PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on November 01, 2015, 05:25:11 PM
-
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071
Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a[/size]–1[/color], [/font][/color]
[/size][/color][/size]I thought it was clear to everyone that the Antarctic ice sheet was melting, not gaining mass...[/color]
-
Amazing isn't it? Man Made Global Climate Change is the biggest hoax ever. Governments, and politicians figured out that just taxing people more may be unpopular so they thought up a "good" reason to confiscate even more money from the productive. Let's SAVE THE PLANET! Then they got a bunch of useful idiots to believe in this goofy religion.
-
http://conservativenewsroom.com/values/could-this-engineers-discovery-destroy-climate-change-argument/
-
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071
Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a[/size]–1[/color], [/font][/color]
[/size][/color][/size]I thought it was clear to everyone that the Antarctic ice sheet was melting, not gaining mass...[/color]
Wait. When I put ice in my Gin, I get a very noticeable Gin Level Rise (GLR). So wouldn't the increasing Antarctic Ice (not the ice on the continent but the ice in the Antarctic Ocean) cause sea levels to rise, just like my GLR?
I say let's melt that place to minimize sea level rise!
-
http://conservativenewsroom.com/values/could-this-engineers-discovery-destroy-climate-change-argument/
Conservative News Room? Pfffft. I'm not going to even read it as it's obviously Faux.
:)
OK, that was my attempt at being a Spin Zone liberal. How did I do?
-
Conservative News Room? Pfffft. I'm not going to even read it as it's obviously Faux.
:)
OK, that was my attempt at being a Spin Zone liberal. How did I do?
You did scaringly well. :D
-
First of all, science is never truly settled. It's constantly evolving to provide the most reasonable conclusions based on present information. That's a good thing.
Second, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting climate change. You can argue about how involved the government should get, what moral obligations we have to try to affect it, and other matters of opinion, but simply denying it is ignorant. It's intellectually dishonest to cherry pick one metric that appears to counter consensus, in the face of a mountain of evidence that concurs with the consensus, and conclude it's a hoax.
-
Don't come in here with your single post count just to disagree with our "experts". ;D
You must work for the GubMent.
-
First of all, science is never truly settled. It's constantly evolving to provide the most reasonable conclusions based on present information. That's a good thing.
Second, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting climate change. You can argue about how involved the government should get, what moral obligations we have to try to affect it, and other matters of opinion, but simply denying it is ignorant. It's intellectually dishonest to cherry pick one metric that appears to counter consensus, in the face of a mountain of evidence that concurs with the consensus, and conclude it's a hoax.
Nice straw man. Right out of the box.
There isn't one person that I know they denies that the climate is changing. As it always has since the earth was born, and will forever more.
Where we disagree is (1) man's impact on the climate, as compared to other factors such as that giant ball of gas that bombards earth with 174,000 terawatts of solar radiation; and (2) whether government "solutions" (i.e. tax the rich people in the wealthy nations) are nothing more than a not-really-veiled attempt to redistribute global wealth.
-
Nice straw man. Right out of the box.
That wasn't my intention. My fault for being vague. Let me clarify:
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting that man has influenced climate change. You can argue about how involved the government should get, what moral obligations we have to try to affect it, and other matters of opinion, but simply denying it is ignorant.
-
That wasn't my intention. My fault for being vague. Let me clarify:
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting that man has influenced climate change. You can argue about how involved the government should get, what moral obligations we have to try to affect it, and other matters of opinion, but simply denying it is ignorant.
There is NOT an overwhelming amount of evidence that man has influenced climate. The evidence that has been trotted out are flawed models with bad assumptions in order to get the outcome they want. The hockey stick graph and the like is pure BS.
-
Nice straw man. Right out of the box.
That wasn't my intention. My fault for being vague. Let me clarify:
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting that man has influenced climate change. You can argue about how involved the government should get, what moral obligations we have to try to affect it, and other matters of opinion, but simply denying it is ignorant.
