Our Oceans are Under Attack

John Paul Jones has nothing to do with it. You're just ranting (again).

This is the sort of thing I was talking about earlier. Deniers keep dragging up that graph of Phanerozoic CO2 levels and banging on about levels during the Cambrian or whatever, and asking why the temperature wasn't sky high. I go to the trouble of doing a fairly good basic description of it all.

Response: completely ignore it, and start raving about John Paul Goatrooting Jones. Introduce maximum number of red herrings and wild accusations. Forget about ancient CO2 levels (until next time they are dragged up, when somebody will pretend, again, that it has never been addressed).



Yer mum.

 

I'm only resisting at this point in time, The fighting be later.

A patriotic rallying cry isn't appropriate?
Ah, but it IS, sir. Indeed it is.

God save America! ....From the wiles of AGWers and collectivists.

But thank you for the erudition on ancient sun radiance.
A curious diversion from how in blue blazes can your side claim human CO2 causes drought, or reducing our contribution, will make deserts drought free!
But that was Imaginarynumber's post. Are you holding the fort while he martials his defenses?
It's heartening to see angry posts from you.
Nearest thing to screams of anguish one can see on forums. Are you mortally wounded, sir?




Tu madre!

 

Hey, you were the one going on about main sequence stars and all that. I just picked it up and added in the bit about Petros' favourite graph. You were the one who was insisting that solar heat output hadn't changed noticeably, because surface temperature was close to stable.

That's why I explained the situation to you. It wasn't a diversion. It was a continuation of the subject raised in your post.

Sizin ana

 

Thankyou for fleshing out the story.

 

You're welcome. So, now you can admit that a/ you were wrong about the Sun's heat output and b/ you were wrong about accusing me of staging a diversion. Since you are an honest man, that is.

 

I confess.
Mea Culpa

You have impugned my integrity and honesty on occasion.
Do you withdraw those accusations?

We can disagree without dastardly motives.

 

The Most Ambitious Environmental Lawsuit Ever | New York Times Magazine

 

Environmentalism is a political football. AGWers don't have clean hands. They play dirty also.
The final analysis and decision is in the hands of individual voters.
Exactly where it belongs.
You agree don't you?
You wouldn't force AGW programs upon American voters, when the majority didn't agree with it, pretending that you could, would you?

 

Any progress on discovering how CO2 is responsible for droughts?
Or was that an idiot article you posted as an example of how weird and irrational some AGWer claims can be?
Or just maybe, there is NO explanation and you concede there's no explanation by your silence?

"CO2's drying effect" LOL

 

Withdrawn. I just wanted to make sure you were capable of actually admitting error. I've seen too many people who are not, and will refuse to acknowledge it.

Anyway, I hope we can bookmark the posts that led to this exchange, and use them to clarify that solar output over time is relevant and that ancient CO2 levels cannot be used in an unqualified manner as an indication that increased CO2 levels today won't pose any problems. If we can lay the "ancient CO2 levels = I win" idiocy to rest that will be one less red herring to constantly chase.

Pity you won't grant scientists the same courtesy.

 

Oh I do. I'm sure they actually think human CO2 is just horrible and justify perverting their 'science' because of that mind set. Justify al sorts of cheats. They probably think they are fighting a noble cause. I DON'T! And don't respect them as valid scientists.
Nobody can honestly claim computer models DESIGNED to prove anthropogenic global warming are objective or unbiased or follow proper scientific method.
It's at best, BAD science, and probably pseudo-science.

 

I have to point out the irony here. You, and other deniers, use all sorts of dodgey arguments that you should know better than to use (we've just had a good example) because you just know that you are fighting the good fight.

If you haven't argued with YEC's, I have. When I started arguing with climate science deniers I was immediately struck by the similarity in style.

Here's something to consider, from this article: Understand faulty thinking to tackle climate change

Would I be correct in assuming you would generally agree with Cheney's statement above?

 

You'd assume wrong.
Young earth creationists insist the 6 days of creation are 24 hour periods. To me, they're 6 epochs, making me an Old earth creationist. it's not an important detail.
The CREATOR is the force, not the clock. Evolutionists need the clock for many billions of years for creatures to randomly evolve, they say.
I believe the Hubble constant indicates a younger universe.
To be as old as evolutionists want, the universe requires the existence of dark matter and dark energy, both never observed.
Anyway, I think the universe is a couple billion years old, as did Hubble. And that estimate doesn't need the extra unseen mass.

I'm unsure what Cheney meant by his statement.
We need to monitor weapons of mass destruction, where they are, who has them, whose offering for sale, and whose in the market to buy.
We need to monitor terrorist groups.
Anyone posing a threat to us, take them out preemptively and promptly.
As far as I am aware, our government does exactly those things.

An actuarial calculation of percentage of risk of terrorists acquiring these weapons, seems ridiculous. We need to KNOW if they do or don't or are about to.

If he intended it as an allegorical reference to climate change, it's equally ridiculous.

Climate change is real, natural, and always has been occurring. But it's not evil. Has no consciousness. Doesn't want to harm or destroy us, as terrorists do. AND, we can't kill it.

