Climate Change is a Hoax

[tmcom]

3 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Well, guess Doc SJ and Chrlzs were frozen just as I said. Too bad. Funny thing is cold temperatures are much more efficient at killing things than slight warming. But hey who's counting right? Certainly not the Earth is melting "believers". 

At this point there is no more "Climate Change"! That is always happening, and what is really meant is catastrophic atmospheric warming.

Let us call it what it is and debate, and I'll enjoy attempting to out debate you "believers". Should be fun. After 80 pages I assume most people should be able to get up to date.

Don't watch David Attenboroughs, latest arrrm, well it is on Youtube, ok, l will post it here, it is pretty funny in a cult luncheon kind of way.

Climate change the Facts, lol, as you can probably guess, it is a comedy, here are some of the hilarious exerts.

David says "if we don't take dramatic action in the next 10 years, we could destroy our environment beyond repair and destroy our civilization. Sounds pretty end is nigh to me?

And plenty of other exper,...people who say Britains last heat wave is caused by,....whatever they call it, a fluke?

And California is not burning due to warming, it is because the dimwit end is nigh Mayer refuses to clear away dead tree's and such, so the fires are worse, and because equally stupid greenies want to protect something at least until a fire starts, and their protected whatever is toast.

We need a musical, or to at least take out a contract.

And the brainwashed children are at the end l believe, but we all know that a 15 year old is an expert.

Ok, no musicals, but l did find this, make sure to make this full screen and read the news report feed, lol.

Polar bear, cold and wet, we need to do something!

Almost 5k, gave this a thumbs up, and around 400 didn't, there is hope.

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by tmcom

[lost_shaman]

 

7 minutes ago, tmcom said:

David says "if we don't take dramatic action in the next 10 years, we could destroy our environment beyond repair and destroy our civilization. Sounds pretty end is nigh to me?

Chicken little. It was a story when I was young. We were supposed to learn a lesson from it. Guess that backfired!!! LOL!

[Farmer77]

17 minutes ago, tmcom said:

And California is not burning due to warming, it is because the dimwit end is nigh Mayer refuses to clear away dead tree's and such, so the fires are worse, and because equally stupid greenies want to protect something at least until a fire starts, and their protected whatever is toast.

I dont really have any comment to you, I just wanted to isolate this post as evidence of the quality points you are raising

[lost_shaman]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I dont really have any comment to you, I just wanted to isolate this post as evidence of the quality points you are raising

The State agencies in CA acknowledged that their policies had contributed to the intensity of the Fires. 

[Farmer77]

Just now, lost_shaman said:

The State agencies in CA acknowledged that their policies had contributed to the intensity of the Fires. 

LOL.......OK   

 

[marsman]

16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity over health of planet

 (CNN)More than 16,000 scientists from 184 countries have published a second warning to humanity advising that we need to change our wicked ways to help the planet.
In 1992, 1,700 independent scientists signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity." The letter warned that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course" and if environmental damage was not stopped, our future was at risk.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/health/scientists-warn-humanity/index.html

 

are there 16000 scientists here? no.....just a bunch of ignorant ill-informed deniers

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by marsman

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

And California is not burning due to warming, it is because the dimwit end is nigh Mayer refuses to clear away dead tree's and such, so the fires are worse, and because equally stupid greenies want to protect something at least until a fire starts, and their protected whatever is toast.

I was red-carded as a Firing Boss, Tractor Boss and Field Observer (Single Resource).  I have fought project fires (The BIG ones).  These include the Black Tiger Fire (Google it.), Lefthand Fire, Old Stage Fire, Beaver Lake Fire and Murphy Gulch Fire (all in Colorado).  I have written more Defensible Space plans than I can count.

It is true that many people do not practice Defensible Space around their houses and that more houses than necessary burn because of it.  It is also true that fire suppression has resulted in the accumulation of fuels that make existing fires worse.

