- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Biden tapping Bill Nye the 'not really a' science guy
Posted on 9/27/23 at 11:02 am to Peebles
Posted on 9/27/23 at 11:02 am to Peebles
quote:That would depend on the cause of interglacial warming, little ice age climate flux, the medieval warm period, etc. and our ability to predict repetition. Any ideas as to causation in those instances?
Zero predictive ability.
1
Posted on 9/27/23 at 11:18 am to Jbird
quote:Religion. If it can’t be measured, its faith. Any priest would be proud of a congregate with half that much faith.
Amazing isn't it?
This post was edited on 9/27/23 at 11:20 am
Posted on 9/27/23 at 11:28 am to Peebles
quote:Well Peebles, that becomes an error of omission vs commission equation. We in science have a duty to correct public misperception. It is one reason I suppose you are posting in these threads.
Which ones are those? Do they have names?
When prominent individuals make false statements such as "the science is settled" or "the era of global boiling has arrived," we owe the public a duty to call those misstatements out. Perhaps, this being more your field than mine, you can list the field experts who openly criticized those scientifically absurd statements?
When individuals doing independent research, questioning hypotheses as opposed folding in with "consensus," are defunded, shunned, and deplatformed, we in science should not and cannot tolerate the breach in method.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 11:37 am to Peebles
quote:
Peebles
Your snarkiness has allowed you to get too far over your skis. A nice trifecta of snark/gaslighting/strawman you have going here:
quote:
1) Pick one: a) global warming is natural b) the globe is cooling
Surely you don't deny that the geologic record is absolutely RIFE with examples of warming (and cooling) that are "natural" (for the record, human beings are natural, but I'll take as a given you mean "not man-made" with your usage here)? I mean, do you deny this? For that matter, do you deny that there are at least some "natural" inputs to any current/recent warming trends?
quote:
2) Pick one: a) too many volcanos b) not enough volcanos
Again, you don't seriously deny volcanic activity as a significant driver of climate change, both before humans arrived and after?
quote:
3) Pick one: a) The Earth is 4.5 billion years old b) the Earth is 5000 years old.
quote:
4) Select all that apply: a) the Sun b) a thermodynamic law chosen at random c) the greenhouse effect doesn't exist d) the climate changed without man before e) orbital cycles
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a trace atmospheric gas REQUIRED for life as we know it to exist on this planet. If anything, a little too little CO2 would be a much bigger problem than a little too much.
#Facts
Posted on 9/27/23 at 12:34 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a trace atmospheric gas REQUIRED for life as we know it to exist on this planet. If anything, a little too little CO2 would be a much bigger problem than a little too much.
It ain't a little too much. Sorry. Try again.Posted on 9/27/23 at 12:42 pm to Peebles
quote:Goodness, you're just plowing ahead, aren't you? "It ain't a little too much" by what measure? By the extraordinarily low quaternary baseline?
It ain't a little too much. Sorry. Try again.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 12:47 pm to NC_Tigah
The total mass of carbon pumped up from underground into the atmosphere is approximately equal to the total mass of all the living plant matter on Earth.
If you think that's just a tiny bit, I can't help you.
If you think that's just a tiny bit, I can't help you.
This post was edited on 9/27/23 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 9/27/23 at 12:51 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Well Peebles, that becomes an error of omission vs commission equation. We in science have a duty to correct public misperception. It is one reason I suppose you are posting in these threads.
When prominent individuals make false statements such as "the science is settled" or "the era of global boiling has arrived," we owe the public a duty to call those misstatements out. Perhaps, this being more your field than mine, you can list the field experts who openly criticized those scientifically absurd statements?
When individuals doing independent research, questioning hypotheses as opposed folding in with "consensus," are defunded, shunned, and deplatformed, we in science should not and cannot tolerate the breach in method.
listen dude, I'm not gonna sit here pretend like he meant 'boiling' literally, as in 100 degrees Celsius, and I'm not gonna pretend like you don't know that, either. Sorry! Find someone else to play 'gotcha' with.Posted on 9/27/23 at 1:37 pm to Peebles
What are the correct CO2 levels for the atmosphere?
Are those levels achievable?
At what cost?
Are those levels achievable?
At what cost?
This post was edited on 9/27/23 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 9/27/23 at 2:23 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
What are the correct CO2 levels for the atmosphere?
Interesting question. What have you been able to find out so far ?
Posted on 9/27/23 at 2:27 pm to Peebles
Another non answer.
Shocked
Shocked
Posted on 9/27/23 at 2:29 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
That would depend on the cause of interglacial warming, little ice age climate flux, the medieval warm period, etc. and our ability to predict repetition. Any ideas as to causation in those instances?
There's no such thing as "Little Ice Age climate flux". Sorry, not a thing. Posted on 9/27/23 at 2:30 pm to Jbird
quote:
Another non answer.
Sorry I'm not going to think for you.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 2:32 pm to Peebles
Lol such excellent debate
Posted on 9/27/23 at 2:39 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
We in science have a duty to correct public misperception
Lol, pangolins. A pangolin infected the entire world with a virus that never showed up in them before.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 3:10 pm to Jbird
quote:
Lol such excellent debate
I did not come here for a debate.
But I could be up for one, regarding some aspect of science, under the right circumstances. But that would actually require someone to form an argument against or in favor of something. I haven't seen any of that. It appears to me, the armchair scientists here are only interested in interrogations and gotchas and I'm not really interested in any of that.
If you're gonna ask a question and haven't bothered to do any background research at all that might help lead to an answer, and you're not willing to share what you have found out so far in search of that answer, then I don't care. You've got nothing to offer anyone. I'm not going to engage with that level of laziness, sorry, I'm just not gonna do it.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:04 pm to Ace Midnight
This is real data from real empirical science and not some computer simulation rife with unknowns.
Yeah, CO2 is important plant food.
Yeah, CO2 is important plant food.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:05 pm to Peebles
I asked two simple questions of you
You are convinced of your global warming stance
You can't even address the questions.
You are convinced of your global warming stance
You can't even address the questions.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:44 pm to Peebles
quote:LOL. In that vein, if you're engaging this discussion unaware of past atmospheric CO2 levels, you should scoot to the OT. During the vast majority of Earth's history atmospheric CO2 levels were 3 to 5 fold higher than at present, and occasionally much higher than that.
If you think that's just a tiny bit, I can't help you.
If you're a believer in CO2 driven climate change, and you understand the nature of an ice age, you might ask yourself if higher CO2 could in fact return the planet to its more natural nonstadial state. That isn't my position, but it would seem AGW warmists would consider the premise.
To be clear though, I'm not a fan of excess CO2 emissions. Nor am I a proponent of creating destabilizing panic, and racing to lithium mining/pollution in support of a forced transition to electric cars when hydrogen technology is right around the corner. I'm a pragmatist that way.
Meanwhile, the concocted CO2 crisis and anti-fossil-fuel cult led us away from cleaner NatGas infrastructure build-outs and utility. Because resultant demand is so low relative to supply, it is often cheaper to flare NatGas at well sites rather than capture and transport it. Same atmospheric CO2 exposure; no utility; absolutely ridiculous!
That is where warmist BS has taken us.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 5:04 pm to Peebles
quote:Oh my. Here I'll help you.
There's no such thing as "Little Ice Age climate flux". Sorry, not a thing.
The Little Ice Age was a period of cooler climate that occurred roughly from the 14th century to the mid-19th century. It was characterized by cooling global climate patterns. Temperatures fluctuated with periods of more intense cooling unevenly impacting global regions. The effects were most pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere.
During the Little Ice Age, European and North American glaciers advanced and grew in size, creating various new glacial features such as moraines and fjords.
The climate fluctuations had a significant impact on agriculture, causing food shortages and famines, and had far-reaching social and economic consequences. Crop failures led to food shortages, which, in turn, contributed to social unrest and migration. E.g., There is some evidence the Little Ice Age played a role in events like the French Revolution.
The Little Ice Age gradually declined during the 19th century, with temperatures warming and glaciers retreating. The warming trend continued into the 20th and 21st centuries where it merged into AGW warmist theory.
Page 8 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News