Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Doomsday Clock moves closer to midnight

95 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

joc

I am speechless at how much wrong can be packed into one post :w00t:

Really I think you are so ideologically driven (note the Al-Gore Communist comment) that you are beyond reason and no longer worth engaging with.

Its easy to make unsubstantiated rhetorical statements such as yours, and before you squeal liker a stuck pig, I can produce peer reviewed evidence to support every single statement I have made - can you ??

Br Cornelius

yeah, I can...Rush, Hannity, Mark Levin..The Great One...

...and by the way Doug...Carbon Credits is BS...it isn't a commodity...any more than the Bit Coin Scamola...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Br Cornelius

yeah, I can...Rush, Hannity, Mark Levin..The Great One...

...and by the way Doug...Carbon Credits is BS...it isn't a commodity...any more than the Bit Coin Scamola...

Not really interest in the issues are you, all about politics for you :w00t:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Not really interest in the issues are you, all about politics for you :w00t:

Br Cornelius

The 'issues' are all about politics...you know that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

The 'issues' are all about politics...you know that!

The issues are about evidence, science, facts. When politics gets involved those essential truths are lost.

You seem to think that Al Gore represents the scientists who study climate, which just shows your ignorance of how these things work. I do not consider Al Gore as anything other than a politician.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

The issues are about evidence, science, facts. When politics gets involved those essential truths are lost.

You seem to think that Al Gore represents the scientists who study climate, which just shows your ignorance of how these things work. I do not consider Al Gore as anything other than a politician.

Br Cornelius

The Science concerning Global Warming is not Science...it is not about evidence...it is about politics...the scientists perpetuating the myth are liberals like your self...yeah...it's all politics...you are just blinded by the 'feel goodism' of knowing that YOU personally are making a difference by 'caring'. Please!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

The Science concerning Global Warming is not Science...it is not about evidence...it is about politics...the scientists perpetuating the myth are liberals like your self...yeah...it's all politics...you are just blinded by the 'feel goodism' of knowing that YOU personally are making a difference by 'caring'. Please!

Until you actually discuss and disprove that science its just hot air and ideological rhetoric.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Until you actually discuss and disprove that science its just hot air and ideological rhetoric.

Br Cornelius

It's not hard really. There is a plethora of data to 'prove' it and 'disprove' it...and so...I am not interested in having a Data War with anyone about it.

Let's just use Common Sense:

The Earth has it's own cycle of Climate Change. Ice Age come...Ice Age go. Where the mountains are, there used to be oceans. The deserts were once forests and what were great forests are now deserts...etc.

Man is not responsible for the Climate. CO2 is not responsible for climate change. If it is...then the planet will purge itself of the problem...too many humans breathing out CO2.

Fear: We are destroying the planet. pfffft Fact: The Planet is destroying US! From the time we are born this planet attempts to kill us at every step of the way...Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Tornadoes, Hurricanes, etc. The Planet gives us famine and pestilence. And as if that weren't enough...Gravity is killing us all. You cannot escape the Gravity...it will pull you down eventually into the ground.

It is the Fear that is in the mix...Politics....The Government can seize your land if some darter toad or whatever is found on it. THAT is the whole purpose...the loss of ownership of land rights...it's a freedom thing. The Leftists don't want you to have freedom. Light bulbs ...that's the problem...outlaw them....pfffft

Edited by joc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

It's not hard really. There is a plethora of data to 'prove' it and 'disprove' it...and so...I am not interested in having a Data War with anyone about it.

Let's just use Common Sense:

The Earth has it's own cycle of Climate Change. Ice Age come...Ice Age go. Where the mountains are, there used to be oceans. The deserts were once forests and what were great forests are now deserts...etc.

Man is not responsible for the Climate. CO2 is not responsible for climate change. If it is...then the planet will purge itself of the problem...too many humans breathing out CO2.

