Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Now politics in the fundamental science global warming.

    Still waiting for a sound scientific argument with references that support any alternative scenario.
    Since you wouldn't recognize science if it walked up and bit you, why bother? We both know you're just trolling anyway - evidently you're too dumb to distinguish the political argument.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Since you wouldn't recognize science if it walked up and bit you, why bother? We both know you're just trolling anyway - evidently you're too dumb to distinguish the political argument.
      A perfect reflection of Teallaura.

      I will just continue to cite peer reviewed research articles on climate change while you resort to personal attacks and cite nothing in support of your assertions,
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-21-2019, 08:42 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        A perfect reflection of Teallaura.

        I will just continue to cite peer reviewed research articles on climate change while you resort to personal attacks and cite nothing in support of your assertions,
        You never cite anything - you just post one part, say you're going to post more, never do and pout for the rest of the thread - oh, and declare you're waiting for something superfluous.

        I truly don't know or care why you decided to hate me - and it frankly doesn't matter. But since I know it's just your hatred talking, I can't be bothered to take you seriously.

        You're not even irritating enough to put on ignore - you're just a pathetic guy I trade barbs with when bored.
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
          You're absolutely right Cow Poke ...
          Suck up.

          ... though per capita its the US.
          *it's

          And that's not right, either.

          2019-11-22_07-18-18.jpg
          2019-11-22_07-23-51.jpg

          Per capita differentiates between developed and developing countries, principally, when we're using "developing" as a euphemism. When we're using "developing" descriptively, China, now, (and India, soon) is on par in emissions with major developing countries.

          Not on par with the US, though.

          Saudi tops the list because of its refineries. I've discussed that.

          I agree though that China needs to step up.
          Suck up.

          The numbers say you're in a good position to tell the US to step up.

          Your post says you ain't got the stones.

          Nobody in a country alone in abandoning the Paris agreement, led be a man who's never read it and won't listen to those who have, who's on record calling climate change a hoax and blaming that hoax on China, in a country pushing out 15T per person — more than twice the contribution of the average Chinese — deserves a defense when lecturing anyone else on addressing climate change.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            You never cite anything - you just post one part, say you're going to post more, never do and pout for the rest of the thread - oh, and declare you're waiting for something superfluous.

            I truly don't know or care why you decided to hate me - and it frankly doesn't matter. But since I know it's just your hatred talking, I can't be bothered to take you seriously.


            You're not even irritating enough to put on ignore - you're just a pathetic guy I trade barbs with when bored.
            I do not hate you, nor have I resorted to the consistent acrid persistent personal attacks that are your modus operendi.

            Being put on ignore would be a welcome blessing. I believe oxmixmudd agrees! As with others your acrid personal attacks are neither meaningful nor productive Your neglecting the thread http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...te-change-2019 where I do post the peer reviewed science, and articles that refer to peer reviewed research on Global Warming. This thread is more a trash talk thread, with little in the way of science and constructive dialogue. Also, in previous threads Other Twebers and I have posted many peer reviewed articles and relevant research. You have cited nothing in response.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-22-2019, 08:38 AM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              I do not hate you,
              Sure you do - you go out of your way to attack me personally every chance you get. It's a lot noticeable - so much so that while I'd normally grant you know your mind better than I do (and I've never known you to outright lie) your behavior simply doesn't fit any other explanation.




              nor have I resorted to the consistent acrid persistent personal attacks that are your modus operendi.
              You start it in virtually every thread we interact in - including this one. Attacking me personally seems to be a hobby of yours.

              Being put on ignore would be a welcome blessing.
              Work harder then, I guess.


              I believe oxmixmudd agrees!
              Not last I saw, but whatever.

              As with others your acrid personal attacks are neither meaningful nor productive
              Oh I don't know about that - you've learned to spell 'acrid' correctly. We still have to work on 'your/you're'.



              Your neglecting
              See? It's 'you are' or 'you're'. Contractions are hybrids of two words - helps if you think of them that way.


              the thread http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...te-change-2019 where I do post the peer reviewed science, and articles that refer to peer reviewed research on Global Warming.
              Wasn't that the one where I asked like six times where the rest of it was after you said
              in the OP you would be posting it? And you squabbled over nitpicks rather than debate the substance like you usually do?

              This thread is more a trash talk thread, with little in the way of science and constructive dialogue. Also, in previous threads Other Twebers and I have posted many peer reviewed articles and relevant research. You have cited nothing in response.
              I'm only here to see if Roy gets back to me (which isn't necessary - I think we're pretty much done) and I found that part helpful as well as some interesting things in the Strawberry's stuff. Your (possessive!) usual acrimonious self just decided to go on the attack for no legitimate reason. You're (you are!) just being a jerk as usual, with your (possessive!) obsessive need to burn the heretics which creates no obligation whatsoever on me.

              You're (you are) welcome!
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                Canada used to produce more CO2 than West Germany, and also more than East Germany. But after reunification, Germany produced more CO2 than Canada. Does that mean Germany became a worse polluter than Canada overnight?
                Actually yes - because Germany became a new entity overnight. And in real terms, yes again - producing more pollution is a 'bigger polluter' than producing less.
                They aren't producing more pollution. They're producing exactly the same amount of pollution, you're just counting it differently.
                The US produces more CO2 than the EU - but if California seceded, it wouldn't. Would Californian secession somehow make both California and the rest of the US better than the EU regarding emissions?
                All that does is divide responsibility - the pollution is the same. [/quote]You've just contradicted yourself.

                If splitting a country in two is just dividing responsibility, then joining two countries is just combining responsibility.
                This use of per capita is a political issue then - now it makes sense.
                It's not a political issue. Its a means of removing the effect of disparity in size in order to make useful and meaningful comparisons.

                And it introduces the problem of chasing the hole rather than the rabbit. The goal is reduction of overall volume - not per capita production.
                Same thing. You can't reduce the overall volume without also reducing the per capita production both locally and globally.* And if the per capita production is reduced in some areas, the overall volume will also be reduced.
                It's a bit of political chicanery to focus attention away from the actual problem, overall volume, to the 'bad guys'.
                In this case, the chicanery has successfully focused your attention away from the fact that the average American produces twice as much pollution as the average Chinese, and nearly ten times as much as the average Indian.


                *Technically you can do this by reducing the population, but I can't see that happening before pollution becomes a much bigger problem, and then it'll be invol.
                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  I do not hate you....
                  On that note, Shuny, I have elsewhere on this board been accused of calling you a moron. Not only did I NEVER call you a moron, I never thought you were one.

                  It was, in fact, supposedly made more horrific due to your current condition - whatever that may be - "senior issues"? Since I'm unaware of what that "condition" may be, that was a steaming pile of poo as well.

                  I often disagree with you, but I have never thought of you as a moron, or anything close.

                  I wish you the very best.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    On that note, Shuny, I have elsewhere on this board been accused of calling you a moron. Not only did I NEVER call you a moron, I never thought you were one.

                    It was, in fact, supposedly made more horrific due to your current condition - whatever that may be - "senior issues"? Since I'm unaware of what that "condition" may be, that was a steaming pile of poo as well.

                    I often disagree with you, but I have never thought of you as a moron, or anything close.

                    I wish you the very best.
                    The "senior issues" are a myth, and an unfortunate slanderous accusations without merit with an unfortunate agenda, which I fully previously explained. I just finished a rather grueling field work assignment with 2020 census, and promoted to supervisory Quality Control after three months. Some younger employees could not complete the assignment.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      The "senior issues" are a myth, and an unfortunate slanderous accusations without merit with an unfortunate agenda, which I fully previously explained.
                      Then it appears you were slandered as was I. My apologies for bringing that up.

                      I just finished a rather grueling field work assignment with 2020 census, and promoted to supervisory Quality Control after three months. Some younger employees could not complete the assignment.
                      Much of it has to do with work ethic, I'd suspect.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        My apologies for bringing that up.
                        Patent pending.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                          They aren't producing more pollution. They're producing exactly the same amount of pollution, you're just counting it differently.
                          No, look again at what you wrote. You said Germany was producing more after reunification. I thought it a bit odd but figured EG simply ramped up faster so they produced more pollution.

                          Originally posted by me
                          All that does is divide responsibility - the pollution is the same.
                          You've just contradicted yourself.
                          No, I didn't - here the volume remains the same, unlike the Germany example.

                          If splitting a country in two is just dividing responsibility, then joining two countries is just combining responsibility.
                          Yep, pretty much.

                          It's not a political issue. Its a means of removing the effect of disparity in size in order to make useful and meaningful comparisons.
                          Um, that is by definition political. I'll grant it can be looked at from the science standpoint, but it has no effect on climate itself, as we agreed previously.

                          Same thing. You can't reduce the overall volume without also reducing the per capita production both locally and globally.*
                          Interlinked, granted - but not the same thing. Not sure the conclusion here is necessarily true but it seems likely in most instances.


                          And if the per capita production is reduced in some areas, the overall volume will also be reduced.
                          Yes - but that is true regardless of the per capita level. It doesn't make using per capita a good metric for climate science.

                          In this case, the chicanery has successfully focused your attention away from the fact that the average American produces twice as much pollution as the average Chinese, and nearly ten times as much as the average Indian.
                          And yours away from the US' actual reductions. More to the point, this isn't static - and is potentially counterproductive. The average American isn't going to vote for a reduction in his standard of living. The average Chinese and the average Indian aren't going to vote for their standards of living to stay at present levels, either. Playing 'you're the bad guy' works the same in international relations as it did picking sides when we were kids - causes a fuss, feelings get hurt, and someone takes the ball and goes home - then nobody gets to play.

                          Which also creates a problem dealing with overall volume politically. The US isn't nearly as likely to pitch a fit as China is - but neither is the American public willing to endlessly be the fall guy.



                          *Technically you can do this by reducing the population, but I can't see that happening before pollution becomes a much bigger problem, and then it'll be invol.
                          Yeah - no. This makes no sense at all - we did a pretty massive population reduction between the turn of the last century and the late 1950's. The concept seems plausible but the reality didn't cause a major reduction - at least not on any graph I've seen.
                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            Yeah - no. This makes no sense at all - we did a pretty massive population reduction between the turn of the last century and the late 1950's. The concept seems plausible but the reality didn't cause a major reduction - at least not on any graph I've seen.
                            Laura ...
                            emissions = pop * emissions / pop
                            (emissions / pop = per capita emissions)

                            To reduce emissions, one of the factors needs to get smaller, pop, or per capita emissions. That's all he's saying.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                              Laura ...
                              emissions = pop * emissions / pop
                              (emissions / pop = per capita emissions)

                              To reduce emissions, one of the factors needs to get smaller, pop, or per capita emissions. That's all he's saying.
                              I got that. We lost adult population - a lot of it - in that period but no drop in emissions that shows up on the graphs I've seen (many of them here). Babies aren't big consumers. So either this doesn't work the way it would seem it should (admit it, an 800 year lag would be hysterically funny here - got a time machine? ), we need to kill a lot more people to move those graphs (which is bad for the crisis theory), or you guys are posting the wrong graphs (okay, might not just be you guys, but it's funnier this way ).
                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Quill Sword

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                                I got that. We lost adult population - a lot of it - in that period but no drop in emissions that shows up on the graphs I've seen (many of them here). Babies aren't big consumers. So either this doesn't work the way it would seem it should (admit it, an 800 year lag would be hysterically funny here - got a time machine? ), we need to kill a lot more people to move those graphs (which is bad for the crisis theory), or you guys are posting the wrong graphs (okay, might not just be you guys, but it's funnier this way ).
                                Equations don't care if you can't figure out why your numbers don't work.

                                I'm not seeing your population decline.

                                2019-11-22_19-53-35.jpg

                                You're right that it's the total emissions that matter, and we can split up the emissions into emissions per country, too.
                                emissions = sum (country pop * country per capita emissions)

                                You can't take the country per capitas out of it, because countries aren't going to sign on to emissions caps that don't account for their population.

                                The reality is that developing countries, like India and China, independent of their total contributions, are demanding the right to do what we did to get where we are. And to do what we're doing now once they get there.

                                That includes a per capita consumption much larger than their own.

                                So our challenge is to find ways to drive down our own per capitas without wrecking the economy or crippling our living standards. That can be done. What we can't do is drive them down without crippling the fossil fuel industry.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X