Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
Thanks Tree21Thanks

Thread: One Good Reason Americans Don't Know Much About Climate Change

  1. #21
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Senior Member RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    11,037
    Thanks
    6731

    From
    Between everywhere
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Wrong.

    See how useless just stating something as fact is?




    BECAUSE?
    That is a totally incorrect summary of what climate scientists did say and are saying. But you chose not to listen to them. You believe the flunkies bought and paid for by Exxon and The Heritage Foundation, you know, the guys who suppressed their own research proving AGW and the guys that spent tens of millions saying that smoking is healthy.

    Or you chose to remember the ludicrous claims of wild eyed environmentalists, stupid science reporters and political activists because in your mind they justify your ignorance.

    But real science is totally foreign to you.
    Thanks from OldGaffer

  2. #22
    Veteran Member cpicturetaker12's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    28,674
    Thanks
    20584

    From
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Is because even our college science textbooks don't discuss it very much:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0430160459.htm
    TEXAS likely minimized or forbade it's discussion. I'm being glib but when it came to textbooks, as goes Texas, so goes the country. Now that is high school! Who/what is exerting pressure on college textbook writers?
    Last edited by cpicturetaker12; 14th May 2018 at 07:57 PM.

  3. #23
    Veteran Member cpicturetaker12's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    28,674
    Thanks
    20584

    From
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Paris View Post
    You don't need no stinking science when you have that good ole Jesus to save your lot.
    Afterall Jesus didn't need no stinking science books.

  4. #24
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    21,412
    Thanks
    3363

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    That is a totally incorrect summary of what climate scientists did say and are saying. But you chose not to listen to them. You believe the flunkies bought and paid for by Exxon and The Heritage Foundation, you know, the guys who suppressed their own research proving AGW and the guys that spent tens of millions saying that smoking is healthy.

    Or you chose to remember the ludicrous claims of wild eyed environmentalists, stupid science reporters and political activists because in your mind they justify your ignorance.

    But real science is totally foreign to you.
    Actually, I've looked at many of the studies to see if the headlines are justified. Often they are not.

    Many times, to accomplish the effects described requires concentrations multiple times atmospheric concentrations.

    In other cases, only positive feedback a were considered, negative feedbacks get minimized or omitted.

    A feedback loop is a lossy system.

    Water vapour has a stronger effect than co2, that's controlled by temperature and pressure primarily.

    Cities make for massive heat sinks. That's because of materials more than co2. (Also, artificial sources).

    I'll say it again because it's important:

    --------
    The only objectively provable contention of climate science is that, all other things being equal, a jar with co2 in higher concentration will trap more heat than a container with less co2.
    -------

    Anything beyond that exists only in models and hypothesis.

  5. #25
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Senior Member RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    11,037
    Thanks
    6731

    From
    Between everywhere
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Actually, I've looked at many of the studies to see if the headlines are justified. Often they are not.

    Many times, to accomplish the effects described requires concentrations multiple times atmospheric concentrations.

    In other cases, only positive feedback a were considered, negative feedbacks get minimized or omitted.

    A feedback loop is a lossy system.

    Water vapour has a stronger effect than co2, that's controlled by temperature and pressure primarily.

    Cities make for massive heat sinks. That's because of materials more than co2. (Also, artificial sources).

    I'll say it again because it's important:

    --------
    The only objectively provable contention of climate science is that, all other things being equal, a jar with co2 in higher concentration will trap more heat than a container with less co2.
    -------

    Anything beyond that exists only in models and hypothesis.
    What sources did you use to investigate the studies? And computer model after computer model disproves the false claim that water vapor is the driving mechanism.

    How are cities heat sinks. If anything, with the concentration of energy being consumed and all of it degenerating to heat, they are the opposite, they are heat emitters.

    I doubt you read the actual papers published. You strike me as more of a Wattsupwiththat type.
    Thanks from OldGaffer

  6. #26
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,125
    Thanks
    30551

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    Getting to weird. Who disputes the periodic table?
    Oh, you'd be surprised.

    That line, that "wood is wood is wood, no matter'n how much ya chop it up"? Well, that's not an original with me.

    I heard it one fine Sunday morning, when I was channel surfing on my TV, and came across a TV evangelist who was in a fine lather, ranting and raving against science. At the moment, he was ranting and raving against the atomic theory of matter. But he then went on to issue a broadside against the heliocentric theory of the Solar System, insisting that the Earth really WAS at the center of everything, just as God intended. I probably missed the first part of his sermon, which I bet was full of dire talk about ape-men and such.

    Anyone who doesn't think there is a War on Science going on in this country just isn't paying attention.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    21,412
    Thanks
    3363

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    What sources did you use to investigate the studies? And computer model after computer model disproves the false claim that water vapor is the driving mechanism.

    How are cities heat sinks. If anything, with the concentration of energy being consumed and all of it degenerating to heat, they are the opposite, they are heat emitters.

    I doubt you read the actual papers published. You strike me as more of a Wattsupwiththat type.
    There is not a better source to refute global warming alarmism than a AGW alarmist paper that's been peer reviewed, at least not with as much consistency.

  8. #28
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    42,052
    Thanks
    44282

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    There is not a better source to refute global warming alarmism than a AGW alarmist paper that's been peer reviewed, at least not with as much consistency.
    You need to go down to Miami and tell these people there is no climate change and they are just imagining their fucking city is going underwater.


  9. #29
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    21,412
    Thanks
    3363

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    You need to go down to Miami and tell these people there is no climate change and they are just imagining their fucking city is going underwater.

    You need to relax, take a breath.

    Temperatures change, water when it gets cold becomes ice. When it warms up after winter that ice melts.

  10. #30
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Senior Member RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    11,037
    Thanks
    6731

    From
    Between everywhere
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    There is not a better source to refute global warming alarmism than a AGW alarmist paper that's been peer reviewed, at least not with as much consistency.
    Link?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 8th August 2017, 06:00 AM
  2. Replies: 53
    Last Post: 18th January 2017, 07:24 AM
  3. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 3rd May 2016, 08:03 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2nd March 2016, 04:41 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed