Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 301 to 320 of 320

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #301
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    I welcome questions, and/or discussion
    You clearly don't. Any time someone refutes your points or calls out bad data you ignore it. It's very telling that the only people you're willing to respond to in depth are the ones who agree with you. That's not a discussion, that's an echo chamber.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Most of the questions posed to me start with calling me names, followed by grievous errors in logic and the scientific method
    There has been minimal name calling in this thread, people calling out your flawed arguments isn't name calling. If there's grievous errors in logic and scientific method, shouldn't you be the one to correct them and point them out. After all, you did come here to teach us the TRUTH about climate change. How are we supposed to see that we are following flawed logic and scientific method if no one points it out to us. That's kind of the whole point of a discussion or debate, bring up points that the other side doesn't know, or explain why they are wrong. Telling people what you think they should think and then ignoring their responses is not a discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Then the crap posted is supported by some liar blog, as if "skepticalscience" was the gold standard in climate science. You, yourself posted a graph by a comedian and wanted me to "discuss" its validity
    If there's flaws in the data shown, then tell us what it is and why.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Climate advocates set a very bad example when it comes to cohesive, logical, intelligent discussion.
    Moot point. There hasn't been any discussion in this thread. Just one person posting their beliefs and ignoring the responses. Can't have intelligent discussion if one side isn't willing to discuss.

  2. #302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyleStreetBoy View Post
    You're conflating Dr Ridd's denial of dying coral reefs with global warming denial. It's not the same. He doesn't even fully deny the studies of James Cook University, rather he says "...all this most likely isn't true."

    Even in the links provided in the article, such as the excerpt from his book Climate Change: the Facts 2017 he makes no
    denials relating to climate change.

    His whole fight is about academic truth: he's refuted the findings of a University that receives government funding for reef studies. How does that in any way negate the veracity of studies done on climate change?

    What are you going to post next to support your argument? A Marine Biologist who questions the validity of String Theory research at her University?




    No response from MrCombust. Not surprising. A propaganda machine best operates without response to such appeals to logic and reason.
    yup
    Fundamental errors in logic by Boylestreetboy, KC, and medwards. I didn't respond to this post because of fundamental errors in logic. Since it's been referred to three times, I'll address the fundamental errors in logic..............

    "You're conflating Dr Ridd's denial of dying coral reefs with global warming denial."

    No, I didn't. This post was about the fraudulent representation of impacts of global warming.

    Logic error #1: Boyle makes the false representation that in this post I was trying to refute global warming. I did no such thing. This is a fundamental error in logic called the Strawman error. The opponent misrepresents the advocates argument, then shows how silly the (false) advocates' argument is.

    Logic error #2: Boyle makes the false representation that fraudulent impacts of global warming aren't part of the fraud. Published false reports that the impact of global warming is bad, is very much a fraud. A fraud very much related to the discussion of global warming.

    Correcting errors in logic isn't part of a climate change discussion, and I don't care much for it. Call me names if you like. "Arrogant" is a good one in this case. But if you want to discuss what I posted, don't tell me what I DIDN'T say, and then ask me to defend it.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 16-02-2018 at 03:04 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  3. #303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    I welcome questions, and/or discussion
    You clearly don't. Any time someone refutes your points or calls out bad data you ignore it. It's very telling that the only people you're willing to respond to in depth are the ones who agree with you. That's not a discussion, that's an echo chamber.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Most of the questions posed to me start with calling me names, followed by grievous errors in logic and the scientific method
    There has been minimal name calling in this thread, people calling out your flawed arguments isn't name calling. If there's grievous errors in logic and scientific method, shouldn't you be the one to correct them and point them out. After all, you did come here to teach us the TRUTH about climate change. How are we supposed to see that we are following flawed logic and scientific method if no one points it out to us. That's kind of the whole point of a discussion or debate, bring up points that the other side doesn't know, or explain why they are wrong. Telling people what you think they should think and then ignoring their responses is not a discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Then the crap posted is supported by some liar blog, as if "skepticalscience" was the gold standard in climate science. You, yourself posted a graph by a comedian and wanted me to "discuss" its validity
    If there's flaws in the data shown, then tell us what it is and why.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Climate advocates set a very bad example when it comes to cohesive, logical, intelligent discussion.
    Moot point. There hasn't been any discussion in this thread. Just one person posting their beliefs and ignoring the responses. Can't have intelligent discussion if one side isn't willing to discuss.
    "Sooooooo, if I believe in ballistic missiles and Viagra, I'm an ignorant hypocrite if I don't believe in global warming?????????"

    You agreed with Marcel and OffWhyte that this was valid logic.

    If you, Marcel, and OffWhyte believe this is valid logic I can't take any of you seriously.

    Nobody else should, either.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  4. #304
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    I welcome questions, and/or discussion
    You clearly don't. Any time someone refutes your points or calls out bad data you ignore it. It's very telling that the only people you're willing to respond to in depth are the ones who agree with you. That's not a discussion, that's an echo chamber.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Most of the questions posed to me start with calling me names, followed by grievous errors in logic and the scientific method
    There has been minimal name calling in this thread, people calling out your flawed arguments isn't name calling. If there's grievous errors in logic and scientific method, shouldn't you be the one to correct them and point them out. After all, you did come here to teach us the TRUTH about climate change. How are we supposed to see that we are following flawed logic and scientific method if no one points it out to us. That's kind of the whole point of a discussion or debate, bring up points that the other side doesn't know, or explain why they are wrong. Telling people what you think they should think and then ignoring their responses is not a discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Then the crap posted is supported by some liar blog, as if "skepticalscience" was the gold standard in climate science. You, yourself posted a graph by a comedian and wanted me to "discuss" its validity
    If there's flaws in the data shown, then tell us what it is and why.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Climate advocates set a very bad example when it comes to cohesive, logical, intelligent discussion.
    Moot point. There hasn't been any discussion in this thread. Just one person posting their beliefs and ignoring the responses. Can't have intelligent discussion if one side isn't willing to discuss.
    "Sooooooo, if I believe in ballistic missiles and Viagra, I'm an ignorant hypocrite if I don't believe in global warming?????????"

    You agreed with Marcel and OffWhyte that this was valid logic.

    If you, Marcel, and OffWhyte believe this is valid logic I can't take any of you seriously.

    Nobody else should, either.
    ????

    talk about a straw man deflection - ballistic mussioes and viagra? really?

    marcel and offwhyte have been quite generous in their time and research and presentation of facts in a logical manner.

    you dont have to take them or anyone else seriously but your childish refusal to acknowledge information and the holding your breath until you turn blue while waiting for everyone to accept your self acknowledged superiority of position in spite evidence to the contrary is a bit tiring. and hard to take seriously.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  5. #305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    I welcome questions, and/or discussion
    You clearly don't. Any time someone refutes your points or calls out bad data you ignore it. It's very telling that the only people you're willing to respond to in depth are the ones who agree with you. That's not a discussion, that's an echo chamber.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Most of the questions posed to me start with calling me names, followed by grievous errors in logic and the scientific method
    There has been minimal name calling in this thread, people calling out your flawed arguments isn't name calling. If there's grievous errors in logic and scientific method, shouldn't you be the one to correct them and point them out. After all, you did come here to teach us the TRUTH about climate change. How are we supposed to see that we are following flawed logic and scientific method if no one points it out to us. That's kind of the whole point of a discussion or debate, bring up points that the other side doesn't know, or explain why they are wrong. Telling people what you think they should think and then ignoring their responses is not a discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Then the crap posted is supported by some liar blog, as if "skepticalscience" was the gold standard in climate science. You, yourself posted a graph by a comedian and wanted me to "discuss" its validity
    If there's flaws in the data shown, then tell us what it is and why.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Climate advocates set a very bad example when it comes to cohesive, logical, intelligent discussion.
    Moot point. There hasn't been any discussion in this thread. Just one person posting their beliefs and ignoring the responses. Can't have intelligent discussion if one side isn't willing to discuss.
    "Sooooooo, if I believe in ballistic missiles and Viagra, I'm an ignorant hypocrite if I don't believe in global warming?????????"