Back in the 1980s, the cost of an average Defensible Space practice was $1000 and included about an acre of treatment.  The practice is restricted to private land and many houses are within two or three feet of USFS land (In Black Tiger Gulch, many houses straddled the property lines.).  Thus, it is impossible to clear a strip wide enough to do any good without risking a fine from the USFS.  The USFS owns 193 million acres.  To treat that entire area, you are talking about a cost of over $193 BILLION dollars.  Not even us liberals would agree to that.  And that doesn't count land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, or state land, or any of the private land that is mixed with Federal land.  A TRILLION dollars is more like it - half a trillion for Federal land only.  So YOU laugh at people for not doing enough.

 

Here's a research article::

Williams, A. A. J., D. J. Karoly and N. Tapper.  2001.  The sensitivity of Australian fire danger to climate change.  Climate Change 49(1-2) 171-191.  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010706116176  22 April 2019.

I googled "fire danger climate change" on Google Scholar and got pages of papers.  

 

The California fire season is now year-roung, up from eight months just 30 years ago.  Less rainfall = drier fuels = worse fires.  Also, warmer winters = fewer bark beetles dying because of cold = more dead trees = more fuel.  BTW:  that change is in the 30-year average, the definition of climate change.

Doug

[Doug1029]

tmcom:

About green conversion in Australia:  I don't know exactly how much weight to put on each of the factors you are telling me.  I suspect that I don't have the whole story and that I'm not getting it from you.  You have not convinced me that wind won't work, only that Australia's grid may not be up to the job.

In America, when confronted with a problem we solve it.  That's what Australia needs to do, too.  If you need a new grid to make conversion work, then you need to build one.  If you need to shift usage away from peak load, then you devise an incentive plan to do that.

Detroit (when it still made cars), used to cry about not being able to meet pollution requirements.  When California told them "OK.  You can't sell your cars here.  We'll buy Japanese cars," they got off their rear ends and solved the problem.  If you need to find a way, you can.

Doug

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

The State agencies in CA acknowledged that their policies had contributed to the intensity of the Fires. 

True.  But how does that disprove climate change?

Doug

[Doc Socks Junior]

On 4/20/2019 at 11:59 PM, lost_shaman said:

You are talking about yourself! You do not understand how photons heat matter. Low energy photons DO NOT transfer heat to hot objects. It does NOT matter how many times you claim that this is NOT true because it is certainly true! Wavelengths matter emit are determined by temperature via Wien's displacement law and Energy of the wavelength via  the Planck–Einstein equation E = hv or also 

.E=hν=hc/λ.

where h is Planck's constant, ν is the frequency, c is the speed of light, and λ is the wavelength. This is why IR radiation is associated with heat because that is the part of the spectrum where enrgy is just right to warm matter while longer wavelengths don't have enough energy and shorter wavelength EM radiation has too much energy.

Again, it's impossible to argue with someone who is hopelessly lost on the basics.  Read up on thermodynamics.  Once you can admit you're incorrect, like an adult, we can continue the conversation.

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

I was red-carded as a Firing Boss, Tractor Boss and Field Observer (Single Resource).  I have fought project fires (The BIG ones).  These include the Black Tiger Fire (Google it.), Lefthand Fire, Old Stage Fire, Beaver Lake Fire and Murphy Gulch Fire (all in Colorado).  I have written more Defensible Space plans than I can count.

It is true that many people do not practice Defensible Space around their houses and that more houses than necessary burn because of it.  It is also true that fire suppression has resulted in the accumulation of fuels that make existing fires worse.

Back in the 1980s, the cost of an average Defensible Space practice was $1000 and included about an acre of treatment.  The practice is restricted to private land and many houses are within two or three feet of USFS land (In Black Tiger Gulch, many houses straddled the property lines.).  Thus, it is impossible to clear a strip wide enough to do any good without risking a fine from the USFS.  The USFS owns 193 million acres.  To treat that entire area, you are talking about a cost of over $193 BILLION dollars.  Not even us liberals would agree to that.  And that doesn't count land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, or state land, or any of the private land that is mixed with Federal land.  A TRILLION dollars is more like it - half a trillion for Federal land only.  So YOU laugh at people for not doing enough.

 

Here's a research article::

Williams, A. A. J., D. J. Karoly and N. Tapper.  2001.  The sensitivity of Australian fire danger to climate change.  Climate Change 49(1-2) 171-191.  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010706116176  22 April 2019.

I googled "fire danger climate change" on Google Scholar and got pages of papers.  

 

The California fire season is now year-roung, up from eight months just 30 years ago.  Less rainfall = drier fuels = worse fires.  Also, warmer winters = fewer bark beetles dying because of cold = more dead trees = more fuel.  BTW:  that change is in the 30-year average, the definition of climate change.

Doug

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/ca_gov_jerry_brown_vetoed_bipartisan_wildfire_management_bill_in_2016/

No downtrend in precipitation, but a lot of mismanagement, and sure they cannot clean the whole forest, but they can do so around housing.

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

tmcom:

About green conversion in Australia:  I don't know exactly how much weight to put on each of the factors you are telling me.  I suspect that I don't have the whole story and that I'm not getting it from you.  You have not convinced me that wind won't work, only that Australia's grid may not be up to the job.

In America, when confronted with a problem we solve it.  That's what Australia needs to do, too.  If you need a new grid to make conversion work, then you need to build one.  If you need to shift usage away from peak load, then you devise an incentive plan to do that.

Detroit (when it still made cars), used to cry about not being able to meet pollution requirements.  When California told them "OK.  You can't sell your cars here.  We'll buy Japanese cars," they got off their rear ends and solved the problem.  If you need to find a way, you can.

Doug

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/wind_turbines_are_neither_clean_nor_green_and_they_provide_zero_global_ener/

Putting the mountain of Au coal required in Au to build a small army aside, we need 50 acres per megawatt, (1 million watts) which would power 1000 homes, to make it generous.

Or 250 acres is one square km, for 5000 homes.

Victoria's population is 3 million, (probably more now, but we will say 3) so 500 sq ac for 10,000 homes, 5000 sc ac for 100,000 homes, and 50,000 sq ac for 500,000 homes.

We will say 1,000,000 homes, (familys, etc) in my state would require 100,000 sq ac or 404 square km's of wind generators for our state alone.

Our coastline is 2,500 km's in lengh and breath is less, or bigger than the isle of wright is wind farms, so 1/5 of our entire state is a wind farm to power our state indefinately, unless we get no wind then we use candles.

Not to mention the cost that would probably cripple our country, instead of half dozen coal fires power plants.

wind turbines are 1-2 million each, so billions to trillions for each state and in ten years we have to replace this and cought up another trillion.

Wind is not the answer!

 

 

[Doug1029]

10 minutes ago, tmcom said:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/ca_gov_jerry_brown_vetoed_bipartisan_wildfire_management_bill_in_2016/

No downtrend in precipitation, but a lot of mismanagement, and sure they cannot clean the whole forest, but they can do so around housing.

Precip, especially in desert areas is highly variable.  We only get 22 inches a year, but you oughta be here the day we get it.  That variability means that averages don't tell much of a story, so there is no way to tell whether or not precip is changing.  What you're looking at is a statistical artifact.

If you're going to determine whether precip is changing, you track it over long time periods.  This study did that.  In doing so, it averaged droughts into wet periods.  Results:  no change.  Once again, a statistical artifact.

16 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Putting the mountain of Au coal required in Au to build a small army aside, we need 50 acres per megawatt, (1 million watts) which would power 1000 homes, to make it generous.

Or 250 acres is one square km, for 5000 homes.

Victoria's population is 3 million, (probably more now, but we will say 3) so 500 sq ac for 10,000 homes, 5000 sc ac for 100,000 homes, and 50,000 sq ac for 500,000 homes.

We will say 1,000,000 homes, (familys, etc) in my state would require 100,000 sq ac or 404 square km's of wind generators for our state alone.

Our coastline is 2,500 km's in lengh and breath is less, or bigger than the isle of wright is wind farms, so 1/5 of our entire state is a wind farm to power our state indefinately, unless we get no wind then we use candles.

Not to mention the cost that would probably cripple our country, instead of half dozen coal fires power plants.

wind turbines are 1-2 million each, so billions to trillions for each state and in ten years we have to replace this and cought up another trillion.

Wind is not the answer!

With wind, bigger is better.  Why settle for a 100 kw windmill when you can have a 225 kw windmill?  That would double the number of homes you can power with one windmill.  Around here we have one tower to forty acres.  That would be 6.25 times the density you show, meaning we can power about 12,500 homes with a 250-acre wind farm.  Wind Catcher has 800 windmills.  That's enough to power one million homes, assuming no down time.  Figure 10% down for maintenance and lack of wind.  That's 900,000 homes powered by a 32,000-acre wind farm.  That's 50 square miles.  Three million homes:  150 square miles.

Victoria is about 87,650 square miles with a population of 6,430,000.  You could supply every person there with the power output of a windfarm of about 340-350 square miles.  One-fifth?  That has to be an arithmetic mistake.  Another thought:  I have seen rotors turning when there was no discernible wind at ground level.  So I'm wondering about exactly what percent of the time there is insufficient wind to generate electricity at an altitude of 100 meters?  Has a wind study of Australia been done?  What did it show?

Something else:  in Oklahoma we supply a lot of natural gas for the power industry.  Several power companies are building wind systems with natural gas back-up.  They can continue to operate, even if the main grid goes down.  With 10% down time, that reduces fossil fuel use by 90%.  What is the natural gas situation in Australia?  What about off-shore gas deposits?

Something does not sound right about those figures you posted.  Knowing that wind has economies of scale based on rotor size, why would you build such small windmills?

At Altamonte they built a whole bunch of smaller windmills.  That was back when wind was just getting started.  Altamonte is what taught the wind industry about what size rotors to use.  So I'm wondering:  are you trying to use obsolete models in production facilities?  Surely your engineers would have known this and designed their projects accordingly.

Another possibility:  somebody was trying to get by on the cheap.  With wind, you go big or go home.  It takes a big up-front investment.

There is still one other possibility:  your information source is one of those denialist sites.

I don't know whether wind is the answer for Australia, but I don't think you're using accurate, current information.  And I wonder if you are considering all the options.

Doug

 

[tortugabob]

Marsman gives us an article from CNN telling us 16,000 scientists have dire warming to humanity over the health of the planet.  I read the article and there are many truths in it.  There are dead zones in oceans, mankind is using the Earth's natural resources faster than she can replenish them.  We are factory fishing the seas to the point of complete depletion.  The forests are being cut down at an alarming rate. The population of mankind is out of control and animals are suffering because of it, many to the point of extinction. Man is definitely causing these problems.  But the main thrust of the article is to push forth the mantra that man caused global warming is the culprit.  I, "an untrained ignorant forum fool" as he calls.me, heartily disagree.  The real problem is the materialistic nature of man. We as a species always want more.  And this nature has been nurtured by exponential advances in technology and a worldwide culture of excess. And while people disagree on points, we all, deep in our hearts, know that our society is terminally ill.  It must come to an end and it will come to an end. This is a moral truth. And this truth has been acknowledged since man began to record his oral history in written form. It is in all the ancient written texts. Texts I might add that have been twisted by the priest castes into dogmas to perpetuate their continued existence and well being.  But the priests are losing control.  A new class has arisen to save the world. They are the scientists and political charlatans of all bents. The long story shirt is that in the end they will bring nothing but chaos and death as they always have.  And maybe that is the plan?  Maybe the people that really rule over us have decided that the only way to solve their problem (not the Earth's) is to kill most of us and save a remnant to serve them and the culture of greed?  Or maybe their bought men, the scientists and politicians can convince mankind, yea even we fools, to embrace the latest religion that will perpetuate their Babylons. After all, what we must do to prevent sea level rise is the first commandment of this new religion. They cannot allow New York City, London, Los Angeles, coastal China and their other centers of commerce to be destroyed.  But it is all for naught.  Even Atlantis, with all its power could not save itself. The Earth will  cleanse herself of the cancer called techno-humankind. Water and fire will be her weapons. And the scientists scurrying around with their maths and inventions will mean nothing to Her.  Likewise the politicians with their carbon taxes and silk gloved totalitarian governments will accomplish nothing but human misery. 

