changing opinion on Global Warming

bravedave

bravedave

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Then why are you citing Gore? He isn't a climate scientist. Didn't you read the thread before posting some asinine BS at me? That is my point, don't just come in posting news articles or some laymen's take on what an actual expert found and tout it as something useful or even significant. You keep pushing Gore on me as if I give a shit. Look at the thread title, do you really expect to change any opinions if you don't know the difference between an expert and a biased political talking head?
Click to expand...
Thought you might be bright enough to understand what you yourself exclaim...that of course Gore is just the front man. You add nothing here while accusing others of not providing enough.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
bravedave said:
Thought you might be bright enough to understand what you yourself exclaim...that of course Gore is just the front man. You add nothing here while accusing others of not providing enough.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for a peer reviewed study contradicting AGW...

Settled science.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
I like this peer reviewed paper for a concise taste of what makes the feedback mechanisms so tricky to model:
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:1593238/component/escidoc:1690443/CC-65-2004-11.pdf

The deeper you get into feedback modeling, the more obvious it becomes that there is more to learn. Personally I think the albedo affect is slightly under represented in the water vapor feedback variable used in the models. Not so much as I thought 10 years ago because research is improving, but likely still biased a bit north. YMMV.

AC - I'm not out to invalidate the theory of AGW (I could neither validate or invaliate it, don't have the skills), the unsettled science is really about the amount of warming.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
the unsettled science is really about the amount of warming.
Click to expand...
You suggested that it had been considered settled science and made a thread about changing opinions on the settled science. You got called out and moved the goalposts, that simple. Instead of squirming around like half a worm, just let it die, since the science is settled.
 
bravedave

bravedave

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Oh I get it, you just needed an anti-liberal soapbox and you think I'm a liberal. That's so cute. Believe it or not, this is a thread about climate change. Why so upset homie? You don't have anything worthwhile to add like a peer reviewed study?
Click to expand...
Is it important to you to paint your responder as angry? Climate change exists in that article. You should read it. How many of the points do you take the conservative view?<-rhetorical

What do you think about the hockey stick fraud?

More points to ponder...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/30/twelve-reasons-paris-climate-talks-total-waste/
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
You suggested that it had been considered settled science and made a thread about changing opinions on the settled science. You got called out and moved the goalposts, that simple. Instead of squirming around like half a worm, just let it die, since the science is settled.
Click to expand...
I said climate change is settled science, one need only look at temperature records to get this. I never said AGW was settled science because the amount of warming to be expected is very much debated. It's tricky shit, how could it not be debated???
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
12. It will make (almost) no difference

If all the world’s leading nations stick to the carbon-reduction commitments they will make in Paris this week, then they will stave off “global warming” by the end of this century by 0.170 degrees C.

Oh – and that’s the optimistic scenario, calculated by Bjorn Lomborg, assuming that countries like, say, China don’t lie or cheat about how much CO2 they’re burning secretly.

His more pessimistic – ie more realistic – scenario is that the best we can hope for is a reduction in global warming by the end of the century of 0.048 degrees C.

This temperature reduction – five hundredths of one degree – is so small as to be almost immeasurable. But if you want to know what it feels like, Willis Eschenbach has done the calculations. It’s the equivalent of walking five metres higher up a mountain. Or, if you prefer, climbing two flights of stairs.

And there you have it: the lunacy of the Paris climate conference in one sentence: $1.5 trillion every year till the end of the century to effect the equivalent of walking to your bedroom.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Oh you're definitely angry. You're seething.

Protip: breitbart is not peer reviewed studies on climate science.

I said it is. If you disagree, you're welcome to cite a peer reviewed study contradicting the theory.
Click to expand...
Uh, you understand that the theory of AGW does not have a precise temp increase expectation for the doubling of CO2? It is a range, yes? So your request for a peer reviewed paper that contradicts the theory of AGW is actually outside the scope of my beliefs and therefore not a requirement I need to meet? Do you get that?

Do you understand that I am not the vegan dem that changed his opinion on global warming? The author of the article I linked to is the vegan dem environmentalist that changed his mind? Not at all interesting to you?
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
12. It will make (almost) no difference

If all the world’s leading nations stick to the carbon-reduction commitments they will make in Paris this week, then they will stave off “global warming” by the end of this century by 0.170 degrees C.