The article about why people reject human CO2 induced climate change is mildly interesting, but not very perceptive, and a bit insulting.

It presumes we are emotionally rather than logically rejecting AGW.

I think they are projecting, because I think AGWers are illogically emotionally obsessed with human induced climate change.

Here is my logical reasons for being anti-AGW.

Climate change has been occurring since forever. Never was connected to human activity in the past. Very unlikely connected now or in the future.

Maurice Strong, a self admitted socialist, and a known racketeer, started the "movement".
Strong recruited Al Gore. Recruited Mann. Recruited Hansen. and many more "lights" of the movement.

Do YOU respect M.Strong, first director of IPCC? He should be serving multiple consecutive life sentences.

The socialist party supports AGW and human induced climate change.

I have no respect for Strong and other socialists. They are enemies of the USA.

So anything they are involved with, I'm VERY suspicious of.

Then, the "science" and logic of human induced climate change is contrary to how I understand scientific method and contrary to logic as I learned it it college. Logic is one of the math classes I took. My degree is in Mathematical Science.

Statements of AGWers simply reek of fraud.
Like "The science is settled".and 'Consensus" science. Real science doesn't endorse/permit such attitudes.

Referring to those with opposing views as "deniers", intentionally attempting to connect us with those who deny the Jewish "holocaust" in Nazi Germany. .
Call us "flat earthers". And treating other scientists that disagree with hatred, and try to get them discredited and fired. This isn't science. it's vicious politics.

The operating PRINCIPLE of the IPCC and the purpose of the AGW climate computer models, are not scientific.
Not researching cause and effect, They've already DECIDED on the cause, without scientific basis.
The priory principle is humans ARE causing climate change and that's settled. It's unscientific BS!

And they really are opportunistic as I've mentioned numerous times.
Any storm, or flood, or drought, or melting ice, or super cold winter, or new temperature record somewhere, ALL caused by human CO2.
No research on the event, just prompt adamant assertions while it's still news.

And they make so many unverifiable assertions. Science experiments are supposed to be repeated by other scientists to verify or fail. Falibility is required in real science. There MUST be conditions where the hypothesis doesn't work.They aren't doing any experiments. Just studying/tweaking computer models and collecting and interpreting data. In many instances refuse to share the data, always refuse to share the model, and in all instances refuse/deny any alternative or opposing interpretations.

I can go on and on, but I'll conclude with this final observation.
The sides are politically arrayed. those on the left believe in AGW, while those on the right do not.

Science? Or politics?

I have very clear, concise logical reasons to disbelieve anything and everything AGWers say. I just listed a bunch of them.
Frankly, I can't understand anyone believing in AGW given the aforementioned evidence.

Except.
Except for F truth and T truth.
F truth, FEELS like the truth.
When asked for a source for these F-truths, people claim, they read it somewhere, or it's obvious, or self evident.
F truths are necessary for certain worldviews.

T-truth is true truth, actual facts. Provable true facts.

I think AGW and human induced climate change is an F truth to the 15% of Americans that believe in it. They HAVE to believe it, or their worldview crumbles.
Otherwise, I can't explain why they do or would believe such suspicious philosophy.
The evidence doesn't support it, although AGW scientists insists it does.

Did I answer your question?

 

Interesting article, NoEyeDeer. Here's another one that I found helpful, though I can't say as I have implemented the ideas effectively. It's hard to be tactful at times.

Psychologists Are Learning How to Convince Conservatives to Take Climate Change Seriously

 

Very definitely a liberal authored article and completely misses the mark.

"But that intuition is often flawed. If climate activists are serious about doing anything other than preaching to the choir, they’re going to have to understand that messages that feel righteous and work on liberals may not have universal appeal. To a liberal, the system isn’t working and innocent people will suffer as a result — these are blazingly obvious points. But conservatives have blazingly obvious points of their own: The system works and we need to protect it, and it’s important not to let pure things be defiled."

Conclusion of article excerpted just above is probably the only real truth to the article, except the part in red. part in red is total myth. Conservatives don't think that way.

Liberals are touchy/feely. They assume conservatives are touchy/feely too, just about other aspects/priorities than liberals. NO!
Conservatives are pragmatic.
Government screws things up and expensively. Solution: minimum government screws up less and costs less
Over spending causes inflation and increases debt. Cut spending.
Taxes are legalized theft. Cut taxes.
Strong military inhibits aggression. solution fund strong military
govt officials ignore laws encourages civil disobedience. solution enforce officials obey and enforce laws.
Individual rights are paramount, because ALL of us are individuals.
If the individual is free and safe, the group is free and safe.
If the individual's freedoms or safety is sacrificed for the common good, NOBODY is free or safe.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME!
AGW falls under this only a fool would trust you ever again rule.

There's more, but you get the pragmatic drift of conservative thought and logic.
We aren't touchy feely at ALL! We like facts. And firm rules. Like the constitution. Angry when it's ignored.

We are (despite the hype) concerned about innocents being harmed and think liberals are hypocrites when liberals claim to be the champions of innocents.
Yeah, I'm mentioning abortions here.