Oh you can call me a nihilist, a fatalist, "an untrained forum fool."  You can ask yourself why should I argue with a moron?  He speaks philosophical nonsense while I speak the language of hard science.  You have the answers, the technological miracles, if only the masses and fools like him would listen. But I tell you another truth.  They will not listen. This is partly because of your holier than thou attitude, but mainly because we are a creation of this materialistic culture. We humans have lost what little spiritual (not religious) nature we were given by the Creator.  It left us as we blindly followed that path of "scientific"  proofs and creature comforts.  Our connection with the Creation has been severed  Therefore by our own actions our fate has been sealed as predicted long before this age.  But also know this. Time is circular.  After this dark time a new era will come.  A golden age of man that will last for a time until it too begins to decay into what we are experiencing today.  Or maybe not.  One thing is certain. The Earth will survive in one form or another. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by tortugabob

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, tortugabob said:

We humans have lost what little spiritual (not religious) nature we were given by the Creator.  It left us as we blindly followed that path of "scientific"  proofs and creature comforts.  Our connection with the Creation has been severed  Therefore by our own actions our fate has been sealed as predicted long before this age.  But also know this. Time is circular.  After this dark time a new era will come.  A golden age of man that will last for a time until it too begins to decay into what we are experiencing today.  Or maybe not.  One thing is certain. The Earth will survive in one form or another.

For someone who has "lost what little spiritual (not religious) nature (he was) given by the Creator," you sure deliver quite a sermon.

The thing about science is:  it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not.  It doesn't change the Truth.

I would be careful about articles found in the popular press (like CNN), though.  The original article is here:  https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229 .  As you can see, CNN did more than just a little sensationalizing.  That is part of the problem:  slanted articles are misrepresentations.  Some skepticism is on order.  I believe you are mistaking the rantings of the environmental cheerleaders for science.  That could lead to some disastrous consequences, the very least of which is wasting time and money on "fixes" that don't work.

 

The problem you're up against is that the actual scientists really do know more than you do.  When somebody has spent ten years getting a Ph.D. and thirty years studying in his subject area, there is a good chance that he/she has actually learned something.  There aren't many counter-arguments they haven't heard and usually they have learned how to refute them (UM is a great place for learning this.).  Some are more tactful at this than others.  I'm afraid that tactfulness is not my long suit.

Science is a process of looking at the world, of determining truth.  It is not a specific set of findings, rather it is how those findings were obtained.  In most scientific papers, the lead author has read everything there is to read about the subject.  THEN he conducts an experiment, analyses his data and writes a paper that contributes to the advancement of knowledge.  That's his job.  He advances his career by publishing truth.  If he publishes a falsehood, that could end his career.  Even if he was entirely innocent, two or three bad papers will be his undoing.  For that reason, there is a lot of pressure to find and publish the truth.  Reviewers and editors help with that.  Most papers are backed by a small army of people who have contributed their knowledge and expertise.

For example:  I have just submitted the TENTH revision of a paper on tree planting.  I have five co-authors and was assisted by four field people and five different organizations.  The editor and I have been going back and forth on this for almost a year.  That's an awful lot of work for a paper on how to plant a tree.  BUT:  if we get it right, a lot more trees will survive.

I urge you to study the subject, to learn what is true and what isn't.  Then make your own decisions.  Just throwing the baby out with the bathwater benefits nobody.

And you're right about one thing:  the earth will be here no matter what we do.

Doug

Edited April 22, 2019 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Another possibility:  somebody was trying to get by on the cheap.  With wind, you go big or go home.  It takes a big up-front investment.

P.S.:  You can make that investment and reduce your power bills immediately.  Here's how:  Take out a loan to build the windmills.  Go into production ASAP.  Price your electricity high enough to cover the mortgage, but otherwise keep it low.

You have to have banks willing to back this.  If they start getting nervous, or greedy, and raise the interest rates, your savings will go into the banker's pockets instead of the consumer's.

We all have to work and play well with others to make this work.

Doug

P.P.S.:  I should have known:  I am getting junk emails from The Hill about green energy.  That's what happens when you write a plank nobody understands.

Doug

Edited April 22, 2019 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, tortugabob said:

A new class has arisen to save the world. They are the scientists and political charlatans of all bents.

I never considered myself a priest, but...

Most scientists are interdisciplinary, meaning they can work in any of a number of different fields.  I'm an ex-forester, but I still do forestry research.  Right now, I am working on a theoretical paper on the slopover plot:  what happens when a sample plot straddles the stand boundary.  You won't believe how badly that can screw up an inventory.  This is useful in forest inventory, but also in any type of measurement process involving land areas.  One use is in measuring carbon sequestration in forest stands for carbon exchanges.  SO for me:  I would apply for forestry research positions if I didn't have environmental science work to do.

 

About the politicians:  they are in control.  If we are going to do anything about the world's problems, we'll have to do it through them.  They know politics, but not much else.  We've had one pol worried about Guam tipping over if we put too many troops on it - no kidding.  One Congressman thought a woman could check to see if she was pregnant by swallowing a miniature camera.  The Illinois State Legislature passed a law that made the value of pi exactly three.  And the US House of Representatives passed a commendation to the Boston Strangler.  These are the people we must work with.

 

If you were walking along the road and there was a car roaring straight toward you and I saw the car:  would you want me to warn you - or just go on about my business?  That's the position climate scientists are in.  We could just say nothing and let what will happen, happen.  But the real reason we are researchers is to make the world better.  To say nothing is a violation of our ethics.  We have to speak up.

Doug

[tortugabob]

But Doug when science has been corrupted by money it's not science.  And when scientists depend on a system that feeds them they tend to say what the systems wants.  You don't have to look very far in the history of medical research to find examples of fraud that sold plenty of drugs but cost many patients their lives. Experts in many science fields have cherry picked the data to fit their hypotheses. The question I would ask you is where do you work and for whom?  What does your system master believe in and what does it want to hear?  Where does it get its money? And finally pray tell us why they would pay you for five years for you to tell us how to plant a tree?  But I digress.  Fraud is happening in climate science and all you have to do is Google it. Several years ago the emails of some climate experts at a university in the UK were released showing them trying to suppress data that didn't fit into their AGW climate model. Some source, whoever, says 16,000 scientists are telling us bad climate news. CNN spins it to the sky-is-falling levels. Why are they doing this?  The truth needs no spin.  It will stand on its own.  Yet you see this kind of sensationalism constantly.  The just released David Attenborough video is a prime example.  The Algoreans were claiming 20 years ago that there would be no snow in 20 years. Who shall we believe?  Them or our lying eyes?  Surely even a true believer like yourself can see why the masses are skeptical? 

Back to CNN. You say, "Some skepticism is on order.  I believe you are mistaking the rantings of the environmental cheerleaders for science."   Hell I was just referring to the article your ally in this farce posted. I knew they were lies all along.    

You go on,  "The problem you're up against is that the actual scientists really do know more than you do."  They do.  But there are a lot of scientists that don't believe in AGW and they have plenty of Ph.Ds and data to back themselves up.  I advise you to see post #1984. For once actually look and hear some of the people you're up against.  Even a true believer like yourself might have the courage to reconsider your position.  It will be okay.  You don't have to tell your system master.

And you take me to task for my sermon. Everything I said was or will be true. You scientists are so right and yet so pitifully wrong. You understand your science but know nothing of the nature of  people and society.  I told you myself that your planks would fail unless you watered them down to mere platitudes. Yet you went in citing your sources and lost. Now you talk of 2022.  How many times will you have to extend that date?  Your grand solutions will not be implemented on any large scale in the time frame (more like trap) you have set. They are hugely expensive and impractical in a time of failing fiat currencies the world over.  And what happens when the dire climate predictions don't occur by the next "tipping point"? You can only cry wolf so many times. Do you actually believe that people will believe the next prediction?  Do you actually believe they will give up fossil fuels, and eating, when they have been robbed of everything they own by the very people trying to rule and tax them out of existence?  Don't be delusional.  They will not listen to your science or the lying politicians.  That is the ultimate truth in this argument.

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by tortugabob

[Piney]

6 hours ago, tortugabob said:

  Even Atlantis, with all its power could not save itself.

 

 

 

Well, you just summed up all your scientific knowledge with that one statement and your link to this racist twit who's never studied one shred of North American archaeology, geology or anything else. 

 

[marsman]

9 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

  Once you can admit you're incorrect, like an adult, we can continue the conversation.

 

and once you can admit that thousands of scientists the world over agree that climate change and warming is REAL....you may gain some credibility......not much.....but every little helps

[Doc Socks Junior]

13 minutes ago, marsman said:

 

and once you can admit that thousands of scientists the world over agree that climate change and warming is REAL....you may gain some credibility......not much.....but every little helps

Hoss, learn to read.  I've already responded directly to your word salad.  You lack both tact and understanding. Please grow up.

[Piney]

18 minutes ago, marsman said:

 

and once you can admit that thousands of scientists the world over agree that climate change and warming is REAL....you may gain some credibility......not much.....but every little helps

 

3 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Hoss, learn to read.  I've already responded directly to your word salad.  You lack both tact and understanding. Please grow up.

Ya know! You both would like each other if you knew each other better. Mars is no knuckle head Boss. I think your both misunderstanding each other. 

[Doc Socks Junior]

14 minutes ago, Piney said:

 

Ya know! You both would like each other if you knew each other better. Mars is no knuckle head Boss. I think your both misunderstanding each other. 

I got called a 'blithering idiot', 'faker', and plenty else. Oh yeah, 'muppet'. That was good.  Not to say I'm not all of those things, but not in this particular case.

[Piney]

21 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

I got called a 'blithering idiot', 'faker', and plenty else. Oh yeah, 'muppet'. That was good.  Not to say I'm not all of those things, but not in this particular case.

I should of tagged you when I tagged Harte, Kenemet, Jay and Swede. I was a fake Cultural Resource Officer with a bogus archaeology and geology background according to plastic shamanistic sources here.  

 

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, tortugabob said:

You go on,  "The problem you're up against is that the actual scientists really do know more than you do."  They do.  But there are a lot of scientists that don't believe in AGW and they have plenty of Ph.Ds and data to back themselves up.  I advise you to see post #1984. For once actually look and hear some of the people you're up against.  Even a true believer like yourself might have the courage to reconsider your position.  It will be okay.

I watched that video.  Tortuga Bob, I can see where you are getting some of your arguments.  

A scientist who presents evidence about climate change must report to a shadowy master to get his marching orders and pick up his paycheck.

Have you considered where these nobler dissenters get their research funding (do they do any?) and their daily bread?  Could it be from oil and coal companies?  

A decade or two ago we had those same sort of noble dissenters telling us that smoking couldn't possibly be linked to cancer.  They were paid by Phillip Morris and P Lorrilord among others.   Have you taken a breath from your true believer mantra to ask what is in it for these guys?

It might be an interesting poll among climate scientists.  Are the majority of climate deniers employed by resource companies and utilities?   I don't know.  It might be interesting to find out.

[lost_shaman]

9 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Again, it's impossible to argue with someone who is hopelessly lost on the basics.  Read up on thermodynamics.  Once you can admit you're incorrect, like an adult, we can continue the conversation.

Again, you are the one in the wrong. You are trying to say something cold, a 15 um photon, can heat something hot like my yard which is currently 293 K as I just measured it.