Oh – and that’s the optimistic scenario, calculated by Bjorn Lomborg, assuming that countries like, say, China don’t lie or cheat about how much CO2 they’re burning secretly.

His more pessimistic – ie more realistic – scenario is that the best we can hope for is a reduction in global warming by the end of the century of 0.048 degrees C.

This temperature reduction – five hundredths of one degree – is so small as to be almost immeasurable. But if you want to know what it feels like, Willis Eschenbach has done the calculations. It’s the equivalent of walking five metres higher up a mountain. Or, if you prefer, climbing two flights of stairs.

And there you have it: the lunacy of the Paris climate conference in one sentence: $1.5 trillion every year till the end of the century to effect the equivalent of walking to your bedroom.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine China cheating! LOL
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
If the AGW cult would shut up for a second they would realize that everyone is not a denier.

I believe that the world does heat up and cool down over time. It can happen almost instantly due to disaster as well. THEREFORE, my position always has been to invest in technologies to allow us to adapt to our changing climate, not invest in crackpot schemes to stop it.

Seriously, your AGW experts are trying to STOP global temperature fluctuations despite the obvious facts that prove they are always changing. Now that really is insanity!!
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
Uh, you understand that the theory of AGW does not have a precise temp increase expectation for the doubling of CO2? It is a range, yes? So your request for a peer reviewed paper that contradicts the theory of AGW is actually outside the scope of my beliefs and therefore not a requirement I need to meet? Do you get that?

Do you understand that I am not the vegan dem that changed his opinion on global warming? The author of the article I linked to is the vegan dem environmentalist that changed his mind? Not at all interesting to you?
Click to expand...
No, not even slightly interesting, unless he's a climate scientist and the article is peer reviewed. Yes, I do understand that you admit that AGW is in fact settled science.

You moved the goalposts to this other thing about exact amounts of temperature increase, as if anyone has ever touted anything of that sort as a settled science. It is reminiscent of the time earlier in this thread when you tried to pretend like you had been arguing all along about alarmism being a settled/unsettled science. Essentially, we're in agreement, that you were wrong about there being any doubt among the scientific community in regards to the veracity of AGW theory when you started the thread in order to cast doubt on that unsettled science. But you keep replying to me in futile attempts to save face by changing the goal posts, while I have stayed very much on target with the very same argument all along.

AGW theory is a settled science. If you disagree, you are welcome to cite a peer reviewed study contradicting it.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
If the AGW cult would shut up for a second they would realize that everyone is not a denier.

I believe that the world does heat up and cool down over time. It can happen almost instantly due to disaster as well. THEREFORE, my position always has been to invest in technologies to allow us to adapt to our changing climate, not invest in crackpot schemes to stop it.

Seriously, your AGW experts are trying to STOP global temperature fluctuations despite the obvious facts that prove they are always changing. Now that really is insanity!!
Click to expand...
Do you, or do you not agree that AGW (protip: the A in AGW means anthropogenic, as in man made) is a solid theory based on peer reviewed research and mountains of evidence and decades of data, OR do you have a peer reviewed study to cite (even just ONE) which contradicts the theory? By contradict, I mean like how you contradicted yourself in this post.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No, not even slightly interesting, unless he's a climate scientist and the article is peer reviewed. Yes, I do understand that you admit that AGW is in fact settled science.

You moved the goalposts to this other thing about exact amounts of temperature increase, as if anyone has ever touted anything of that sort as a settled science. It is reminiscent of the time earlier in this thread when you tried to pretend like you had been arguing all along about alarmism being a settled/unsettled science. Essentially, we're in agreement, that you were wrong about there being any doubt among the scientific community in regards to the veracity of AGW theory when you started the thread in order to cast doubt on that unsettled science. But you keep replying to me in futile attempts to save face by changing the goal posts, while I have stayed very much on target with the very same argument all along.

AGW theory is a settled science. If you disagree, you are welcome to cite a peer reviewed study contradicting it.
Click to expand...
Citation for where I moved the goalposts?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
Yeah, I thought so. LOL Maybe if you'd just read a little bit of the article I linked in post 1 you wouldn't be so confused about what this thread is about?
Click to expand...
Are they peer reviewed or are they just opinion pieces by biased political talking heads with absolutely no formal scientific training?

Seems to me you wasted 400 hours breh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top