CASteinman Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 Is it worth it? For most of us yes, just on economics alone. If that is true, its not a big issue. It will follow automatically. The problem is, it is not exactly true.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 Agreed.If we have been commanded by God to good care of our earth. Then I suppose a good case can be made that if we willfully violate that commandment it is a reflection of our righteousness and ethics.Just depends on what people do with those guns and whom they hunt.Never known an animal being referred to as a "whom". But I get the implication you were seeking to make. In the county I live in there is one "bin".
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) Here is an interesting video, Barry Bickmore is a BYU geologist, he changed his mind because he is open minded Bytheway, Barry Bickmore is a Republican, he has no liberal agenda, seehttp://bbickmore.wordpress.com/about-this-blog/ Edited November 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
DJBrown Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Here is an interesting video, Barry Bickmore is a BYU geologist, he changed his mind because he is open minded Bytheway, Barry Bickmore is a Republican, he has no liberal agenda, seehttp://bbickmore.wordpress.com/about-this-blog/ Would be interested in a definition of "climate researcher."
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Would be interested in a definition of "climate researcher." 1. Someone that specializes in Climatology. 2. Someone that studies the climate using expensive tools and advance technology, not by reading blogs or think tanks.
ERayR Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 1. Someone that specializes in Climatology. 2. Someone that studies the climate using expensive tools and advance technology, not by reading blogs or think tanks. A farmer on his tractor in the middle of November trying to get his fall plowing done before the ground freezes up. Satisfies #1 as farmers are constantly monitoring the climate. Satisfies #2. Tractors are really expensive.
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 A farmer on his tractor in the middle of November trying to get his fall plowing done before the ground freezes up. Satisfies #1 as farmers are constantly monitoring the climate. Satisfies #2. Tractors are really expensive. #1 Farmers a constantly monitoring the weather, not the climate. #2 Wasting my time, please say something relevant.
thesometimesaint Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) A farmer on his tractor in the middle of November trying to get his fall plowing done before the ground freezes up. Satisfies #1 as farmers are constantly monitoring the climate. Satisfies #2. Tractors are really expensive. Weather is not climate.SEE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/weather-versus-climate-change-cosmos-video_n_5432366.html BTW November in the Southern Hemisphere is as warm as June in the Northern Hemisphere. Edited November 7, 2014 by thesometimesaint
DJBrown Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Here is an interesting video, Barry Bickmore is a BYU geologist, he changed his mind because he is open minded Bytheway, Barry Bickmore is a Republican, he has no liberal agenda, seehttp://bbickmore.wordpress.com/about-this-blog/ I would love it if somebody here who is a strong believer in anthropomorphic global warming would list what they view as the strongest evidences (maybe 1-3 evidences) for AGW. I am familiar with the science and arguments. But few people have 83 minutes to listen to video. I, personally, think it is entirely fiction.
thesometimesaint Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Here is a series of short video's that you might find time to watch.SEE http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/main-video/how-to-talk-to-an-ostrich
DJBrown Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Here is a series of short video's that you might find time to watch.SEE http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/main-video/how-to-talk-to-an-ostrich Are you willing to offer a simple list of what you think are the best evidences? There are sources on both sides of the argument and each piece of evidence.
ERayR Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Weather is not climate.SEE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/weather-versus-climate-change-cosmos-video_n_5432366.html BTW November in the Southern Hemisphere is as warm as June in the Northern Hemisphere. You do not recognize tongue in cheek. Besides it is as relevant as the simplistic videos offered up as evidence.
thesometimesaint Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) Are you willing to offer a simple list of what you think are the best evidences? There are sources on both sides of the argument and each piece of evidence. Sure; best non-video evidences CO2 traps heat.SEE http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm More CO2, more heat is trapped.SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm There is near universal consensus(97%) among scientists on AGW.SEE https://climate.nasagov/scientific-consensus/ Edited November 7, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Calm Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) Bytheway, Barry Bickmore is a Republican, he has no liberal agenda, seehttp://bbickmore.wordpress.com/about-this-blog/Liberal agendas are not the only agendas around.Where does it say he changed his mind? Edited November 7, 2014 by calmoriah
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Liberal agendas are not the only agendas around.Where does it say he changed his mind?Science doesn't care about politics
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 I would love it if somebody here who is a strong believer in anthropomorphic global warming would list what they view as the strongest evidences (maybe 1-3 evidences) for AGW. I am familiar with the science and arguments. But few people have 83 minutes to listen to video. I, personally, think it is entirely fiction. Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year. When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." I can cite many peer-reviewed papers from respected Journals, you want to see them?
