Ocean News

Probably the Democrats and crooked Republicans behind the scenes who got big coal bankrupted through legislation will sweep in and buy up all the coal assets for 1 cent on the dollar, then get the anti-coal legislation reversed to line their own greedy pockets. It has been done before, take land for example, and will happen again. Bunch of rascals.

 

Ipcc says it's logarithmic.
Climate scientists say it's logarithmic and their climate models use CO2 warming epressed as a logarithmic equation.
College text books say it's logarithmic.

And logarithmic equations always flatline.

So does that convince YOU?
Nothing will.

Not posting to teach you.

I'm posting so other folks aren't confused by you.
Aren't persuaded into thinking CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic warming, when obviously, mathematically, it can't.

And the whole notion of peer review is a hoax.

Acceptance or popularity doesn't equate with truth. Never has. Never will.

Socialist values corrupt everything, including science, by politicizing science.
A majority vote of scientists on a hypothesis doesn't prove squat, though you could infer they were all tainted by socialist ideas about what constitutes scientific validity.
it is NOT scientific method!

 

The question is not whether it is logarithmic. CO2, taken by itself, is logarithmic. But there are lots of questions, such as what coefficients should be used, and therefore where on the curve we currently are.

I think it very reasonable to ask where you got your chart from, and what the source is for the data, and which logarithmic curve you used, etc? The fact you manage to work in your hatred of socialism whenever we talk about the science of climate change is strong evidence that you really aren't a scientific skeptic, but instead are a philisophically-driven denier.

 

The correct curve to use is the actual known data points. Reality.
Shown in the curve I posted. Can you show different data points?

Have any supporters of AGW plotted that curve?
No? Maybe plotted but didn't publish.
Perhaps because they are dismayed by the result.

Expecting me to find and quote AGWers arguing AGAINST AGW, is not rational.
Although sometimes, I can make the case in an illogical AGW post, reversing it upon itself.

 

You noticed.

 

Since socialism is the driving force behind your propaganda, it must come to light.

http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html

 

1940's Socialist Party president Norman Thomas said,
“ The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.”


Havel Wolf, member of the Seattle Audubon Society says “The Communist Party USA’s environmental program “presents a viable plan to carry out on the long march to socialism.” --1998


Gus Hall, National chairman of the Communist Party, USA in 1972. “Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible.”


Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister said, “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits [...] Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”


Louis Proyect, of Columbia University, “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”


Basically same as what Irrational Number said:

It's frustrating to try to discuss mathematics with folks who, in their ignorance of mathematics, keep insisting logarithmic equations can have continually rising linear results.

Because THEY aren't being scientific, but preaching THEIR philosophy, the argument becomes a philosophical debate. Not science.

I'll refute both excuses for AGW, pseudo-science or socialistic philosophy.

 

As to my hatred of socialism/communism, as a Vietnam veteran, would you expect different of me?
I see the enemy we fought against trying to subvert my country, we bled for and many died for?

Are you denying AGW has a political end, a socialist agenda?

Do you understand the difference between being involved and commitment?
In the typical ham and eggs breakfast, the chicken is involved. The pig was committed!
Veterans are committed to defend their country.
Unless you're also willing to risk your life for what you believe in, you are only playacting and playing with fire.

 

You've piqued my interest in the question. I've not had regular access to the Internet for the last few months, but soon I'll be back in the cyberworld (not necessarily a welcomed thing) and hope to study up on it more. In the meantime I feel quite comfortable with trusting what the majority of the climate scientists say, which is that while acknowledging the logarithmic nature of CO2 heating ability in the atmosphere, they still predict significant temperature rises until our whole climate system stabilizes.

I would recommend that you review the definitions of Communism and Socialism. Major difference. Many of our (the US) best friends and allies have much more Socialistic governments than ours, and they have a very stable, happy, vibrant, productive and prosperous population. Plus, as I already pointed out, we in the US already have a number of socialistic institutions, and I expect we will move further in that direction.

Absolutely. AGW is a fact (or not). It has no agenda. It's like asking whether gravity has a socialist agenda. Totally absurd question on your part.

Sometimes I wonder if you don't need to be committed...

 

How typical it is for your side to attack the sanity of the opposition. USSR put a lot of people in institutions, mental and otherwise, for dissenting. It is tyrannical and evil, not to mention cowardly, afraid to argue the issues without utilizing character assassination.

 

Apparently the humor implied by a winky face was lost on you. I'm pretty sure Yob still has a sense of humor, even if you don't.

 

Note to self: Be more aware of emojicons. Apparently they are more to be believed than the actual words said.





See me kidding?

 

Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly | New York Times

 

‘Severe’ coral bleaching is damaging huge swaths of the Great Barrier Reef, scientists say | Washington Post

 

The First Global Integrated Marine Assessment
World Ocean Assessment I
by the Group of Experts of the Regular Process

...under the auspices of the United Nations General Assembly and its Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, including Socioeconomic Aspects

© 2016 United Nations