    You agreed with Marcel and OffWhyte that this was valid logic.

    If you, Marcel, and OffWhyte believe this is valid logic I can't take any of you seriously.

    Nobody else should, either.
    ????

    talk about a straw man deflection - ballistic mussioes and viagra? really?

    marcel and offwhyte have been quite generous in their time and research and presentation of facts in a logical manner.

    you dont have to take them or anyone else seriously but your childish refusal to acknowledge information and the holding your breath until you turn blue while waiting for everyone to accept your self acknowledged superiority of position in spite evidence to the contrary is a bit tiring. and hard to take seriously.
    It wasn't me who brought up Viagra or ballistic missiles. If you think that's Strawman deflection then take it up with Marcel, OffWhyte, or medwards.

    As for you, if you can't follow a discussion, don't be surprised if I don't respond.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  6. #306
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    991

    Default

    ^Missing the point. He's saying that of all of the valid arguments and statements that have been made, you choose the one that was clearly exaggerated to make a point. You created a straw-man around that statement so that you can ignore all the other ones.

  7. #307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    ^Missing the point. He's saying that of all of the valid arguments and statements that have been made, you choose the one that was clearly exaggerated to make a point. You created a straw-man around that statement so that you can ignore all the other ones.
    Yeah, he also said this.............

    "marcel and offwhyte have been quite generous in their time and research"

    Marcel calls me "MrCompost" and kcantor thinks he's being "generous".

    You guys are a goddamn hoot.

    And you're all so baffled that I don't respond to your posts.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  8. #308
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    ^Missing the point. He's saying that of all of the valid arguments and statements that have been made, you choose the one that was clearly exaggerated to make a point. You created a straw-man around that statement so that you can ignore all the other ones.
    Yeah, he also said this.............

    "marcel and offwhyte have been quite generous in their time and research"

    Marcel calls me "MrCompost" and kcantor thinks he's being "generous".

    You guys are a goddamn hoot.

    And you're all so baffled that I don't respond to your posts.
    emphasis added...

    so what would you call this post - or your previous post - if not a response to "our" posts?

    baffling indeed.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  9. #309
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    991

    Default

    He'll respond to the arguments that he's not actually doing any arguing, but not the arguments disputing his posts.

  10. #310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    ^Missing the point. He's saying that of all of the valid arguments and statements that have been made, you choose the one that was clearly exaggerated to make a point. You created a straw-man around that statement so that you can ignore all the other ones.
    Yeah, he also said this.............

    "marcel and offwhyte have been quite generous in their time and research"

    Marcel calls me "MrCompost" and kcantor thinks he's being "generous".

    You guys are a goddamn hoot.

    And you're all so baffled that I don't respond to your posts.
    emphasis added...

    so what would you call this post - or your previous post - if not a response to "our" posts?

    baffling indeed.
    Just trying to be a good sport. Clearly a waste of time. Done with the flea circus.

    Back to real science posts.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  11. #311
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    ^Missing the point. He's saying that of all of the valid arguments and statements that have been made, you choose the one that was clearly exaggerated to make a point. You created a straw-man around that statement so that you can ignore all the other ones.
    Yeah, he also said this.............

    "marcel and offwhyte have been quite generous in their time and research"

    Marcel calls me "MrCompost" and kcantor thinks he's being "generous".

    You guys are a goddamn hoot.

    And you're all so baffled that I don't respond to your posts.
    emphasis added...

    so what would you call this post - or your previous post - if not a response to "our" posts?

    baffling indeed.
    Just trying to be a good sport. Clearly a waste of time. Done with the flea circus.

    Back to real science posts.
    any time you want to start with real science posts, dont let me stop you.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  12. #312
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Fundamental errors in logic by Boylestreetboy, KC, and medwards. I didn't respond to this post because of fundamental errors in logic. Since it's been referred to three times, I'll address the fundamental errors in logic..............

    "You're conflating Dr Ridd's denial of dying coral reefs with global warming denial."

    No, I didn't. This post was about the fraudulent representation of impacts of global warming.