Ahhhh. The "you are ignorant for daring to doubt the socialist experts," defense.
Poorly presented, fallaciously defended, and rediculously conceived.
Goo start.
-
Yes, you're ignorant for doubting both the mountain of evidence and the very strong consensus of experts who know far more about the topic than you do without any evidential reason to do so.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Could the consensus be wrong? Sure, there's certainly a small chance of that. However, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that man is a factor in global climate change.
What do you have to support your position that the research is wrong? If you can counter with strong evidence to the contrary, I encourage you to publish your research. You'd change the world.
-
Ahhh...the do census of 77 cherry-picked scientists.
-
Yes, you're ignorant for doubting both the mountain of evidence and the very strong consensus of experts who know far more about the topic than you do without any evidential reason to do so.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Could the consensus be wrong? Sure, there's certainly a small chance of that. However, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that man is a factor in global climate change.
What do you have to support your position that the research is wrong? If you can counter with strong evidence to the contrary, I encourage you to publish your research. You'd change the world.
Why argue it? I'll concede, man is a factor, so what?
-
Why argue it? I'll concede, man is a factor, so what?
That's all I'm trying to get across.
I'm not that interested in climate policy, but in general, I can't stand when people base their political ideologies on clearly anti-intellectual viewpoints. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.
-
Why argue it? I'll concede, man is a factor, so what?
That's all I'm trying to get across.
I'm not that interested in climate policy, but in general, I can't stand when people base their political ideologies on clearly anti-intellectual viewpoints. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.
Are you so angry because you just found out that it is still legal to refuse to drink the socialist kook-aid?
-
What I don't get is:
The Earth for all practical purposes is a closed system, meaning nothing gained or lost by any actors ON the surface. We take stuff from underground, put it on top of the ground, change the form of materials by burning them (combined with Oxygen - part of our atmosphere) and take things from one part of the globe to another part. The net change (for practicality's sake) is still zero.
-
Why argue it? I'll concede, man is a factor, so what?
That's all I'm trying to get across.
I'm not that interested in climate policy, but in general, I can't stand when people base their political ideologies on clearly anti-intellectual viewpoints. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.
Ummm...I presented facts, in a peer reviewed journal no doubt that completely contradicts the "consensus"
The only "science" that operates by consensus is political science, not any real science.
-
What I don't get is:
The Earth for all practical purposes is a closed system, meaning nothing gained or lost by any actors ON the surface. We take stuff from underground, put it on top of the ground, change the form of materials by burning them (combined with Oxygen - part of our atmosphere) and take things from one part of the globe to another part. The net change (for practicality's sake) is still zero.
As far as matter goes, it's true that we don't gain or lose much. It's practically a zero sum game.
However, we don't have a matter problem, we have an energy problem. As far as energy goes, the planet is not a closed system. We get a very large amount of energy from the sun. Maintaining the relative equilibrium that we've come to over the ages requires that a certain amount of that energy is released back out into space.
The problem that we're facing now is that we're keeping more of that energy, due to the increasing greenhouse effect of the environment, and this is heating the planet.
Humans aren't creating the energy, but we are contributing towards changes in the atmosphere that are keeping the energy in our system instead of letting it be released back into space.
-
Ummm...I presented facts, in a peer reviewed journal no doubt
I don't take issue with that...
that completely contradicts the "consensus"
...but it doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming.
It's intellectually dishonest, or at best, simply narrow-minded, to assume that one simple metric invalidates the massive evidence to the contrary, the evidence that makes it obvious that our planet is warming.
-
Ummm...I presented facts, in a peer reviewed journal no doubt
I don't take issue with that...
that completely contradicts the "consensus"
...but it doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming.
It's intellectually dishonest, or at best, simply narrow-minded, to assume that one simple metric invalidates the massive evidence to the contrary, the evidence that makes it obvious that our planet is warming.
You're going back to your straw man again! :mad:
You're just a snob who thinks they know more than anyone else, and presume that someone who questions man's impact on climate is also a knuckle-dragger who doesn't believes that climate changes.
Are you going to rephrase again like you did in post 10, or are you just going to admit that you think you know more than everyone else?
-
You're going back to your straw man again! :mad:
I was responding to the guy who started the thread, specifically about the post he started the thread with.
I assumed he was referring to global warming's affect on the Artic ice sheet. If I'm incorrect about that, I apologize for mischaracterizing the point he was trying to make. Maybe he's just an Arctic ice sheet enthusiast.
-
ANTARCTICA IS GROWING NOT SHRINKING
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/11/antarctica-ice-640x480.jpg)
Antarctica is growing not shrinking, according to the latest study from NASA. Furthermore, instead of contributing to rising sea levels, the still-very-much-frozen southern continent is actually reducing them by 0.23 mm per year.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/02/nasa-shock-study-antarctica-growing-not-shrinking/
-
^^^^^Look, look! You can actually see the global warming research ship, and all the ice breakers stuck in the ice!!!
-
That's not impressive...they took that picture in the winter, and it will melt again in the summer. ;D
-
Why argue it? I'll concede, man is a factor, so what?
Ban humans!
-
Yes, you're ignorant for doubting both the mountain of evidence and the very strong consensus of experts who know far more about the topic than you do without any evidential reason to do so.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Could the consensus be wrong? Sure, there's certainly a small chance of that. However, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that man is a factor in global climate change.
What do you have to support your position that the research is wrong? If you can counter with strong evidence to the contrary, I encourage you to publish your research. You'd change the world.
Why argue it? I'll concede, man is a factor, so what?
Love it! Takes the wind outtta the "science is settled" crowd.
-
Climate Alarmists Invent New Excuse: The Satellites Are Lying
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/15/climate-alarmists-invent-new-excuse-the-satellites-are-lying/
-
The Earth is not a "closed system". Last time I checked most of our weather/climate is affected by the outside influence of THE SUN!
The "climate change" everyone is using to justify more government wealth confiscation is really just weather. It has always fluctuated. Always will.
-
The Earth is not a "closed system". Last time I checked most of our weather/climate is affected by the outside influence of THE SUN!
The "climate change" everyone is using to justify more government wealth confiscation is really just weather. It has always fluctuated. Always will.
BLASPHEMER!!!!!! You will be sent to the reeducation camp soon.
-
The outright fraud and corruption within the mmgw movement reminds me of the current congress. All lies, lies, and bullshit, coated in lies, and arrogance.
-
BLASPHEMER!!!!!! You will be sent to the reeducation camp soon.
So I have to give up my AR-15 to them too? ;D
-
BLASPHEMER!!!!!! You will be sent to the reeducation camp soon.
So I have to give up my AR-15 to them too? ;D
Yes. I'll be by on Friday to pick it up. Please include all your 5.56 ammo as well. :)
-
I just put this up on POA because it's cool, and it's aviation related. Honest!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/let-it-snow-let-it-snow.php (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/let-it-snow-let-it-snow.php)
-
I just put this up on POA because it's cool, and it's aviation related. Honest!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/let-it-snow-let-it-snow.php (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/let-it-snow-let-it-snow.php)
Classic! Couple that with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of birds, including Bald Eagles, by wind turbines and solar arrays (where no one has gone to jail) and "green energy" doesn't seem so green.
-
So I have to give up my AR-15 to them too? ;D
Yes. I'll be by on Friday to pick it up. Please include all your 5.56 ammo as well. :)
From my cold dead hands. LOL!
-
Funny thing.
Just for fun I decided to read some old, long forgotten threads and this one jumped out at me.
The left wing narrative demanding everyone conform to their flawed, intentional cherry picked data, or else, was the rule in the 2000-2017 era. One moron lefty on another forum actually wrote that EVERYONE knew the science was settled and discussing it was showing how stupid we were.
Everyone consisted of whatever bullshit was spoon fed, lazy, faux intellectuals were spitting out at any given time, of course.
Fun reading though.