Fear: We are destroying the planet. pfffft Fact: The Planet is destroying US! From the time we are born this planet attempts to kill us at every step of the way...Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Tornadoes, Hurricanes, etc. The Planet gives us famine and pestilence. And as if that weren't enough...Gravity is killing us all. You cannot escape the Gravity...it will pull you down eventually into the ground.

It is the Fear that is in the mix...Politics....The Government can seize your land if some darter toad or whatever is found on it. THAT is the whole purpose...the loss of ownership of land rights...it's a freedom thing. The Leftists don't want you to have freedom. Light bulbs ...that's the problem...outlaw them....pfffft

When you can explain the current changes in the biosphere without invoking man as a cause I can take you seriously. No change is without cause which can be identified. Simply invoking its natural is not an explanation for the measured and observed changes across the planet, partcularely the mean rise in global energy and temperature. Only when you factor in man can you find a cause.

Your not interested because I think you know that any war of evidence would place you firmly on the losing side. Why ? because there are no peer reviewed pieces of science which have disproven anthropogenic climate change. You cannot win a discussion of facts without facts and that is why you will not engage.

Let me give you a few of the changes man is causing so that you have something to discuss:

-Loss of soli fertility and agricultural land abandonment

-the related man caused desertification due to overgrazing and over cultivation

-the loss of rivers and deep aquifers due to over exploitation with the effect of loss of wetland habitat and its associated species

-loss of 50% of all invertibrate species, with the rate of loss of species accellerating

-growth of dead zones within the coastal zones of the continental shelfs due to agricultural and industrial runoff

-collapse of comercial fishing stocks due to overfishing

-loss of glaciers due to global warming which will lead to droughts in dependent cities downmstream

-loss of rainforest due to clearance for agriculture

-loss of old growth temperate forests due to over logging (significant because many species only occur within old growth forest)

-peak oil meaning that all new oil production cost 3-4x the amount to bring into production as conventional reserves, with with many effects on the general economy

-peak production of multiple resources including Uranium

I could go on but those are areas for which I can supply peer reviewed evidence for their reality.

Yours is an evidence free zone, like most ideologes.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

When you can explain the current changes in the biosphere without invoking man as a cause I can take you seriously. No change is without cause which can be identified. Simply invoking its natural is not an explanation for the measured and observed changes across the planet, partcularely the mean rise in global energy and temperature. Only when you factor in man can you find a cause.

Your not interested because I think you know that any war of evidence would place you firmly on the losing side. Why ? because there are no peer reviewed pieces of science which have disproven anthropogenic climate change. You cannot win a discussion of facts without facts and that is why you will not engage.

Let me give you a few of the changes man is causing so that you have something to discuss:

-Loss of soli fertility and agricultural land abandonment

-the related man caused desertification due to overgrazing and over cultivation

-the loss of rivers and deep aquifers due to over exploitation with the effect of loss of wetland habitat and its associated species

-loss of 50% of all invertibrate species, with the rate of loss of species accellerating

-growth of dead zones within the coastal zones of the continental shelfs due to agricultural and industrial runoff

-collapse of comercial fishing stocks due to overfishing

-loss of glaciers due to global warming which will lead to droughts in dependent cities downmstream

-loss of rainforest due to clearance for agriculture

-loss of old growth temperate forests due to over logging (significant because many species only occur within old growth forest)

-peak oil meaning that all new oil production cost 3-4x the amount to bring into production as conventional reserves, with with many effects on the general economy

-peak production of multiple resources including Uranium

I could go on but those are areas for which I can supply peer reviewed evidence for their reality.

Yours is an evidence free zone, like most ideologes.

Br Cornelius

Did the Ice Age happen? Yes...was it due to the intervention of mankind? No.

Did the Mountains use to be under oceans? Yes. Did it occur due to mankind's interevention? No.

Does the Global Climate change? Yes. Has climate changed...through out the eons of changes from the beginning of Earth's conception...before Mankind ever graced its presence upon the Hallowed Planetary Ground? Yes it has...it is a ridiculous concept therefore to blame anything on Mankind...simply because we have become advanced in technology. And if it is...so the 'freak' what? What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Did the Ice Age happen? Yes...was it due to the intervention of mankind? No.

Did the Mountains use to be under oceans? Yes. Did it occur due to mankind's interevention? No.

Does the Global Climate change? Yes. Has climate changed...through out the eons of changes from the beginning of Earth's conception...before Mankind ever graced its presence upon the Hallowed Planetary Ground? Yes it has...it is a ridiculous concept therefore to blame anything on Mankind...simply because we have become advanced in technology. And if it is...so the 'freak' what? What?

These are not relevant to the changes we are currently causing. Just because nature can cause change doesn't mean nature is causing these changes.

There is a well understood mechanism between a range of changes man has caused and the climate, if you want to disprove them start with disproving the basic physics of biopolar molecules trapping heat (greenhouse effect), and if you succeed then explain why the earth is about 30c warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect. Then you can explain away the effects of land use change on the climate.

Its natural doesn't address the evidence and is shallow hand waving. Lets me ask, what is the specific natural mechanism for global warming as observed in the instrumental record. Its happening so what specific thing is causing it ?

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

These are not relevant to the changes we are currently causing. Just because nature can cause change doesn't mean nature is causing these changes.

There is a well understood mechanism between a range of changes man has caused and the climate, if you want to disprove them start with disproving the basic physics of biopolar molecules trapping heat (greenhouse effect), and if you succeed then explain why the earth is about 30c warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect. Then you can explain away the effects of land use change on the climate.

Its natural doesn't address the evidence and is shallow hand waving. Lets me ask, what is the specific natural mechanism for global warming as observed in the instrumental record. Its happening so what specific thing is causing it ?

Br Cornelius

ROFLMAO....right...and just because you are paranoid does not mean that everyone is not out to get you...that is so hilarious Bro...I needed that good laugh, thanks! :sk

I don't believe the 'science' or the 'scientists' that are saying that it is happening...

...see, here is what you have fallen for:

If, it is possible for us to enact Climate Change by the way we live...it is also possible then to 'reverse' said Climate Change by 'modifying' the way we live. That equals a bunch of pointy headed elites creating laws for the rest of us to live by while at the same time exempting themselves...i.e. AlGore and his 'enormous' carbon footprint.

It is so laughable Bro that it isn't even funny. I'm pretty good on 60 watt incandescent light bulbs because I bought about 200 of them before they disappeared from the shelves at Home Depot. And why did they disappear? Why because they cause Global Warming...THAT...is what I'm talking about..it isn't science...it is BS...and I for one am not falling for the BS Machine...yours or anyone else for that matter...

In fact...the whole topic is just making me :sleepy:

Meanwhile...in NYC...where they are NOT shoveling snow.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

It is abundantly clear that your ideology will not allow you to follow the objective evidence that man is causing climate change. there is plenty of evidence that man can and does impact the global climate and biosphere - and has done since he became civilized. We have currently changed over 50% of the land use over the entire planet which in of itself has a basic impact on the albedo of the surface and hence the net energy balance of the atmosphere.

The issue at stake is not about reversing the climate change which has already happened, its about stopping the worst place that climate change can take us. business as usual (ie no action) will result in 4-6C global warming in the next century. If we stop emitting we might hold that to 2C. two degrees is a hell of a lot easier to cope with than 2-3x that amount.

The genie is out of the bottle and we cannot go back to the place we were 150years ago, but action can save us from disastrous change.

You can wave your hands as much as you like but simply going to a forest and seeing how hot it is even on the hottest day and then comparing it to the temperature on the grass plains will tell you that clear felling forests (mans main activity since civilization began) in of itself changes the climate. Even the most unobservant person would have a hard time explaining that away.