    Logic error #1: Boyle makes the false representation that in this post I was trying to refute global warming. I did no such thing. This is a fundamental error in logic called the Strawman error. The opponent misrepresents the advocates argument, then shows how silly the (false) advocates' argument is.

    Logic error #2: Boyle makes the false representation that fraudulent impacts of global warming aren't part of the fraud. Published false reports that the impact of global warming is bad, is very much a fraud. A fraud very much related to the discussion of global warming.

    Correcting errors in logic isn't part of a climate change discussion, and I don't care much for it. Call me names if you like. "Arrogant" is a good one in this case. But if you want to discuss what I posted, don't tell me what I DIDN'T say, and then ask me to defend it.
    I'm not surprised that you don't care much for correcting errors in logic because you're not very good at it. You're confusing Ignoratio Elenchi with Reductio Ad Adsurdum.

    Actually, I made no assertions on "global warming" one way or the other, my post addressed your fallacy of revelence by your inclusion of Dr Ridd's case to support your argument in this thread which you have titled The TRUTH about climate change.

    But the fact that you tried to back-pedal -- however ineptly -- shows that I was on the mark.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  13. #313

    Default

    Here’s my lay view: Ridd’s proposition points to a potential problem with the “scientific method” as now practiced in his field of inquiry and as I recall he pointed out in another field(s) of inquiry (without going back, I recall a reference to unreproducible published papers.) So it has some relevance to climate research.

    First however a Rudd statement has to be proven correct before one can say that statement is a statement of fact and so is the “truth” before his position can be used in anyway to justify the testing for similar flaws in the application of the “scientific method” in other fields of inquiry.

    If society is relying on a flawed application of the scientific method through a systemic failure then reproducible testing should quickly reveal such systemic flaws in the peer review methods employed. Prove that and then seek reproduction of wrongly accepted studies.

    Example: for many decades final pharmaceutical approvals passed a number of reviews and seemed valid. Until the fact that only males were the test subjects in most past studies. This doesn’t invalidate all the medicines but it has invalidated some medicines and thus called into question all medicines similarly approved for female consumption.
    Last edited by KC; 17-02-2018 at 08:13 AM. Reason: Add “of” and a “)” change “make” to males and “last” to past

  14. #314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoyleStreetBoy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Fundamental errors in logic by Boylestreetboy, KC, and medwards. I didn't respond to this post because of fundamental errors in logic. Since it's been referred to three times, I'll address the fundamental errors in logic..............

    "You're conflating Dr Ridd's denial of dying coral reefs with global warming denial."

    No, I didn't. This post was about the fraudulent representation of impacts of global warming.

    Logic error #1: Boyle makes the false representation that in this post I was trying to refute global warming. I did no such thing. This is a fundamental error in logic called the Strawman error. The opponent misrepresents the advocates argument, then shows how silly the (false) advocates' argument is.

    Logic error #2: Boyle makes the false representation that fraudulent impacts of global warming aren't part of the fraud. Published false reports that the impact of global warming is bad, is very much a fraud. A fraud very much related to the discussion of global warming.

    Correcting errors in logic isn't part of a climate change discussion, and I don't care much for it. Call me names if you like. "Arrogant" is a good one in this case. But if you want to discuss what I posted, don't tell me what I DIDN'T say, and then ask me to defend it.
    I'm not surprised that you don't care much for correcting errors in logic because you're not very good at it. You're confusing Ignoratio Elenchi with Reductio Ad Adsurdum.

    Actually, I made no assertions on "global warming" one way or the other, my post addressed your fallacy of revelence by your inclusion of Dr Ridd's case to support your argument in this thread which you have titled The TRUTH about climate change.

    But the fact that you tried to back-pedal -- however ineptly -- shows that I was on the mark.
    You just compounded your logical errors by making two more.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 17-02-2018 at 09:20 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  15. #315
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyleStreetBoy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Fundamental errors in logic by Boylestreetboy, KC, and medwards. I didn't respond to this post because of fundamental errors in logic. Since it's been referred to three times, I'll address the fundamental errors in logic..............