DJBrown Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Sure; best non-video evidences CO2 traps heat.SEE http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm More CO2, more heat is trapped.SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm There is near universal consensus(97%) among scientists on AGW.SEE https://climate.nasagov/scientific-consensus/ That is not really what I am talking about. Engaging a topic is almost never possible when a person cannot or does not explain in his own words his position. I can post links that counter any links you post. What is the evidence, in your own words, of anthropomorphic global warming?
thesometimesaint Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 That is not really what I am talking about. Engaging a topic is almost never possible when a person cannot or does not explain in his own words his position. I can post links that counter any links you post. What is the evidence, in your own words, of anthropomorphic global warming? You asked for evidences, not opinions. I presented them, and substantiated them as presented by and accepted by actual scientists working in that field. Now you are changing the goal posts to suit your agenda. Sure as I already said 97% of the scientists working in that field agree that Global Warming is real and that human activities account for the recent rapid rise in global temperatures over the last 250 years or so. I can find links that claim man would never be in space or on the moon. Do you rally doubt that we have done those things?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 There is near universal consensus(97%) among scientists on AGW.SEE https://climate.nasagov/scientific-consensus/ This is so bad. Most of those people are not even in the "climate science" field. And this is directly form your link of those that "support it". Besides that there were 31,000 scientists that don't believe it. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 What a joke. I wonder if you actually bother to research stuff your self. Or is "I found it on the internets" good enough for you. Nasa is essentially lying when they are saying what they are saying.
Calm Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) Science doesn't care about politics "Science" is an abstract entity that doesn't care period. Science in the real world is just a system of gathering knowledge. OTOH, scientists do care and some a lot about politics from what I've seen, especially since that affects grant money. CFR on Bickmore changing his mind. Edited November 7, 2014 by calmoriah
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) "Science" is an abstract entity that doesn't care period. Science in the real world is just a system of gathering knowledge. OTOH, scientists do care and some a lot about politics from what I've seen, especially since that affects grant money.It is very hard to disprove conspiracy theories that are not falsifiable. 1. Climate Scientists from many different countries agree2. Retired climate scientists agree too (they don't need grants). 3. Peer-reviewed Journals 4. Independent studies do not care about grants, The Berkeley Earth Project (independent non-profit) has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa. http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings5. Former skeptics like Richard Muller do not care about grants. CFR on Bickmore changing his mind. See the video Besides that there were 31,000 scientists that don't believe it. Most of them are not climate scientists. Just 31,000 Scientists? There are 2 million scientists in the USA alone. Edited November 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Ares Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Don't turn this thread into a political debate too. Mormonfreethinker you are on limited.
Calm Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) See the video It is an hour and 23 minutes. Give me a time to look at, otherwise that is like pointing to a whole book and saying read that when asked for the reference of a quote where you are supposed to give a page number. Edited November 7, 2014 by calmoriah
ELF1024 Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 The words of George Bernard Shaw come to mind. Sure; best non-video evidences CO2 traps heat.SEE http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm More CO2, more heat is trapped.SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm There is near universal consensus(97%) among scientists on AGW.SEE https://climate.nasagov/scientific-consensus/ These are likely sources that "Free Thinker" will claim do not meet his qualifications for evidence. The so called 97% consensus has been debunked. CO2 Climate Sensitivity is overestimated by the IPCC by about 7 times. Antartic Sea Ice at Record Levels Arctic Sea Ice has begun to Recover “Long-lost” satellite images shed new light on global sea ice…enormous holes found in the Arctic ice back in the 1960′s No Warming in 16 years, says Climate Scientists ClimateGate Link Between Climate and Solar Cycles. Land Based Temperature Data Molested by Climate Scientists Temperature Bias due to poor station placement RSS (Satellite Temperature Record) shows no global warming for 18 years Michael Mann, the Prophet of Global Warming, who Free Thinker claimed was not a Climate Scientist... has fraudulent claimed to be a Nobel laureate on many occasions. New EPA regulations would reduce global temperatures in 2050 by less than a hundredth of a degree. Anyway, linked my peace... out. 1
Recommended Posts