Tower, ground-based and satellite observations indicate that tropical deforestation results in warmer, drier conditions at the local scale. Understanding the regional or global impacts of deforestation on climate, and ultimately on agriculture, requires modelling. General circulation models show that completely deforesting the tropics could result in global warming equivalent to that caused by burning of fossil fuels since 1850, with more warming and considerable drying in the tropics. More realistic scenarios of deforestation yield less warming and less drying, suggesting critical thresholds beyond which rainfall is substantially reduced. In regional, mesoscale models that capture topography and vegetation-based discontinuities, small clearings can actually enhance rainfall. At this smaller scale as well, a critical deforestation threshold exists, beyond which rainfall declines. Future agricultural productivity in the tropics is at risk from a deforestation-induced increase in mean temperature and the associated heat extremes and from a decline in mean rainfall or rainfall frequency. Through teleconnections, negative impacts on agriculture could extend well beyond the tropics.

http://www.nature.co...limate2430.html

Do you accept that deforestation has effects on the hydrological cycle, and hence by definition the local and regional climate ??

The denial that man impacts his environment is pure wanton ignorance. In seems denial of science and its evidence has become a religion among the conservative right. So far you haven't actually addressed a single one of the issues associated with man's impact on the environment, I am tired of your ideologically motivated posturing - hollow rhetoric one and all.

Here's a simple question for you to answer, do you accept the evidence that mans overfishing has caused a crash in many fish species populations in the last 100 years causing shifts in ocean population profiles? If man cannot seriously impact his environment this cannot have happened right ??

Unless you are prepared to engage with specific pieces of evidence it is impossible to show the flawed assumptions on which you have built your flawed beliefs. If you can't or wont engage with specifics I am no longer going to feed your Trollish grandstanding.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Doug1029

If, it is possible for us to enact Climate Change by the way we live...it is also possible then to 'reverse' said Climate Change by 'modifying' the way we live..

We don't actually know that it is possible to reverse global warming. That has never been done. It remains an untested hypothesis.

So why are we allowing warming to continue when we don't know whether we can fix the problem?

I'm pretty good on 60 watt incandescent light bulbs because I bought about 200 of them before they disappeared from the shelves at Home Depot. And why did they disappear? Why because they cause Global Warming...THAT...is what I'm talking about..it isn't science...it is BS...and I for one am not falling for the BS Machine...yours or anyone else for that matter...

So much for the 60-watt incandescent. But there are lots of other incandescents still on the shelves down at Lowe's. And, in your case, the program is still working because you will eventually run yourself out of bulbs.

Reductions in electricity use as a result of replacing those bulbs has allowed the US to phase out several coal-burning power plants. These are mostly TVA plants, so it is the government putting itself out of business. The process is working, but is not nearly what is needed to get the job done.

AND: incandescent bulbs are permitted under the regulations if they are sufficiently energy-efficient.

In fact...the whole topic is just making me :sleepy:

Then why are you commenting?

Meanwhile...in NYC...where they are NOT shoveling snow.......

Another denier who can't tell weather from climate.

BTW: Here I am in Oklahoma. The temperature outside today is 71 degrees F. So I'll see your NYC and raise you an Oklahoma.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius
So much for the 60-watt incandescent. But there are lots of other incandescents still on the shelves down at Lowe's. And, in your case, the program is still working because you will eventually run yourself out of bulbs.

The stupid thing is that those who refuse to accept the need for low energy bulbs and/or refuse to perform the basic cost benefit analysis are condemning themselves to losing hundreds of $ over the next decade. I calculate that I have saved well over €2000.00 over the last 15 years from making the shift away from incandescent and Halogens.

Thats not just ignorant, its stupid.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

yeah, I can...Rush, Hannity, Mark Levin..The Great One...

The Great One? What does Wayne Gretsky have to do with politics? He's a hockey player.

...and by the way Doug...Carbon Credits is BS...it isn't a commodity...any more than the Bit Coin Scamola...

You can buy and sell carbon credits on the Chicago Board of Trade. That makes them commodities.

And, seeing as you didn't actually read the post, I agree that carbon credits are BS. That's because their only purpose is to support cap-and-trade which doesn't work.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

The stupid thing is that those who refuse to accept the need for low energy bulbs and/or refuse to perform the basic cost benefit analysis are condemning themselves to losing hundreds of $ over the next decade. I calculate that I have saved well over €2000.00 over the last 15 years from making the shift away from incandescent and Halogens.

Br Cornelius

According to the American Wind Energy Association, America is producing more electricity from wind than any other country. That is in spite of a hostile Congress and denialist propaganda.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas Cooper Merrin

This symbolic timepiece is nothing more than hype and scare mongering! Its based on nothing more than opinions and guessed possibility!

Its the equivalent of reading your star sign in the local paper!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

This symbolic timepiece is nothing more than hype and scare mongering! Its based on nothing more than opinions and guessed possibility!

Its the equivalent of reading your star sign in the local paper!

It is indeed a construct based more on opinion than on quantifiable results. But at least, it is the best subjective opinion available. But if you would prefer facts, consider these:

The U.S. has LOST 11 nuclear weapons. Seven within the U.S. and four abroad. It was 12, but a second lieutenant doing an ordinance inventory found a bomb with code numbers he didn't recognize. We (U.S.) have dropped nuclear weapons on people from Spain to Albuquerque. In one case, five safety latches out of six broke. Only one saved us from a nuclear detonation. I would like to think the Pentagon knows what its doing, but it looks like they're depending more on dumb luck than on know-how.

I decided to double-check those numbers: Boy, was I wrong. Here's a more-complete list:

To err is human. To really mess things up you need a computer

On 5 October 1960 an early-warning system warned the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) of a massive Soviet nuclear missile strike approaching the United States. What happened is that a fault in a computer system had removed two zeros from the radar’s ranging components, detecting the missile attack at 4 000km (2,500 miles) away. The radar was actually detecting a reflection from the moon, located 400 000km (250,000 miles) away.

On 3 June 1980 a massive Soviet missile attack was again registered by computers. 100 nuclear-armed B-52s were immediately put on alert. A computer fault was detected in time, but three days later the same error occurred and again the bombers were put on alert. The problem was later traced to the failure of an integrated circuit in a computer, which was producing random digits representing the number of missiles detected.

On 10 January 1984, Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyoming, recorded a message that one of its Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles was about to launch from its silo due to a computer malfunction. To prevent the possible launch, an armoured car was parked on top of the silo.

nuke.jpg

Nuclear bomb – man’s worst invention

The history of nuclear weapon accidents is as old as their introduction

The US Department of Defence (DoD) first published a list of nuclear weapon accidents in 1968 which detailed 13 serious nuclear weapon accidents between 1950-1968. An updated list released in 1980 catalogued 32 accidents. At the same time, documents released by the Navy under the Freedom of Information Act cited 381 nuclear weapon incidents between 1965 and 1977.

A number of nuclear cases involve ships or submarines colliding at sea or, in some cases, submarine nuclear power units becoming unstable and the subs having to be abandoned. According to Greenpeace No Nukes there have been more than 120 submarine accidents since 1956. The most recent incident, in August 2000, was the loss of the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk in the Barents Sea. The Kursk is the seventh nuclear submarine lost, five of them Russian, two American. There are 92 known cases of nuclear bombs lost at sea.

I don't know how many Russian nuclear weapons have been lost or how many near-misses they've had; they don't broadcast that information. But there are at least two that made it into the papers (Make that seven; I forgot to count the submarines.).

It is a scientific principle that if something CAN happen, sooner or later, it WILL. As long as we have nuclear arsenals, we are looking at an eventual accidental nuclear war.

And that's just nuclear weapons. Global warming is slower by centuries, but uncontrolled, CO2 poisoning of the ecosystem will be just as deadly. At least, with global warming, we have time to wake up and do something to head it off. With an accidental nuclear detonation, it could be all over by the time I reach the end of this

Edited by Doug1029

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas Cooper Merrin

So what time is the old doom clock at now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I think it's stuck at 11:59.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.