    "You're conflating Dr Ridd's denial of dying coral reefs with global warming denial."

    No, I didn't. This post was about the fraudulent representation of impacts of global warming.

    Logic error #1: Boyle makes the false representation that in this post I was trying to refute global warming. I did no such thing. This is a fundamental error in logic called the Strawman error. The opponent misrepresents the advocates argument, then shows how silly the (false) advocates' argument is.

    Logic error #2: Boyle makes the false representation that fraudulent impacts of global warming aren't part of the fraud. Published false reports that the impact of global warming is bad, is very much a fraud. A fraud very much related to the discussion of global warming.

    Correcting errors in logic isn't part of a climate change discussion, and I don't care much for it. Call me names if you like. "Arrogant" is a good one in this case. But if you want to discuss what I posted, don't tell me what I DIDN'T say, and then ask me to defend it.
    I'm not surprised that you don't care much for correcting errors in logic because you're not very good at it. You're confusing Ignoratio Elenchi with Reductio Ad Adsurdum.

    Actually, I made no assertions on "global warming" one way or the other, my post addressed your fallacy of revelence by your inclusion of Dr Ridd's case to support your argument in this thread which you have titled The TRUTH about climate change.

    But the fact that you tried to back-pedal -- however ineptly -- shows that I was on the mark.
    You just compounded your logical errors by making two more.
    and you continue to debate like a six year old in a sand box.

    did too, did not, did too, did not, did too...

    except it’s more like did not, did too here’s photos, did not, did too here’s math, did not, did too here’s witnesses, did not i don’t care what your photos, math, liarblog witnesses say i’m right and you’re just not being logical.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  16. #316
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    You just compounded your logical errors by making two more.
    Ouch! Crushed by your "I know you are but what am I" position. Well played, sir!

    I am adequately chastised and defer to your superior wisdom and intellect.

    I have a question about your use of the Emerald City logical argument:

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Fundamental errors in logic by Boylestreetboy, KC, and medwards. I didn't respond to this post because of fundamental errors in logic. Since it's been referred to three times, I'll address the fundamental errors in logic..............
    Is it true you have to close your eyes and click your heels together everytime you say "fundamental errors in logic" in order for it to become real?
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  17. #317

    Default The TRUTH. Canadian Greenpeace founder and CO2. This one's for the oil field workers.

    Introducing another great Canadian, founder of Greenpeace, and climate change skeptic..................... Patrick Moore.

    He speaks about the benefits of CO2, the foundation of all life on earth. Oil is sequestered life. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere enhances the global life cycle, making life more abundant and robust, for an indefinite period of time. Unlike "climate change" this enhancement can be empirically measured in real time.

    Ever hear the CBC tell you CO2 is the foundation of all life on earth?

    Watch Patrick Moore explain the benefits of adding CO2 to the atmosphere for hundreds of thousands of years to come.

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  18. #318
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    211

    Default

    Here's a link to the transcript of Moore's speech for anyone who would rather read it rather than waste 45 minutes of their life listening to Moore's rambling...

    Patrick Moore: Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?

    Really, I think Moore is a great example of an idealistic hippie morphing into a corporate whore in order to fund his retirement years. Exactly what one would expect from the Greenpeace crowd.

    "Response to Patrick Moore's "What They Haven't Told You About Climate Change."



    MrCombust, I admit that I possess skepticism of the Al Gore school of Climate Change, and I won't disagree with Moore's assessment near the end of his speech:

    "Some of the world’s oil comes from my native country in the Canadian oil sands of northern Alberta. I had never worked with fossil fuel interests until I became incensed with the lies being spread about my country’s oil production in the capitals of our allies around the world. I visited the oil sands operations to find out for myself what was happening there.
    It is true it’s not a pretty sight when the land is stripped bare to get at the sand so the oil can be removed from it. Canada is actually cleaning up the biggest natural oil spill in history, and making a profit from it. The oil was brought to the surface when the Rocky Mountains were thrust up by the colliding Pacific Plate. When the sand is returned back to the land 99% of the so-called “toxic oil” has been removed from it.
    Anti-oil activists say the oil-sands operations are destroying the boreal forest of Canada. Canada’s boreal forest accounts for 10% of all the world’s forests and the oil-sands area is like a pimple on an elephant by comparison. By law, every square inch of land disturbed by oil-sands extraction must be returned to native boreal forest. When will cities like London, Brussels, and New York that have laid waste to the natural environment be returned to their native ecosystems?
    The art and science of ecological restoration, or reclamation as it is called in the mining industry, is a well-established practice. The land is re-contoured, the original soil is put back, and native species of plants and trees are established. It is possible, by creating depressions where the land was flat, to increase biodiversity by making ponds and lakes where wetland plants, insects, and waterfowl can become established in the reclaimed landscape.
    The tailings ponds where the cleaned sand is returned look ugly for a few years but are eventually reclaimed into grasslands. The Fort McKay First Nation is under contract to manage a herd of bison on a reclaimed tailings pond. Every tailings pond will be reclaimed in a similar manner when operations have been completed."

    but I am completely in opposition to the attitude that we should merrily continue on our way in our unlimited use of fossil fuels which I believe is the larger part of Moore's -- and your -- assessment of THE TRUTH.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  19. #319

    Default The TRUTH. Few people even know what "climate change" means.

    Hardly anybody knows what "climate change" means. Even well-educated, seemingly knowledgeable, self proclaimed experts don't know what it means. I'm going to clarify what "climate change" means in this post, and you won't believe what it is. The term "climate change" is erroneously used as a catch-all for anything that goes wrong. It is an INTENTIONALLY deceptive term used politically to blame negative impacts on CO2. "Climate change" can mean.............

    1) Measured climate change. Such as warming temperatures, rising seas, storms, melting ice, etc. If climate change is measured there is an implied link to CO2. But the link is implied, it is not necessarily proven. This kind of climate change can be empirically measured, but it can be natural, or man made.

    2) Climate change caused by CO2. This kind of climate change cannot be measured. The Earth's climate system is far too complex to isolate the effect that .01% of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause. There is a mathematical relationship of the greenhouse effect that is known that will have an effect. But it cannot be directly measured. This relationship represents 1 degree of warming as indicated by my tagline below.

    3) Climate change caused by CO2 amplified by feedbacks. This is the catastrophic climate change that is being discussed in the media. It too cannot be measured in real time because the EARTH's climate system is far too complex. The results cannot be measured because IT IS A PREDICTION OF THE FUTURE. IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET.

    How do scientists know that the minor effect of CO2 will be amplified (in the future) severalfold, by feedbacks? SOFTWARE SIMULATIONS. Scientists write software simulations of the climate system, of the whole earth and space, and "run" the simulations 100 years into the future. THAT IS THIER PROOF TEMPERATURES ARE GOING TO RISE.

    Soooooooooo "CLIMATE CHANGE", as discussed in the media, as a threat, is............... READY?????????

    A PREDICTION OF THE FUTURE 100 YEARS FROM NOW BY A SOFTWARE SIMULATION OF THE ENTIRE EARTHS CLIMATE SYSTEM., WRITTEN BY A PROGRAMMER.

    Yeah. That's what "climate change" is.

    Don't believe it? Look up any article predicting temperature rise. Look up where the prediction came from. It's always the output of a computer model.

    So when they tell you the temperature rose 1/10 of a degree last year, ask them.......... Does that validate the computer model software simulation of temperatures 100 years from now?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 19-02-2018 at 04:01 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  20. #320

    Default

    Here’s a definition of climate change:

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...en/mains1.html

    Also I see references to global warming gases of which C02 is the most prevalent. The others aren’t ignored.

    As for predictions, yes computers and software and calculations are pretty useful. I’m not sure if any try to simulate the entire earth’s climate or instead a large number of forecasting programs forecast various elements of the global climate.



    I wonder, if C02 was out of the picture and say methane etc were considered the major contributors and the same Global Warming was the fear, would everyone just accept the general scientific consensus?
    Last edited by KC; 19-02-2018 at 04:45 PM.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •