Polar Bear Expert's Opinions "Unhelpful" to GW

[Dave Schwartz]

Polar bear expert barred by global warmists
Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

This article is from last June.

[boxcar]

Polar bear expert barred by global warmists
Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

This article is from last June.

And Hcap keeps insisting that scientists are above having any political agenda. It would just totally be beneath them. :rolleyes: Their refusal to let this fellow attend is just another way of shutting down honest debate. They have to go this route because man-made global warming would not withstand the rigors of real science.

Boxcar

[Tom]

The truth is not helpful! :lol:

[hcap]

And Hcap keeps insisting that scientists are above having any political agenda. It would just totally be beneath them. :rolleyes: Their refusal to let this fellow attend is just another way of shutting down honest debate. They have to go this route because man-made global warming would not withstand the rigors of real science.

BoxcarNever said that. Nice to know though, that you are thinking about me!

I will tell you however YOU are much more likely to suffer from political, religious, bias than 98% of those working in the field of GW. And 98% of those GW experts believe humans are a major cause of GW since the industrial revolution began.
And they sure kwetch a hell of a lot less than you :rolleyes:

(Of course maybe glaziers melting have only the appearance of melting.)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/01/global_warming_typo_fix_means.html

Global Warming Typo Fix Means Slower Melt For Asian Glaciers

....That's not quite the end of the story, though. The IPCC stands by its overarching message, which is that the world's glaciers are rapidly melting and bad things will happen to people if that continues unabated. But the demise of the Himalayan glaciers is, thankfully, not just a few decades away.

http://sbflixcontest.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/glacier-melting.jpg

[bigmack]

http://sbflixcontest.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/glacier-melting.jpg
As with your silly pictures you're not silly enough to put your tongue on a flagpole in January are you?

That might convince a 5th grader, or persons with a 5th grade mentality but it don't fly around here, Oingo.

‘Glaciers have always grown and receded’—A few glaciers melting does not mean global warming

[Tom]

Wow!
2008 brought mucho improvements!

Of course the world is warming up.
The core is millions of degrees.
Al Gore said so!



:lol::lol::lol:

[boxcar]

Never said that. Nice to know though, that you are thinking about me!

I will tell you however YOU are much more likely to suffer from political, religious, bias than 98% of those working in the field of GW. And 98% of those GW experts believe humans are a major cause of GW since the industrial revolution began.
And they sure kwetch a hell of a lot less than you :rolleyes:

(Of course maybe glaziers melting have only the appearance of melting.)

Wrong again, as usual. Where I am likely to "err", though, is on the side of caution and skepticism, given all I know about human nature. And I make no apologies for my lack of gullibility. ;)

Boxcar

[bigmack]

A scientist responsible for a key 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warning Himalayan glaciers would be completely melted by 2035 has admitted that the claim was made to put political pressure on world leaders.

This ruse is coming unglued.

[davew]

ice is going away from north pole and polar bears are dying

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/05/no-polar-bears-not-dying-off-droves-climate-change/


I guess polar bears always die because they do not live forever.

[FantasticDan]

I guess polar bears always die because they do not live forever.It was worth resurrecting an :8: year old thread just for that kernel of wisdom alone. Thanks so much. :p

[davew]

It was worth resurrecting an :8: year old thread just for that kernel of wisdom alone. Thanks so much. :p

I am just glad we are still alive - since Al Gore said everything would be dead by now. AN INCONVENIENT (UN)TRUTH

[boxcar]

It was worth resurrecting an :8: year old thread just for that kernel of wisdom alone. Thanks so much. :p

Don't knock Wisdom when someone is compassionate enough to try to introduce you to her for the first time in your life. :coffee:

[tucker6]

https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-polar-bear-population-larger-than-previous-thought-almost-30000/

This means the adjusted 2015 global estimate for polar bears should be about 28,500 (average), a marked increase over the official estimate of 26,500 (average) for 2015 — and an even larger increase over the 2005 estimate of about 22,500 (average), despite the dramatic loss of summer sea ice since 2007 that we hear about endlessly.

It is increasingly obvious that polar bears are thriving despite having lived through summer sea ice levels not predicted to occur until 2050 – levels of sea ice that experts said would wipe out 2/3 of the world’s polar bears (Amstrup et al. 2007; Crockford 2017 v3).

Hmm..., who to believe, Cappy or polar bear experts? A close one indeed.

[Tom]

Global Warming Update...


Today.....:1: degree

[chadk66]

Nothing like a good dog and pony show :pound:

[horses4courses]

Global Warming Update...


Today.....:1: degree

Ummm....could that be anything to do with the fact
that the northern hemisphere is currently tilted away
from the sun? (Relax, chimp - I don't expect an intelligent answer).

Go right ahead.
Continue to ignore all recorded data on annual global temperatures.
You don't give a fawk anyway. You're busy counting your tax refund.

[elysiantraveller]

Global Warming Update...


Today.....:1: degree

Last year on February 18th I jumped into a pond on my property to retrieve a frisbee that sunk before my dog could get to it. It was 80°.

#confirmationbias

[Tom]

Last year on February 18th I jumped into a pond on my property to retrieve a frisbee that sunk before my dog could get to it. It was 80°.

#confirmationbias


OMG!
The earth is cooling!
The earth is cooling!

[Tom]

Continue to ignore all recorded data on annual global temperatures.

Not ignoring them at all.
We have been hotter and been colder.

We will be both again and again.

btw, are you aware that the continents are moving?
People living on the coastline might not get flooded, but they sure will get smashed into!

Relax, horsey - not a thing you or I or anyone is going to do will change it.
Know why? Because even if we could, some nations - the one doing the most hard - will not stop and we will not make them.

When this BS gets to the point that we will step up and FORCE compliance on China and India. call me and I will stop using styrofoam cups for my West Rock.

Until then, $5, $10, $15, 20,
Good old Trump, he gave me plenty!

[elysiantraveller]

OMG!
The earth is cooling!
The earth is cooling!

This isn't how you science dude.

Can I ask you two honest questions.

1) Does the weather seem different from what you remember 10-20-30 years ago?

2) if yes to 1. If we as a species literally burn things for survival and to produce things; turn on your car, your furnace, a light switch, something is burning to make that work, isn't it conceivable we might play a role in this change?

[Tom]

Of course we play some role.
But we will play no role in stopping it.

Face reality, no one is willing to draw a line in the sand and force it on EVERYONE.

India and China will never cooperate and they contribute much more than we do.

You forget, WE are part of nature and what WE do is natural.
And what we do better than most is adapt.

I do think today's weather is pretty close to 1966 when I walked to school in -1 degrees and got there to find it closed - too cold, and had to walk back home.

Kind like, oh, what is that word....oh yeah, CYCLICAL!
The climate is CYCLICAL.

Ben Warmer.
Ben Colder.
Gonna be both again.

I am all for a few more degrees overall - imagine the corn on the cob and the tomatoes!:p

[elysiantraveller]

Of course we play some role.
But we will play no role in stopping it.

But if you buy the been warmer been colder and the science behind it then you would have to buy the fact this change is very rapid compared to what we know of other cycles.

And if you admit we play a role why the anti-science backlash? Even I question how much of a role we play and I'm certainly not a fan of government actively intervening I don't adopt this head in the sand deny-science approach that a lot of people on one side of this debate do.

As far as something much more fun Polar Bears are fascinating creatures. I'm planning to go to Svalbard in 2019 to hopefully see some. Their numbers globally are up while some populations are down and facing extinction. As far as climate change goes though using the numbers of a highly intelligent and adaptive apex predator probably isn't the best means of gauging climate change... either way.

[davew]

OMG!
The earth is cooling!
The earth is cooling!

Just in USA now, most of the rest of the world is above average...

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01b.fnl.gif

[Lemon Drop Husker]

This isn't how you science dude.

Can I ask you two honest questions.

1) Does the weather seem different from what you remember 10-20-30 years ago?

2) if yes to 1. If we as a species literally burn things for survival and to produce things; turn on your car, your furnace, a light switch, something is burning to make that work, isn't it conceivable we might play a role in this change?


#1 Yes. It was bit colder when I was young in the 70s. Don't recall much more. Certainly seemed like much more snow. Does that mean the El Nino was greater back then? :pound:

#2. If WE are the problem, then the US is less then 20% of the problem. China already doubles our output. Europe is obviously 3rd.

Do we pay for this change? How do we force other countries to change? WHAT IS the change?

Or do we just say, "Hey, quit burning fossil fuels" while on a boat?

Does anybody have any ****ing clue how we are to attack it globably if it is at CODE RED status? Why? Cause China ain't gonna change shit, and the other 3rd world countries that will start burning fuel won't give a shit either.

Soooooo....., Go buy your friendly electric car. Plug it in. It won't matter shit. (But hey, at least you did your part, right?)

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Just in USA now, most of the rest of the world is above average...

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01b.fnl.gif

Fantastic.

How do you suggest we fix this incredible problem?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Fantastic.

How do you suggest we fix this incredible problem?

Oh sorry. I interrupted your whining.

Keep on.

[dnlgfnk]

I'm open to the science. But I'm also open to the possibility of chronological snobbery that suggests the latest prognostication is definitive, rather than cyclical itself, as well as motivations that may not be completely scientific.

"Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor, 'the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.'”
– Newsweek magazine, Jan. 26, 1970

“The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.”
– New York Times, July 18, 1970

“In the next 50 years, fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
– Washington Post, July 9, 1971

“It's already getting colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes...”
– Los Angles Times, Oct. 24, 1971

“An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.”
– New York Times, Jan. 5, 1978

[Lemon Drop Husker]

But if you buy the been warmer been colder and the science behind it then you would have to buy the fact this change is very rapid compared to what we know of other cycles.

And if you admit we play a role why the anti-science backlash? Even I question how much of a role we play and I'm certainly not a fan of government actively intervening I don't adopt this head in the sand deny-science approach that a lot of people on one side of this debate do.

As far as something much more fun Polar Bears are fascinating creatures. I'm planning to go to Svalbard in 2019 to hopefully see some. Their numbers globally are up while some populations are down and facing extinction. As far as climate change goes though using the numbers of a highly intelligent and adaptive apex predator probably isn't the best means of gauging climate change... either way.

IF you are a true globalist, and Climate warrior, you should visit China.

Visit China convince people to quit burning shit.

China burns 2+ times as much as we do. IF you are a true warrior, you have to take your parade to that side of the planet and yell at their people.

[elysiantraveller]

:lol::lol::lol:

My comments had absolutely nothing to do with China or climate change policy.

I honestly just wondered if the people who attack the science regarding global warming (as if it doesn't exist) actually think 1) the climate is changing and 2) if we perhaps played a part.

I didn't promote any agenda I just asked two simple questions. The rest of the stuff is irrelevant.

That's all.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

:lol::lol::lol:

My comments had absolutely nothing to do with China or climate change policy.

I honestly just wondered if the people who attack the science regarding global warming (as if it doesn't exist) actually think 1) the climate is changing and 2) if we perhaps played a part.

That's all.

What the **** does it matter if we can't control the biggest waste center on the planet?

You can bitch Climate Change till your heart and your daughters and their dughters hearts bleed. It doesn't ****ing matter.

IF you belive in any of that shit, your focus shouldn't be America, but China, Europe, and other nations getting real power from the ground.

The Paris Accord was garbage.

The reality is, if we don't get the planet involved, it won't matter 1 single bit as far as our Climate numbers propose.

[elysiantraveller]

What the **** does it matter if we can't control the biggest waste center on the planet?

You can bitch Climate Change till your heart and your daughters and their dughters hearts bleed. It doesn't ****ing matter.

IF you belive in any of that shit, your focus shouldn't be America, but China, Europe, and other nations getting real power from the ground.

The Paris Accord was garbage.

The reality is, if we don't get the planet involved, it won't matter 1 single bit as far as our Climate numbers propose.

Now I know I'm under some your skins... You must not read too gud... from earlier:

And if you admit we play a role why the anti-science backlash? Even I question how much of a role we play and I'm certainly not a fan of government actively intervening I don't adopt this head in the sand deny-science approach that a lot of people on one side of this debate do.

I just don't understand the denial part by some people.

FWIW I think the Paris Accords are garbage too but if we can not follow them and not piss people off it's better than not following them and pissing them off.

[tucker6]

I do think today's weather is pretty close to 1966 when I walked to school in -1 degrees and got there to find it closed - too cold, and had to walk back home.

Kind like, oh, what is that word....oh yeah, CYCLICAL!
The climate is CYCLICAL.


Best quote in this thread. Very true.

[chadk66]

as a whole the weather really isn't any different now here than it was in the 70's and 80's.

[davew]

I just don't understand the denial part by some people.

FWIW I think the Paris Accords are garbage too but if we can not follow them and not piss people off it's better than not following them and pissing them off.

It is not that many people are against science, they are against FRAUD sponsored by government.

[Tom]

I guess you could say that liars like Al Gore have gotten fraud down to a science!

[boxcar]

Now I know I'm under some your skins... You must not read too gud... from earlier:



I just don't understand the denial part by some people.

FWIW I think the Paris Accords are garbage too but if we can not follow them and not piss people off it's better than not following them and pissing them off.

Nor do many of us adopt a head-in-the-sand when it comes to our government and other governments wanting to pick out pockets, claiming our money is going to fix the climate. Nor do we stick out heads in the sand with the establishment science community will never bite the hand that is feeding them.

Whenever there is big money involved, you can be certain that the rhetoric is fueled by corruption. After all, the "love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."
This is a fact, you can take to the bank -- long before any AGW garbgage.

[woodtoo]

Frozen iguanas falling from trees in Florida. Carefully move to sunlight to thaw
.

[boxcar]

Frozen iguanas falling from trees in Florida. Carefully move to sunlight to thaw
.

I saw a 'gator encased in ice floating down the canal this morning. Poor fella... :coffee:

[JustRalph]

Frozen iguanas falling from trees in Florida. Carefully move to sunlight to thaw
.

Hot sauce wakes em right up

[boxcar]

Not only is the sky falling upon us due to AGW but the ocean floor is sinking, as well, under the weight of melting glaciers. According to this article, by 2100 much of the East Coast of the U.S. will be under water. Time to move to high ground, folks.

We may see those fish swimming in the streets of downtown Miami, yet. :coffee: :eek:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ocean-floor-sinking-under-water-130002572.html

[classhandicapper]

I'm way more concerned about pollution of the environment than I am about temperature change. I'm slowly coming around to the point of view that we are WAY better off if the earth warms some more. There could be some short term disruptions as populations shift, but we've been doing that for many generations for a variety of reasons anyway. This is going to turn out to be the biggest nothing burger of all time. Way more important is the actual pollutants to water and air than CO2.

[Tom]

Not only is the sky falling upon us due to AGW but the ocean floor is sinking, as well, under the weight of melting glaciers. According to this article, by 2100 much of the East Coast of the U.S. will be under water. Time to move to high ground, folks.

We may see those fish swimming in the streets of downtown Miami, yet. :coffee: :eek:

[/url]

OMG!
Guam might flip upside down!

[boxcar]

I'm way more concerned about pollution of the environment than I am about temperature change. I'm slowly coming around to the point of view that we are WAY better off if the earth warms some more. There could be some short term disruptions as populations shift, but we've been doing that for many generations for a variety of reasons anyway. This is going to turn out to be the biggest nothing burger of all time. Way more important is the actual pollutants to water and air than CO2.

I agree with you on that. As stewards of the planet, we should act responsibly and refrain from wanton pollution.

[thaskalos]

Why worry about GW, or environmental pollution...when overpopulation looms the more immediate danger to our survival?

[boxcar]

Why worry about GW, or environmental pollution...when overpopulation looms the more immediate danger to our survival?

When do you plan to make your generous contribution to help alleviate the problem? :coffee:

[thaskalos]

When do you plan to make your generous contribution to help alleviate the problem? :coffee:

If everyone's sex life was like mine...then the overpopulation problem would be licked in no-time.

[boxcar]

If everyone's sex life was like mine...then the overpopulation problem would be licked in no-time.

In that case, then, we wouldn't have to worry about any population -- over, under or anything in between. :coffee:

[Fager Fan]

If everyone's sex life was like mine...then the overpopulation problem would be licked in no-time.

If you don't mind a little helpful advice.

I bet it's the mustache.

[tucker6]

I'm way more concerned about pollution of the environment than I am about temperature change. I'm slowly coming around to the point of view that we are WAY better off if the earth warms some more. There could be some short term disruptions as populations shift, but we've been doing that for many generations for a variety of reasons anyway. This is going to turn out to be the biggest nothing burger of all time. Way more important is the actual pollutants to water and air than CO2.

I agree, but more of a nothing burger than Y2K? That was criminal.

[chadk66]

If you don't mind a little helpful advice.

I bet it's the mustache.:lol:

[classhandicapper]

I agree, but more of a nothing burger than Y2K? That was criminal.

Given that I was a computer programming consultant at the time it wasn't too bad for me. :lol:

[tucker6]

Given that I was a computer programming consultant at the time it wasn't too bad for me. :lol:

You swine. :lol:

[hcap]

In that case, then, we wouldn't have to worry about any population -- over, under or anything in between. :coffee:You mean Trump's so-called presidency.
RE:bragging about the size of his"nuclear button"

Real concern is the walnut sized organ in his made up hair sprayed head

[boxcar]

You mean Trump's so-called presidency.
RE:bragging about the size of his"nuclear button"

Real concern is the walnut sized organ in his made up hair sprayed head

At least his "organ" works, which is more than can be said for the brain-dead left.

[davew]

You mean Trump's so-called presidency.
RE:bragging about the size of his"nuclear button"

Real concern is the walnut sized organ in his made up hair sprayed head

Trump was just drawing a RED line in the sand - the thing is it means something - and not that he is going to send plane loads of cash to them to be his friend.

[hcap]

Trump was just drawing a RED line in the sand - the thing is it means something - and not that he is going to send plane loads of cash to them to be his friend.
The yellow(orange ?) dye of his fake tanning lotion and hair dye clogs his vision allowing nuclear mistakes to happen. "Little rocket man" can mistakingly to step over that "red line" because North Korea and the rest of the world has a hard time seeing the childish so-called "red" line when the obvious fake yellow-orange dye of his contradictory statements are screwing up his administration's position. Further confused by all you brown nosed Trumpeters excusing their heroes bullshit. Acting like high schooners bullying others maybe only has value when your opponents are rational.

[hcap]

The man is a joke. Lets see what the results of his physical will be

[lamboguy]

The man is a joke. Lets see what the results of his physical will begive us a break already

[hcap]

At least his "organ" works, which is more than can be said for the brain-dead left.Trump;s fake news meme originated with climate deniers spinning fake news as facts. Using fake facts will destroy Trump and you alt right Trumpeters. Reality matters. Nothing to do with political party

[Inner Dirt]

The yellow(orange ?) dye of his fake tanning lotion and hair dye clogs his vision

Why is it, and I can count many of them, liberals known to me seemed to have double standards when it comes to Trump. Any time I have made negative comments on someone's appearance (I never did it where the person it was directed at could hear or it was someone on TV) I was chastised. My common targets were comb overs as I immediately cut my hair short or shaved my head when I started balding and people with excessive piercings and tattoos on their face. Anything I commented on was a personal choice, I did not comment on a person's size or a handicap.

These same people who ripped me for commenting on comb overs make fun of Trump's hair, his weight, the way he talks etc,etc. Those same folks ripped on me when I mention Joe Biden's obvious hair transplant and face lift. Care to explain? Anyone?

[Inner Dirt]

The man is a joke. Lets see what the results of his physical will be

Note sure, but did you make any comments about Hillary's health? Last I checked there aren't any clips of Trump having to be caught before falling, having strange twitches, jumpiness, etc,etc.

[hcap]

Inner Dirt, tise president's fake appearance is a joke and an indication of his inability to face truth and facts. Yes I also shave my head. You must know from serious self observation that It takes serious self deception to brag about the size of his "nuclear button" (hands ?) when it is obvious to world leaders that he cannot understand the real issues when fooling himself first about his narcissism and then fooling himself on the facts behind substantial issues that really matter

Criticism of bad omb overs may be apolitical but this president's embarrassing narcissism seems to attract the alt right in droves.

[Tom]

Note sure, but did you make any comments about Hillary's health? Last I checked there aren't any clips of Trump having to be caught before falling, having strange twitches, jumpiness, etc,etc.

Here is the truth - Trump can step off of a curb.
the bthc cannot.
Trump walks on his own, doesn't need an army to move him along. He is either much healthier than Hillary or hw is further up the evolutionary ladder than she is! :pound::pound::pound::pound:

See, this shows the credibility of the whiners on the left. They have none.

Trump could be on his deathbed with a fever of 105 degrees and I would take him over anything the dems have to offer.

Anyone who supported or voted for Hillary has no right whatsoever to question anyone's health.

[Fager Fan]

Yet South Korea is crediting Trump for bringing N Korea to the table.

At some point, even Trump's detractors have to realize that as unconventional as Trump is, it works. It won't kill you to admit it. In fact, it may help you get through the next 3 or 7 years when your hate isn't eating you alive. And it's more American to credit where credit is due instead of stirring hate and division.

[hcap]

Note sure, but did you make any comments about Hillary's health? Last I checked there aren't any clips of Trump having to be caught before falling, having strange twitches, jumpiness, etc,etc.Trump has psychological issues which unfortunately will not be checked at his examination.

Hillary may have some minor health issues but not being president does not affect the health of the country. However watching the debates indicates her mental stability is not in question.

Point out to me when she gets a presidential exam

[Tom]

Hillary may have some minor health issues


Yeah, and DRACULA has insomnia! :pound::pound::pound::pound:

[chadk66]

Yeah, and DRACULA has insomnia! :pound::pound::pound::pound::lol:

[hcap]

Yeah, and DRACULA has insomnia! :pound::pound::pound::pound:Yeah up all hours watching Fox & Friends and mindlessly tweeting

[boxcar]

Yeah up all hours watching Fox & Friends and mindlessly tweeting

Beats watching Stephen Colbert. Or Oprah for that matter. :coffee:

[davew]

Trump has psychological issues which unfortunately will not be checked at his examination.

Hillary may have some minor health issues but not being president does not affect the health of the country. However watching the debates indicates her mental stability is not in question.

Point out to me when she gets a presidential exam

Are you a psychologist? Or are you taking the word of others (who did not exam him either)?

What psychological issues does he have?

[boxcar]

Are you a psychologist? Or are you taking the word of others (who did not exam him either)?

What psychological issues does he have?

The issues are that he's trying desperately to undo 8 years of Obama's damage to this country.

[thaskalos]

The issues are that he's trying desperately to undo 8 years of Obama's damage to this country.

You are forgetting the 8 years of damage that George W did to this country.

[boxcar]

You are forgetting the 8 years of damage that George W did to this country.

Paled by comparison to the guy who swore he would transform the face of America. Bush was "just" a RINO. The Kenyan is a communist.

[Tom]

You are forgetting the 8 years of damage that George W did to this country.

Actually, W had a much smaller carbon footprint than Al Gore did.
And Michelle used AF1 separately from the 0 that the atmosphere took a major hit.

[thaskalos]

Paled by comparison to the guy who swore he would transform the face of America. Bush was "just" a RINO. The Kenyan is a communist.

Your memory needs improvement...IMO. Nothing in our lifetimes could compare to the mess that Bush left behind.

[Tom]

Well, 0bama left us ISIS.
And Benghazi.
And a near-nuclear Iran.
And the worst race-relations in decades.
And BLM.
And a HC system that was costing everyone.

[hcap]

Beats watching Stephen Colbert. Or Oprah for that matter. :coffee:Been watching all youse Trumpeteers minleesly drool and kiss Trump's ass. Not to worry this will be sold to all idiots for as much as he can get. Smart business man? Stable buyers? Suck it up , evidently you guys will buy ANYTHING

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/330/507/c52.jpg

[davew]

hcap, why settle for meaningful debate when a worthless meme or pic will do?

[chadk66]

hcap, why settle for meaningful debate when a worthless meme or pic will do?that's what they do:pound:

[boxcar]

Been watching all youse Trumpeteers minleesly drool and kiss Trump's ass. Not to worry this will be sold to all idiots for as much as he can get. Smart business man? Stable buyers? Suck it up , evidently you guys will buy ANYTHING

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/330/507/c52.jpg

I don't believe, 'cappy, that any of us "Trumpeteers" are drooling any worse over Trump than you leftists were fawning over the anointed one and hanging on his every word because y'all thought he was the smartest man who ever walked upright on the earth, even when he made huge bloopers, which was quite often as I recall. :coffee:

And...so many in the lamestream media, far and wide, had their noses so far up his majesty's butt that rumor has it the U.S. had to import proctologists to perform all those life-saving surgeries in a timely manner after he left office. (C(r)appy job but someone had to do it.) :coffee:

[Tom]

hcap, why settle for meaningful debate when a worthless meme or pic will do?

Be all you can be! :pound:

Between hcap, Danny, and horsey, we have Tweetle Dee, Tweetle Dum and Tweetle Dumer. Much like Jeff Dunham's puppets.

Or Gollum.

[hcap]

Sorry guys. I settle for incisive cartoons and memes because I am like really really smart. (so was the anointed one) And like really stable

[boxcar]

Sorry guys. I settle for incisive cartoons and memes because I am like really really smart. (so was the anointed one) And like really stable

I mean like PUH-LEAZE...do you have any idea how low you'd have to move the bar for smarts to make that claim?

[boxcar]

Immodest Iranian women are causing "climate change'. And...climate change is behind the protests in Iran. Read the article.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/01/11/scientific-american-climate-change-spark-irans-protests/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20180111

[davew]

Immodest Iranian women are causing "climate change'. And...climate change is behind the protests in Iran. Read the article.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/01/11/scientific-american-climate-change-spark-irans-protests/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20180111

I do not understand that kids poster - is he implying climate change killed the dinosaurs?

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/05/climate-change-protest-joke-getty-640x480.jpg

[elysiantraveller]

I do not understand that kids poster - is he implying climate change killed the dinosaurs?

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/05/climate-change-protest-joke-getty-640x480.jpg

Looks like a bad Photoshop dude.

[reckless]

I do not understand that kids poster - is he implying climate change killed the dinosaurs?

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/05/climate-change-protest-joke-getty-640x480.jpg

Looks like your typical millennial nitwit to me. We know the type. Childish dolts who think they are smarter than every one else on earth yet regularly prove how dumb they actually are, such as this clown photo and sign.

[davew]

Looks like a bad Photoshop dude.

which part?

[hcap]

which part?The enrtire idiotic climate change denying part of course

[davew]

The enrtire idiotic climate change denying part of course

the pic does not look like a denier to me, more like a looney tune lib out for a fun time.

[hcap]

I meant in general all you PA amateurish climatologist's crock

I know all mainstream sources are fake. Only Faux Noos and Anthony Watts preach the truth.

[boxcar]

I meant in general all you PA amateurish climatologist's crock

I know all mainstream sources are fake. Only Faux Noos and Anthony Watts preach the truth.

Remind us again what your credentials are in climatology. I, for one, must have missed that.

[davew]

Remind us again what your credentials are in climatology. I, for one, must have missed that.

a devout follower of the Michael Mann cult?

https://www.steynonline.com/6333/michael-e-mann-liar-cheat-falsifier-and-fraud

[boxcar]

a devout follower of the Michael Mann cult?

https://www.steynonline.com/6333/michael-e-mann-liar-cheat-falsifier-and-fraud

Oh yeah...he's really hot stuff. More so than AGW itself.

[Tom]

Remind us again what your credentials are in climatology. I, for one, must have missed that.

He carries an umbrella.

[boxcar]

He carries an umbrella.

Gotta wonder how that has been working out for him in earthquakes, volcanoes, raging wildfires, tsunamis, rising oceans, etc. :coffee:

[chadk66]

Looks like your typical millennial nitwit to me. We know the type. Childish dolts who think they are smarter than every one else on earth yet regularly prove how dumb they actually are, such as this clown photo and sign.is that carrot top?

[hcap]

Sorry. in the PA amateur non peer reviewed climate buffoons club vs NASA',and 97% of the actual scientific community

once again the buffoons lose their asses and are proud of their ignorance



https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_consensus-graphic-2015-768px.jpg


Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

....
Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.


AMERICAN and INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations....

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

[chadk66]

we're the same buffoons that are waiting for the 70's ice age. Which one is first in line now the ice age or global warming?

[hcap]

As usual. More totally unintelligible bullshit by ignorant Trumpeteers.
Man talk about fake news. You climate deniers make up a good portion of his low 30's seduced brown nosers and mindless hanger-ons.

Facts please instead of false contentions.

[Tom]

Your premise is that warmer is bad.
Your premise not based on science at all.
Science is nietiher good not bad, it is science.
No value judgements have a place in science.

YES, it might be getting warmer, but NO it is neither good not bad.
Is just is.

"What is is?"
-------Billy-boy Clinton as he zipped up his pants.

You have no clue what higher life forms might come to be at +8?
OR +12?

You assume man is the top of the evolutionary ladder but can you prove it?
Maybe Man evolves into a stronger version, not as vulnerable to the elements, one who could continue evolution to other planets better that our current bodies could do.

Maybe dolphins are sitting on the cusp of ruling the world, just need a couple more degrees of fresh glacier water to seal the deal.

They have already started to train US! :eek:

[hcap]

You assume man is the top of the evolutionary ladder but can you prove it?
Maybe Man evolves into a stronger version, not as vulnerable to the elements, one who could continue evolution to other planets better that our current bodies could do.Or maybe we might De-evolve?
In which case banana dealers will do well. And to hell with damage and deaths from rising sea levels
and extreme weather.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/image.php?u=13&dateline=1445999337

[rastajenk]

Weather is not climate, even when you put "extreme" in front of it.

Unless of course it suits your argument's needs, in which case weather can be climate.

I think I got it now...:confused:

[hcap]

Weather is not climate, even when you put "extreme" in front of it.

Unless of course it suits your argument's needs, in which case weather can be climate.

I think I got it now...:confused:Faie enough although "extreme weather" can stem from abrupt climate change. Although humans will survive environmental change the unprecedented increasing rate of change over the last century indicates the increasing change will make it difficult for certain populations to adapt easily

https://www.epa.gov/arc-x/climate-adaptation-and-sea-level-rise

Rising sea levels amplify the threat and magnitude of storm surges in coastal areas. Water infrastructure, often located along the coast or tidally-influenced water bodies, can be vulnerable to greater changes in storm surge intensity. The threat of flooding and damage to water infrastructure will continue to increase over time as sea levels rise and the magnitude of storms increase.

[boxcar]

Faie enough although "extreme weather" can stem from abrupt climate change. Although humans will survive environmental change the unprecedented increasing rate of change over the last century indicates the increasing change will make it difficult for certain populations to adapt easily

https://www.epa.gov/arc-x/climate-adaptation-and-sea-level-rise

Chill out. Stop with the hand-wringing, already. Sit back and savor a good hot cup of Columbian Java and enjoy its fragrant aroma. Whoever said adaptation or even evolution, for that matter, was easy? You're living proof that it's neither easy or even close to flawless -- but there you are, nonetheless, stuck on stupid in your perpetual role (assigned to you by Natural Selection, perhaps?) as Dr. Dolittle. :coffee:

[davew]

Faie enough although "extreme weather" can stem from abrupt climate change. Although humans will survive environmental change the unprecedented increasing rate of change over the last century indicates the increasing change will make it difficult for certain populations to adapt easily

https://www.epa.gov/arc-x/climate-adaptation-and-sea-level-rise

You mean like populations of Detroit and Chicago? it seems they are not adapting very well.

[hcap]

You mean like populations of Detroit and Chicago? it seems they are not adapting very well.Maybe the Dork-in-chief can send 'em to some "shithole country" ?
And maybe the schmuck-in-chief can adapt to being a stable genius?

[tucker6]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/new-study-suggests-global-warming-decreases-storm-activity-and-extreme-weather/


storm activity in Iceland over the past 1,200 years and finds storminess and extreme weather variability was far more common during the Little Ice Age in comparison to the Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century.

From 2014 but still relevant today. The Alarmists feel that if they say something a million times that it must be true. Fact is that extreme weather is no more likely now than in the past, and recent studies on tropical and tornado activity actually shows a significant decline in activity over the last 150 years.

[boxcar]

Maybe the Dork-in-chief can send 'em to some "shithole country" ?
And maybe the schmuck-in-chief can adapt to being a stable genius?

I thought Detroit and Chicago, as liberal meccas, already qualified as such. Our remarkable president is working on debuttholing those two cities, as well as others in order to make America Great Again.

[tucker6]

I thought Detroit and Chicago, as liberal meccas, already qualified as such. Our remarkable president is working on debuttholing those two cities, as well as others in order to make America Great Again.

Why are the dems against making America great again? Why is it more important to take care of illegal immigrants than it is Americans? Two simple questions.

[davew]

Why are the dems against making America great again? Why is it more important to take care of illegal immigrants than it is Americans? Two simple questions.

Because the dims are the party of HATE and they need future voters for their party to survive.

[xtb]

Quote:
Rising sea levels amplify the threat and magnitude of storm surges in coastal areas. Water infrastructure, often located along the coast or tidally-influenced water bodies, can be vulnerable to greater changes in storm surge intensity. The threat of flooding and damage to water infrastructure will continue to increase over time as sea levels rise and the magnitude of storms increase.

I wish Sam Kinison was still around. He could do a coastal bit, similar to his "get out of the desert" routine.

[boxcar]

Why are the dems against making America great again? Why is it more important to take care of illegal immigrants than it is Americans? Two simple questions.

That's simple: Because like their anointed one, they want to transform the face of America via their policies of globalization. Can't globalize a country unless you import as many freeloaders as possible, thereby creating a permanent underprivileged, victimized, justice-deprived underclass. And we know without doubt this is what leftists want to do because, as has often been discussed recently, the Dems ignore the underclass people who are actually citizens of this country (see downtown LA as but one example). The Dems have no interest whatsoever in actually making people's lives better -- only worse or at best maintaining the status quo; for they believe dependence upon the state is their only path to perpetuating their power and their rhetoric of empty promises and all the so-called evils of capitalism.

[classhandicapper]

And to hell with damage and deaths from rising sea levels and extreme weather.

Human beings have been relocating due to climate, safety, resources, food, jobs, economics, and a bunch of other factors for thousands of years.

It's not a big deal. You are underrating our ability to deal with change.

If (and this is still an unknown) ocean levels rise and current coastal areas are not ideal, we'll slowly move inland, north...whatever and build newer better cities. Perhaps cities will become obsolete anyway due to technology and we are all going to spread out no matter what the coasts are like.

[hcap]

I thought Detroit and Chicago, as liberal meccas, already qualified as such. Our remarkable president is working on debuttholing those two cities, as well as others in order to make America Great Again.The dork-in-chief could send Chicago and Detroit residents to a much more liberal bastion, Norway one of his favorite white countries. Whiteface for them all.

[boxcar]

The dork-in-chief could send Chicago and Detroit residents to a much more liberal bastion, Norway one of his favorite white countries. Whiteface for them all.

Norway is too good for them. But Cuba or North Korea would do... :coffee:

[davew]

The dork-in-chief could send Chicago and Detroit residents to a much more liberal bastion, Norway one of his favorite white countries. Whiteface for them all.

That is a novel idea, send away all those wanting reparations and the chronic criminals, a one way ticket to the country of their choice...

[hcap]

Human beings have been relocating due to climate, safety, resources, food, jobs, economics, and a bunch of other factors for thousands of years.

It's not a big deal. You are underrating our ability to deal with change.

If (and this is still an unknown) ocean levels rise and current coastal areas are not ideal, we'll slowly move inland, north...whatever and build newer better cities. Perhaps cities will become obsolete anyway due to technology and we are all going to spread out no matter what the coasts are like.Yes we will adapt but the increasing RAPID rate of warming present problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

Abrupt climate change


and it has occurred before
https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/4

Evidence of Abrupt Climate Change

Researchers first became intrigued by abrupt climate change when they discovered striking evidence of large, abrupt, and widespread changes preserved in paleoclimatic archives. Interpretation of such proxy records of climate—for example, using tree rings to judge occurrence of droughts or gas bubbles in ice cores to study the atmosphere at the time the bubbles were trapped—is a well-established science that has grown much in recent years.

and
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170623100414.htm

During the last glacial period, within only a few decades the influence of atmospheric CO2 on the North Atlantic circulation resulted in temperature increases of up to 10 degrees Celsius in Greenland -- as indicated by new climate calculations from researchers at the Alfred Wegener Institute and the University of Cardiff. Their study is the first to confirm that there have been situations in our planet's history in which gradually rising CO2 concentrations have set off abrupt changes in ocean circulation and climate at "tipping points." These sudden changes, referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger events, have been observed in ice cores collected in Greenland. The results of the study have just been released in the journal Nature Geoscience.

So there are multiple examples of "tipping points." Rate ol change has a major effect

[jocko699]

I wish Sam Kinison was still around. He could do a coastal bit, similar to his "get out of the desert" routine.

Yea it's sand. Do you know what it'll be in a thousand years? SAND!!!!! Hire some u-hauls and move them to where the food is!!!

[classhandicapper]

Yes we will adapt but the increasing RAPID rate of warming present problems.



All change presents a problem.

Robots will present a challenge, AI will present a challenge, spending on entitlements and changing demographics will present a problem....

I'm not saying we should purposely dump CO2 into the atmosphere. I never have. I am saying if we respond to the risks you are concerned about we should at least do it in a way that doesn't create more problems than it may or may not even solve.

This is just one thing on a long list of potential problems that we'll deal with. Before it's all over, we may find out the risks were much lower than feared by activists. There could even be some offsetting benefits.

[Tom]

Or maybe we might De-evolve?
In which case banana dealers will do well. And to hell with damage and deaths from rising sea levels
and extreme weather.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/image.php?u=13&dateline=1445999337


You know, just when I think you can't display any more ignorance, you go and prove me wrong. The ocean is not going to rise like a flash flood. Any damn fool will be able to see it rising, if it ever does. Those who drown we can chalk up to natural selection. The species has to ferret out the weak minded, and GW is a perfect tool for that.

[Tom]

Maybe the Dork-in-chief can send 'em to some "shithole country" ?
And maybe the schmuck-in-chief can adapt to being a stable genius?

There he goes again!

Hey hcap, Detroit and Chicago were protype s-holes for international distribution.:lol:

[Tom]

Abrupt climate change.

We have been experiencing this for 50 years! :pound:

[davew]

You know, just when I think you can't display any more ignorance, you go and prove me wrong. The ocean is not going to rise like a flash flood. Any damn fool will be able to see it rising, if it ever does. Those who drown we can chalk up to natural selection. The species has to ferret out the weak minded, and GW is a perfect tool for that.

It is the Tsunami's. The ocean level is not getting higher, but it is getting deeper. Every once in awhile some major titanic plates shift and areas may drop a couple feet because of it. Then there is a tital wave of epic porportions, sometimes killing millions in less than a day.

[Tom]

It is the Tsunami's. The ocean level is not getting higher, but it is getting deeper. Every once in awhile some major titanic plates shift and areas may drop a couple feet because of it. Then there is a tital wave of epic porportions, sometimes killing millions in less than a day.

Shhhhhhh.
We aren't going to tell hcap that the continents are moving.
Can you imagine the charts graphs? :eek:

[davew]

Shhhhhhh.
We aren't going to tell hcap that the continents are moving.
Can you imagine the charts graphs? :eek:

Oops, it is confusing mixing science with a dimocrat propaganda campaign.

[boxcar]

Shhhhhhh.
We aren't going to tell hcap that the continents are moving.
Can you imagine the charts graphs? :eek:

Forget charts and graphs! I need to know where I can by restraining belts to hold me to the earth! :eek:

[davew]

I thought MN got cold, I would not want to live here ->

https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-freeze-russias-yakutia-sees-near-record-cold-131009936.html

[hcap]

All change presents a problem.

Robots will present a challenge, AI will present a challenge, spending on entitlements and changing demographics will present a problem....

I'm not saying we should purposely dump CO2 into the atmosphere. I never have. I am saying if we respond to the risks you are concerned about we should at least do it in a way that doesn't create more problems than it may or may not even solve.

This is just one thing on a long list of potential problems that we'll deal with. Before it's all over, we may find out the risks were much lower than feared by activists. There could even be some offsetting benefits.Not all change is equally dangerous. Yes ruining the economy and lifestyle with unintended consequences of hasty controls is counterproductive but that is not what is planned by responsible environmentalists. Of course before we can practically do anything "Ben cooler, Ben warmer" mindless simplicity must be thoroughly examined and then the real dangers must be considered.

https://www.thethirdpole.net/2017/11/17/earth-approaching-tipping-point-warn-scientists/

.."As global temperatures climb higher, the earth is approaching tipping points that threaten human security, leading scientists – including social scientists – have warned during the UN climate summit in Bonn.

The warning comes as global greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions are projected to rise after three stable years. GHG emissions – mainly carbon dioxide – are warming the earth’s atmosphere, leading to more frequent and more severe floods, storms and droughts, and rising sea levels.

“There is no room for complacency. Climate change is here. It is dangerous. And it is about to get much worse,” said Johan Rockström, executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre and Chair of the Earth League – an international network of scientists. “In the last two years, evidence has accumulated that we are now on a collision course with tipping points in the earth system.”

[chadk66]

so just what is the magical tripping point?

[hcap]

so just what is the magical tripping point?Next Tuesday 3:07 pm


A tipping point occurs when there’s a shift in the state of a system towards a new equilibrium. We’re now facing tipping points in our climate system that could accelerate the dangerous effects of climate change. Natural systems will change, as will human systems. In future we could see the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, dieback of the Amazon or droughts across the Sahel but also behavioural changes and regional warfare.

[hcap]

Rather than accepting Faux and Anthony Watts, consider
Stephen Hawking

https://futurism.com/stephen-hawking-we-are-close-to-the-tipping-point-where-global-warming-becomes-irreversible/

Stephen Hawking: We Are Close to the Tipping Point Where Global Warming Becomes Irreversible


A Dire Warning

Famous physicist Stephen Hawking issued a warning to humanity in response to President Donald Trump’s recent decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. Speaking to BBC News prior to a cosmology conference being held at the University of Cambridge this week in honor of his 75th birthday, Hawking said that Trump’s decision could cause irrevocable harm to the planet.

“We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible,” the celebrated scientist told Pallab Ghosh from the BBC. The consequences, he explained, would be truly dire for the planet. “Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.”

[Inner Dirt]

As usual. More totally unintelligible bullshit by ignorant Trumpeteers.
Man talk about fake news. You climate deniers make up a good portion of his low 30's seduced brown nosers and mindless hanger-ons.

Facts please instead of false contentions.


Please list your lifetime accomplishments and credentials that qualify you to constantly belittle the intelligence of those that don't share your views. Please don't tell us you had a career as a mailman.

[hcap]

Please list your lifetime accomplishments and credentials that qualify you to constantly belittle the intelligence of those that don't share your views. Please don't tell us you had a career as a mailman.No one here is a professional, but listening to Harvard educated DRs is more accurate than following witch doctors

[Tom]

Dr. Ben Warmer, PHD.
Dr. Ben Colder, PHD.

Dr. Chick A. Little, ASS.

[hcap]

Dr. Ben Warmer, PHD.
Dr. Ben Colder, PHD.

Dr. Chick A. Little, ASS.Stephen Hawking and 97% of world's climatologists way above either BENs

[Tom]

And yet, they cannot get the worst offending nations to cooperate, and have accomplished nothing so far.

And the spokespeople for the fraud STILL are the worst individual offenders.

You get a receipt for that land you bought in Flori-duh?

Gotta run - I'm working on my new cabin and dock I'm building in the Port City of Albany.

[Inner Dirt]

Please list your lifetime accomplishments and credentials that qualify you to constantly belittle the intelligence of those that don't share your views. Please don't tell us you had a career as a mailman.


No one here is a professional, but listening to Harvard educated DRs is more accurate than following witch doctors

Most have an agenda, if they could not convince anyone that we needed to worry about the sky falling, their importance, sources of income, and opportunities would lessen. I have listened to what they have to say and viewed a lot of their models. All of it is theory and projections. Just a scientific guessing game. The same one we had in the 70's with the coming ice age. Please don't blame 70's technology on that major gaffe, we put a man on the moon 1969. Look at some of the models out there that show projected sea level rise by 2100, they range from 5 inches to 15 feet. Yes 15 feet!!!

Many of us just have to apply a little common sense. Back when I lived in San Clemente Ca in the 90's I would go down to the beach for a daily morning jog and run past the pier where the day's water temp was posted. The yearly variance was 15 degrees, yet we have scientists saying a 1 degree increase in ocean temperatures will cause massive devastation. The same scientists that can't accurately predict tomorrow's weather are trying to tell us what will be happening 75 years from now? You have climate alarmists claiming climate change has caused devastation to polar bear habitat, yet people tracking polar bears say their population is just fine. I think many agree that average temperatures are a little higher the last century and a half, they just don't believe it will cause the whole state of Florida to be under water in 75 years.

[hcap]

And yet, they cannot get the worst offending nations to cooperate, and have accomplished nothing so far.

Before we can enforce treaties like The Paris Agreement we must first realize that you climate deniers claim of so-called "junk science" of the mainstream overwhelming scientific consensus totally wrong.

Dr. Ben Warmer, PHD and Dr. Ben Colder, PHD have no place deciding scientific matters. Practical measure to deal with AGW needs recognizing the reality of AGW

BTW, As the United States pulls back from its commitment to fight climate change, the world’s two other biggest polluters — India and China — are sounding the alarm. But neither country is in a position to fill the void left by American leadership, or to foot the bill.

[Inner Dirt]

Stephen Hawking and 97% of world's climatologists way above either BENs

Maybe you should Google for "Stephen Hawking quotes" he may be a brilliant scientist but some of his beliefs are way out in left field. He actually believes in the possibility of time travel.:lol::lol::lol: He is a can short of a six pack.

[davew]

Before we can enforce treaties like The Paris Agreement we must first realize that you climate deniers claim of so-called "junk science" of the mainstream overwhelming scientific consensus totally wrong.

Dr. Ben Warmer, PHD and Dr. Ben Colder, PHD have no place deciding scientific matters. Practical measure to deal with AGW needs recognizing the reality of AGW

BTW, As the United States pulls back from its commitment to fight climate change, the world’s two other biggest polluters — India and China — are sounding the alarm. But neither country is in a position to fill the void left by American leadership, or to foot the bill.

What is someone to think when these 'great scientists' have been shown to commit fraud by manipulating data to help their theory?

[boxcar]

Before we can enforce treaties like The Paris Agreement we must first realize that you climate deniers claim of so-called "junk science" of the mainstream overwhelming scientific consensus totally wrong.

Dr. Ben Warmer, PHD and Dr. Ben Colder, PHD have no place deciding scientific matters. Practical measure to deal with AGW needs recognizing the reality of AGW

BTW, As the United States pulls back from its commitment to fight climate change, the world’s two other biggest polluters — India and China — are sounding the alarm. But neither country is in a position to fill the void left by American leadership, or to foot the bill.

On this issue, methinks America should follow Obama's lead (very bad pun intended), and lead from behind. :coffee:

[classhandicapper]

Rather than accepting Faux and Anthony Watts, consider
Stephen Hawking

https://futurism.com/stephen-hawking-we-are-close-to-the-tipping-point-where-global-warming-becomes-irreversible/

Stephen Hawking: We Are Close to the Tipping Point Where Global Warming Becomes Irreversible


A Dire Warning

Famous physicist Stephen Hawking issued a warning to humanity in response to President Donald Trump’s recent decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. Speaking to BBC News prior to a cosmology conference being held at the University of Cambridge this week in honor of his 75th birthday, Hawking said that Trump’s decision could cause irrevocable harm to the planet.

“We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible,” the celebrated scientist told Pallab Ghosh from the BBC. The consequences, he explained, would be truly dire for the planet. “Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.”

This is a political scare tactic.

The idea being that's it's OK to exaggerate or lie through your teeth if you believe your values and goals are superior to everyone else's and if fear is the only way to implement your policy. It's standard liberal politics. It's Al Gore again, but this time it's a scientist willing to make shit up.

The earth has already had periods when the CO2 level was MASSIVELY higher than it is now and we didn't become Venus.

There are reasonable positions and responses and there is bullshit.

If anything, Al Gore scare tactics and this kind of stuff makes some people more skeptical. Once you know a person is willing to lie to advance their own values and agenda, you cannot trust them to ever tell the truth. That puts someone like me in an impossible position. I don't have the time, energy, or desire to become a climate expert/scientist and figure it out for myself, but I already know I can't trust people like this. So how do I know what the actual truth and risks are so I can form an opinion on the appropriate response.

[tucker6]

This is a political scare tactic.

The idea being that's it's OK to exaggerate or lie through your teeth if you believe your values and goals are superior to everyone else's and if fear is the only way to implement your policy. It's standard liberal politics. It's Al Gore again, but this time it's a scientist willing to make shit up.

The earth has already had periods when the CO2 level was MASSIVELY higher than it is now and we didn't become Venus.

There are reasonable positions and responses and there is bullshit.

If anything, Al Gore scare tactics and this kind of stuff makes some people more skeptical. Once you know a person is willing to lie to advance their own values and agenda, you cannot trust them to ever tell the truth. That puts someone like me in an impossible position. I don't have the time, energy, or desire to become a climate expert/scientist and figure it out for myself, but I already know I can't trust people like this. So how do I know what the actual truth and risks are so I can form an opinion on the appropriate response.

People that constantly change goal posts and/or tell you the science is settled are likely lying. Nothing in science is settled. Ever. Yet I see many climate papers published annually where it is exclaimed that AGW is worse than we thought. Also note Alarmists are getting smarter. All predictions are now 40 year plus out in time to prevent erosion of public support when they are wrong. Which they have been 100% of the time up til now.

[FantasticDan]

Maybe you should Google for "Stephen Hawking quotes" he may be a brilliant scientist but some of his beliefs are way out in left field. He actually believes in the possibility of time travel.:lol::lol::lol:
So you've crunched the numbers and just can't make it work, huh? :pound:

Think about what's commonplace in technology now and how much of it would have been considered impossible 100 yrs ago..

[Tom]

Time travel is a piece of cake.
I haven't figured how to go backwards yet, but I fully capable of lying down on a couch and going 2-3-4 hours into the future almost every day!

[classhandicapper]

I'm pretty sure time travel isn't possible otherwise everyone in our future would be doing it and I'd never find an overlay. Yet sometimes I still do. ;)

[Tom]

If time travel were possible, people who lived on the coasts would have come back to stop us from making the oceans rise. OR, they would have gone back even further than now to stop GW in its infancy.

So things must turn out OK on the climate scene.

[Inner Dirt]

So you've crunched the numbers and just can't make it work, huh? :pound:

Think about what's commonplace in technology now and how much of it would have been considered impossible 100 yrs ago..

What is wrong with you? You are going to laugh at someone who doesn't believe in time travel? I guess you never heard of something called common sense. Do you still believe in Santa Claus?

[FantasticDan]

What is wrong with you? You are going to laugh at someone who doesn't believe in time travel? I guess you never heard of something called common sense. Do you still believe in Santa Claus?
:rolleyes: Let's just say I have more scientific faith in Prof. Hawking than I do you, and leave it at that. :p

[hcap]

So now the PA amateurish climatologists pretend one of the greatest scientific minds of all times warning us about AGW dangers and evidence of approaching tipping points can't be taken seriously because they have no clue to his physics. Why not criticize his work on black holes or gravity?

Youse guys need to study theoretical physics. I have

https://ny.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/can-we-time-travel-lesson-plan/can-we-time-travel-lesson-plan/#.WmBwYXlrwsU

What is time? Is time travel possible? Today, we know that time travel indeed exists beyond myths, science fiction, and Hollywood movies. According to Stephen Hawking, time travel is possible, and not just in the way we might think. Backward time travel is not supported by Hawking’s theories, because new matter (a new you) would need to be created – one existing in the past and one in the present, traveling back in time. This doesn’t hold up, because matter cannot be created. However, time travel to the future is possible if gravity warps the space-time continuum. Anytime you climb a mountain, fly in a jet from place to place, or even ride in an elevator, you alter the speed at which you get to the future because you are encountering a change in gravity’s pull. Time goes faster when there is less gravitational force at play.

Too bad Einstein is not around so the PA amateurs can ALSO irrationally mangle his work on velocity, gravity and time

Albert Einstein proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age. Einstein's theory of relativity states that time and space are not as constant as everyday life would suggest.

[hcap]

I suppose if Professor Hawking had formulated the speed of t as a function of velocity

Where t = time
v = velocity
g = gravity


(t) x (v)/C squared

Or.....

(t) x (g)/C squared

or https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8a14a33400f31ababc3f56e7ad0ad9cdb8a94539

OR I guess Tom nailed it

Been faster
Been slower

[boxcar]

So now the PA amateurish climatologists pretend one of the greatest scientific minds of all times warning us about AGW dangers and evidence of approaching tipping points can't be taken seriously because they have no clue to his physics. Why not criticize his work on black holes or gravity?

Youse guys need to study theoretical physics. I have

https://ny.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/can-we-time-travel-lesson-plan/can-we-time-travel-lesson-plan/#.WmBwYXlrwsU

What is time? Is time travel possible? Today, we know that time travel indeed exists beyond myths, science fiction, and Hollywood movies. According to Stephen Hawking, time travel is possible, and not just in the way we might think. Backward time travel is not supported by Hawking’s theories, because new matter (a new you) would need to be created – one existing in the past and one in the present, traveling back in time. This doesn’t hold up, because matter cannot be created. However, time travel to the future is possible if gravity warps the space-time continuum. Anytime you climb a mountain, fly in a jet from place to place, or even ride in an elevator, you alter the speed at which you get to the future because you are encountering a change in gravity’s pull. Time goes faster when there is less gravitational force at play.

Too bad Einstein is not around so the PA amateurs can ALSO irrationally mangle his work on velocity, gravity and time

Albert Einstein proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age. Einstein's theory of relativity states that time and space are not as constant as everyday life would suggest.

Yeah...okay...tell us what Time IS. :coffee:

[hcap]

Yeah...okay...tell us what Time IS. :coffee:That is way over your head.

Oops I forgot you taught Professor Hawking everything he knows in addition to the future preceding the present and past.:eek::eek:

[boxcar]

That is way over your head.

Oops I forgot you taught Professor Hawking everything he knows in addition to the future preceding the present and past.:eek::eek:

All I know is that the Future cannot possibly proceed from the Past; for it did we would know everything that is going to take place in the Future since it already occurred in the Past. Did you catch this or was it over your head? :coffee:

[Inner Dirt]

Youse guys need to study theoretical physics. I have

https://ny.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/can-we-time-travel-lesson-plan/can-we-time-travel-lesson-plan/#.WmBwYXlrwsU


Maybe you need to look up what "theoretical" means. It is just a fancy word for guessing. Theory is what scientists used in the 70's to predict the ice age that never showed up. Just because Hawking predicts a bunch of wild crap with his vivid imagination does not mean it exists or will come true. Maybe you should Google for "Failed scientific predictions."

[boxcar]

Maybe you need to look up what "theoretical" means. It is just a fancy word for guessing. Theory is what scientists used in the 70's to predict the ice age that never showed up. Just because Hawking predicts a bunch of wild crap with his vivid imagination does not mean it exists or will come true. Maybe you should Google for "Failed scientific predictions."

And "failed Gore predictions", too. :D

[davew]

Maybe you need to look up what "theoretical" means. It is just a fancy word for guessing. Theory is what scientists used in the 70's to predict the ice age that never showed up. Just because Hawking predicts a bunch of wild crap with his vivid imagination does not mean it exists or will come true. Maybe you should Google for "Failed scientific predictions."

Maybe hcap is confusing theoretical global warming as fact. Even comes up with a BS 97% practitioners agree statement.

[hcap]

All I know is that the Future cannot possibly proceed from the Past; for it did we would know everything that is going to take place in the Future since it already occurred in the Past. Did you catch this or was it over your head? :coffee:Accurately predicting the future requires an accurate understanding of the past and the proper understanding of cause and effect. Cause always precedes effect on the non quantum level. Therefore Professor your nonsense is just that.

Please we have been over this before on the Religion threads and there is no point doing it again

[boxcar]

Accurately predicting the future requires an accurate understanding of the past and the proper understanding of cause and effect. Cause always precedes effect on the non quantum level. Therefore Professor your nonsense is just that.

Please we have been over this before on the Religion threads and there is no point doing it again

No one but God can accurately and 100% of the time predict the future. Since you think you have such a great handle on "cause and effect", come up with all the winners on today's GP card of races. Since, according to your idiotic theory, the Future flows from the Past, then this means all those races have already been run and the results are in! Should be a piece of cake fer ya. :coffee:

And what makes you think that the Future is not causing the Present, and in turn the Present isn't causing the Past? :coffee:

[hcap]

No one but God can accurately and 100% of the time predict the future. Since you think you have such a great handle on "cause and effect", come up with all the winners on today's GP card of races. Since, according to your idiotic theory, the Future flows from the Past, then this means all those races have already been run and the results are in! Should be a piece of cake fer ya. :coffee:

And what makes you think that the Future is not causing the Present, and in turn the Present isn't causing the Past? :coffee:Hugh?. Cause always precedes effect !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why don't we invite your "god" and Hawking to duke it out here on OT?

[Inner Dirt]

Please we have been over this before on the Religion threads and there is no point doing it again

Why not? Both believing in scientific theory and religion requires faith. There have been numerous theological predictions and scientific predictions made by experts in their respective fields that have failed to come true.

Jimmy Swaggert has not been to heaven or seen God, he has no solid proof that either exist. On the other hand it cannot be proven heaven or God do not exist.

Stephen Hawking hasn't been inside a black hole or seen one, he has no solid proof they exist. On the other hand it cannot be proven black holes don't exist.

You can either choose to use your faith to believe or not believe what both of these men have to say. They cannot prove their theories, nor can you disprove them.

Yet we have people calling people ignorant because they don't share their faith.

[hcap]

Why not? Both believing in scientific theory and religion requires faith. There have been numerous theological predictions and scientific predictions made by experts in their respective fields that have failed to come true.

Jimmy Swaggert has not been to heaven or seen God, he has no solid proof that either exist. On the other hand it cannot be proven heaven or God do not exist.

Stephen Hawking hasn't been inside a black hole or seen one, he has no solid proof they exist. On the other hand it cannot be proven black holes don't exist.

You can either choose to use your faith to believe or not believe what both of these men have to say. They cannot prove their theories, nor can you disprove them.

Yet we have people calling people ignorant because they don't share their faith.There is no point debating the future precedes the present, and whether or not cause always precedes effect on the non quantum level

[incoming]

There is no point debating the future precedes the present, and whether or not cause always precedes effect on the non quantum level


OK!! Talk on any level you chose.....What came first .....the chicken or the egg.:popcorn::popcorn:

[boxcar]

Hugh?. Cause always precedes effect !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why don't we invite your "god" and Hawking to duke it out here on OT?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that in your worldview you have what is cause and effect backwards. You have the cart moving the horse.

How are you doing with today's GP card? Seems like a decent card...

[tucker6]

And what makes you think that the Future is not causing the Present, and in turn the Present isn't causing the Past? :coffee:

If you've ever read the Dune series by Frank Herbert, that ended up being the entire premise of is many scifi books, which you discover at the end of book 8. One possible future event (out of an infinite set of possibilities) had already occurred, and all the God Emperor needed to do was select the proper current events over time in order to fulfill the future he wanted. Nice trick if you're presciently minded.

Edit to add that because he lived 3,500 years, the God Emperor was able to rewrite the the past as well to fit the needs of the future.

[boxcar]

If you've ever read the Dune series by Frank Herbert, that ended up being the entire premise of is many scifi books, which you discover at the end of book 8. One possible future event (out of an infinite set of possibilities) had already occurred, and all the God Emperor needed to do was select the proper current events over time in order to fulfill the future he wanted. Nice trick if you're presciently minded.

Edit to add that because he lived 3,500 years, the God Emperor was able to rewrite the the past as well to fit the needs of the future.

Logically, this can be the only logical flow of time (not to be confused with chronological order which is Hcap's self-perpetuated failure!). The "flow" of Time can easily be ascertained by starting with the Present. This present moment just flowed into the Past to become "used" time, never to be used again. And the next moment is coming to us out of the Future so that we can actually experience Phenomena, which cannot be experienced in the Future or the Past, the way it can only in the Present. And as we experience what was the "next moment" that came to us out of the Future, that present time flows into the Past, etc., etc. And so, the flow continues....until the sands of Time are no more.

[davew]

OMG, UN says last 3 years were the hottest 3 years EVER....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/last-three-years-hottest-record-un-162237600.html


Bill Nye the 'science guy' was right :lol:

[Tom]

OK!! Talk on any level you chose.....What came first .....the chicken or the egg.:popcorn::popcorn:

I ordered an Egg McMuffin and McNuggets for breakfast today - they both came in the same bag.

[PaceAdvantage]

The yellow(orange ?) dye of his fake tanning lotion and hair dye clogs his vision allowing nuclear mistakes to happen. "Little rocket man" can mistakingly to step over that "red line" because North Korea and the rest of the world has a hard time seeing the childish so-called "red" line when the obvious fake yellow-orange dye of his contradictory statements are screwing up his administration's position. Further confused by all you brown nosed Trumpeters excusing their heroes bullshit. Acting like high schooners bullying others maybe only has value when your opponents are rational.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: man you got it bad

[PaceAdvantage]

Why is it, and I can count many of them, liberals known to me seemed to have double standards when it comes to Trump. Any time I have made negative comments on someone's appearance (I never did it where the person it was directed at could hear or it was someone on TV) I was chastised. My common targets were comb overs as I immediately cut my hair short or shaved my head when I started balding and people with excessive piercings and tattoos on their face. Anything I commented on was a personal choice, I did not comment on a person's size or a handicap.

These same people who ripped me for commenting on comb overs make fun of Trump's hair, his weight, the way he talks etc,etc. Those same folks ripped on me when I mention Joe Biden's obvious hair transplant and face lift. Care to explain? Anyone?it's called the duplicity of the left leaner

They do it all the time

[davew]

climate change doomsday got cancelled / postponed ...

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-doomsday-temperature-increase-co2/

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/nasagiss/status/954013611395112960

[hcap]

If you've ever read the Dune series by Frank Herbert, that ended up being the entire premise of is many scifi books, which you discover at the end of book 8. One possible future event (out of an infinite set of possibilities) had already occurred, and all the God Emperor needed to do was select the proper current events over time in order to fulfill the future he wanted. Nice trick if you're presciently minded.

Edit to add that because he lived 3,500 years, the God Emperor was able to rewrite the the past as well to fit the needs of the future.Dune is a great novel but has nothing to do with future events occurring before the present and past.

Name one physical process other than those on the probabilistic quantum level where cause may precede effect?

[hcap]

I post Stephen Hawking as a reasonable scientific expert and he gets trashed for "believing in time travel" by various pa "EXPERTS" WHO TOTALLY MISUNDERSTAND THE RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENA of gravity he was pointing to. Meanwhile those same experts who complained irrationally about time travel support a "reverse flow of time".

Yeah, whatever caused me to mention amateur PA climatologists?

Maybe a future PA trumpeteer spanked me with a bible first before I ever posted on off topic?

[Inner Dirt]

I post Stephen Hawking as a reasonable scientific expert and he gets trashed for "believing in time travel" by various pa "EXPERTS" WHO TOTALLY MISUNDERSTAND THE RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENA of gravity he was pointing to. Meanwhile those same experts who complained irrationally about time travel support a "reverse flow of time".

Yeah, whatever caused me to mention amateur PA climatologists?

Maybe a future PA trumpeteer spanked me with a bible first before I ever posted on off topic?

You still haven't found a dictionary and looked up theoretical yet have you?
Hawking makes educated guesses, that is his life's work. He hasn't proved anything that was previously unknown. All those big words you throw around that theoretical physicists use all point to the same thing, theories which are nothing but guesswork.

[Tom]

2017 was Earth's second hottest year since global estimates became feasible in 1880. The year continued a decades-long warming trend – 17 of the 18 warmest years have now occurred since 2001.

And your point is........?:confused:

[tucker6]

https://twitter.com/nasagiss/status/954013611395112960

Hard to imagine that GISS, which is run by a top AGW Alarmist Gavin Schmidt, would find such evidence. :rolleyes:

He should be fired yesterday for his anti-science position on reasonable public discourse. He has a website, which he uses on govt time, that only allows Alarmist views. How American of him.

THAT is the fox running the henhouse.

[boxcar]

I post Stephen Hawking as a reasonable scientific expert and he gets trashed for "believing in time travel" by various pa "EXPERTS" WHO TOTALLY MISUNDERSTAND THE RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENA of gravity he was pointing to. Meanwhile those same experts who complained irrationally about time travel support a "reverse flow of time".

Yeah, whatever caused me to mention amateur PA climatologists?

Maybe a future PA trumpeteer spanked me with a bible first before I ever posted on off topic?

You were doomed from the start: It should have been a rod instead of a bible. :coffee:

[hcap]

You were doomed from the start: It should have been a rod instead of a bible. :coffee:Name one physical process other than those on the probabilistic quantum level where cause may precede effect? There are none. Zero, Nada, Zilch.

0.0.0.0

[hcap]

You still haven't found a dictionary and looked up theoretical yet have you?
Hawking makes educated guesses, that is his life's work. He hasn't proved anything that was previously unknown. All those big words you throw around that theoretical physicists use all point to the same thing, theories which are nothing but guesswork.Bull. His work on black holes is considered more than theoretical.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/17/12514796/black-hole-radiation-stephen-hawking-proof

New evidence supports Stephen Hawking's theory of shrinking black holes

And

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/black-holes-hawking

Black holes created in a lab ‘prove’ radiation does escape from the astronomical objects

A black hole 'made' in a lab proves Stephen Hawking's theory correct, for the first time

[boxcar]

Name one physical process other than those on the probabilistic quantum level where cause may precede effect? There are none. Zero, Nada, Zilch.

0.0.0.0

I've done this along time ago in the original Religion thread when I discussed Thomistic-Aristotleian Realism -- and even more specifically with the Hand, Stick and Stone illustration I borrowed from Dr. Feser. Try to keep up.

Meanwhile...I couldn't help but notice you took a pass on my GP race card challenge for yesterday. Are you up to it for today's card? :coffee:

[hcap]

I've done this along time ago in the original Religion thread when I discussed Thomistic-Aristotleian Realism -- and even more specifically with the Hand, Stick and Stone illustration I borrowed from Dr. Feser. Try to keep up.

Meanwhile...I couldn't help but notice you took a pass on my GP race card challenge for yesterday. Are you up to it for today's card? :coffee:Tell you what. Answer this. Name one physical process other than those on the probabilistic quantum level where effect may precede cause? Even though I said accurately predicting future events require an accurate understanding of the past and an accurate understanding of interacting causes, we can play horse racing.

Of course if the future precedes the past and present, as you babble, you would already know the outcomes of all races forever and there would be no point to any game of chance. Chance means probability.Maybe you should sell insurance instead of used cars and 17th century philosophy

[boxcar]

Tell you what. Answer this. Name one physical process other than those on the probabilistic quantum level where effect may precede cause? Even though I said accurately predicting future events require an accurate understanding of the past and an accurate understanding of interacting causes, we can play horse racing.

Of course if the future precedes the past and present, as you babble, you would already know the outcomes of all races forever and there would be no point to any game of chance. Chance means probability.Maybe you should sell insurance instead of used cars and 17th century philosophy

That's pure nonsense and you know it! The Future is always the big unknown to all of us precisely because it does not precede from Past! :bang::bang: The Past precedes the Present and Future ONLY CHRONOLOGICALLY -- but not logically. Why do you have such a time time understanding the difference!?

[hcap]

What da f**k does "The Past precedes the Present and Future ONLY CHRONOLOGICALLY -- but not logically"mean?

Logically and chronologically, before always precedes after. Always!.

COMMON DEFINITIONS ARE NOT A MATTER OF CHOICE Or fancy

Question? Do we speak the same language?

Remember not all of us speak Boxcarian

[davew]

Bull. His work on black holes is considered more than theoretical.


New evidence supports Stephen Hawking's theory


If evidence supports a theory, does it become indisputable law supported by over 97% scientists in that field? It seems to with AGW....

[Tom]

What is more than theoretical?
It is truth or it isn't.
hcap ignores the fact that science has a history of evolution.

The sun revolved around the Earth - now it doesn't
The Earth was flat - now it's not.
Pluto was a planet,now it's not. What happened, global warming caused it to shrink?


https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashaumer/science-facts-you-might-have-believed-in-the-90s?utm_term=.pjMr77JNW#.naMRll5bZ

[Inner Dirt]

Bull. His work on black holes is considered more than theoretical.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/17/12514796/black-hole-radiation-stephen-hawking-proof

New evidence supports Stephen Hawking's theory of shrinking black holes

And

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/black-holes-hawking

Black holes created in a lab ‘prove’ radiation does escape from the astronomical objects

A black hole 'made' in a lab proves Stephen Hawking's theory correct, for the first time

It is still theory and proves nothing, if you want to believe it fine and dandy, just stop demeaning people that don't share your faith. No one can prove a damn thing about how the universe was created, they can build models and do experiments till the cows come home. You still haven't explained away that ice age all the 1970's scientists predicted that never showed up. You seem to support any nut that believes how you do and post their work like it is gospel.

If Stephen Hawking is so smart, with knowledge way beyond everyone else, and can solve problems that no one else can, can prove the reality of time travel, why is he sitting in a wheelchair, immobile and unable to do anything to take care of himself? If all the far fetched science fiction he believes in is true he should have transported his mind into the body of a 25 year old world class decathlete by now. Or maybe he should went back in time and cured the disease that crippled him. I believe because of his handicap the left has raised him to an icon status he does not deserve.

[tucker6]

I believe because of his handicap the left has raised him to an icon status he does not deserve.
I have nothing against Hawking, but have always thought the above statement was true. He's extremely intelligent and creative, but he's no Einstein, whose theories have stood the test of considerable time.

[FantasticDan]

If Stephen Hawking is so smart, with knowledge way beyond everyone else, and can solve problems that no one else can, can prove the reality of time travel, why is he sitting in a wheelchair, immobile and unable to do anything to take care of himself? If all the far fetched science fiction he believes in is true he should have transported his mind into the body of a 25 year old world class decathlete by now. Or maybe he should went back in time and cured the disease that crippled him. I believe because of his handicap the left has raised him to an icon status he does not deserve.
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this forum.

Seriously, it sets a new standard. Congrats? :blush:

[boxcar]

What da f**k does "The Past precedes the Present and Future ONLY CHRONOLOGICALLY -- but not logically"mean?

Logically and chronologically, before always precedes after. Always!.

COMMON DEFINITIONS ARE NOT A MATTER OF CHOICE Or fancy

Question? Do we speak the same language?

Remember not all of us speak Boxcarian

Well, then look up the common definitions of "chronological" and "logical". But thank you for finally admitting that this is your fundamental problem. I've been saying this for years now -- that you fail to understand there is paradox with Time -- that Time can be and is commonly understood in chronological terms but it should also be understood in logical terms. Logically, it's not possible for the Future to flow FROM the Past because if it did, we would have full knowledge of all Future events.

Moreover, you would logically have Time terminating in the Present, since the flow would be From the Past through the Future to the Present. But, LOGICALLY, if time terminated in the Present, then you would cease to exist the moment you read this, since there would be nothing beyond the Present. (What can be beyond Time's termination point?) But we escape this absurdity by postulating the real flow of time as logically flowing from the Future through the Present to the Past. The Future is the reservoir of all Time and the Past is its basin. The Present? It could be said that it's the canal that moment by moment connects the two.

[Stevecsd]

From: http://libertyunbound.com/node/1317

I agree with Pascal Bruckner, that CAGW is just another ideological meme to control people. And, the good news, I hope, is that more & more facts are coming out that rebut CAGW. Most people are just not aware of some basic facts about climate & CO2. Here are some I have learned over the last few years.

1. Currently carbon dioxide amounts to about 0.04% of the atmosphere. (4 / 100ths by percentage or 400 parts per million.)
2. From all of the reading I have done it appears that human caused CO2 generates somewhere between 3-7% of all global carbon dioxide. (For one source see http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth10.htm ) Even if it as high as 10% per cent, natural causes dwarf human generated CO2. And if humans double their CO2 output, global concentrations go up 10%. (400 current ppm all sources minus 10% by humans [40 ppm] when doubled gives 360 ppm natural sources + 40 (current human caused) +40 [doubling] which is 440 ppm.)
3. There is proof that over the history of the earth there have been times when temperatures climbed first, then an increase in CO2 appears.
4. There have been times when CO2 concentration was as high at 7,000 ppm, one of those during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago.
5. If the level of CO2 in the atmosphere goes too low (somewhere around 200 ppm) it will be very detrimental to growing crops.
6. There has also been some research about CO2 “climate sensitivity”. Which means how sensitive is global climate to increases or decreases in CO2. Recent research is showing that climate may less sensitive to CO2 increases than earlier studies showed.

Now some comments on the computer climate models used by the people who support CAGW. Not one of them predicted the current temperature “hiatus”. They call it a “pause”, but that assumes global temperature will go up in the future. They all predicted a much higher global temperature average by now. I think there are a couple of major issues with modeling climate and temperature. I don’t think climate scientists know all of the factors that affect climate and global temperatures. One of their latest theories is that the heat has been hidden in the oceans. But recent studies show that the oceans are stable or cooling slightly. The other issue with the models is I don’t think they take “chaos” theory into consideration. The people building models assume that there are knowable & predictable outcomes from a specific set of inputs. But the current failure of the climate simulation models argues against that. Climate could be “chaotic” where it is not “knowable” with our current human knowledge base. And it is possible that it can never be predicted.

There is also quite a bit of “smoothing” (read “changing”) of historical data to fit their models. Climategate showed that certain people are not above fudging data or outright lying. Having done software design and programming on large data sets for many years, I am very skeptical that they are working with the data with any kind of integrity.

Here’s a web site for a more balanced picture than the “sky is falling” CAGW crowd:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/06/pascal-bruckners-fanaticism-of.html

Interview with Canadian scientist Tim Ball
http://thestagblog.com/qa-with-timothy-ball-proud-climate-skeptic/

[tucker6]

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this forum.


So now we know that you don't read your own posts... :blush:

[tucker6]

Here’s a web site for a more balanced picture than the “sky is falling” CAGW crowd:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/06/pascal-bruckners-fanaticism-of.html

Interview with Canadian scientist Tim Ball
http://thestagblog.com/qa-with-timothy-ball-proud-climate-skeptic/
Ha, quoting WUWT is not going to get you rep points from HCAP. :lol:

That said, water vapor is much more significant greenhouse gas than CO2 ever hopes to be. Why the AGW crowd hitched their wagon to CO2 is hard to fathom. Unless we can't do without clouds and rain that is.

As Steve said in his post, and as Tom oft states, ben colder; ben hotter; ben drier; ben wetter.

[PaceAdvantage]

Speaking of Stephen Hawking, how the hell is this guy still alive?

That's the most astonishing thing about Hawking that nobody really talks about.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Why worry about GW, or environmental pollution...when overpopulation looms the more immediate danger to our survival?

Most intelligent response in this entire thread.

[chadk66]

Most intelligent response in this entire thread.And to add, why the hell worry about global warming or whatever it's called now when Trump's going to destroy the world. Seems rather trivial to worry about the climate. Unless .....

[hcap]

I have nothing against Hawking, but have always thought the above statement was true. He's extremely intelligent and creative, but he's no Einstein, whose theories have stood the test of considerable time. He has scored well on some lists.

Nobel Prize William Cropper's listing from his 2001 book Great Physicists: the Life an
Lists him highly among 20th-21 century physicists.(Numbers to the right are votes
Albert Einstein 80.90
2. Isaac Newton 77.42
3. Galileo Galilei 59.62
4. Marie Curie 33.34
5. Stephen Hawking 28.03
6. Michael Faraday 27.15
7. Niels Bohr 25.73
8. Werner Heisenberg 16.78
9. John Napier 10.53
10. Enrico Fermi 9.20

No Einstein yes but heads and tails above former television meteorologist and current radio meteorologist Anthony Watts:lol::lol:

[hcap]

Name one physical process other than those on the probabilistic quantum level where cause may precede effect? There are none. Zero, Nada, Zilch.

0.0.0.0

I've done this along time ago in the original Religion thread when I discussed Thomistic-Aristotleian Realism -- and even more specifically with the Hand, Stick and Stone illustration I borrowed from Dr. Feser. Try to keep up.This is not a Religious thread. Speak science

[Parkview_Pirate]

Speaking of Stephen Hawking, how the hell is this guy still alive?

That's the most astonishing thing about Hawking that nobody really talks about.

Off the topic of the thread, but a good question. There is speculation, in those dark corners of the web where few dare go, that Hawking has been replaced once or twice, rather than living far, far longer than expected for anyone with his form of ALS. :eek:

Check with your local Illuminati or Freemason spokesperson for the real scoop.

As for global warming, we got bigger problems - like Thask says, overpopulation for one. Which, could be described as a symptom of "overshoot", the out-of-control and rampant use of fossil fuels, rare metals and other natural resources (like fresh water) to support a consumption based, high energy lifestyle that's promoted overpopulation, pollution, wars (good for profits), and concentration of wealth in the slim minority of puppet-masters. This in turn has allowed the puppet-masters to control the media, the arts, the politicians, etc, creating an endless series of rackets even in the traditionally helpful areas of health care and education. As Jim Kunstler would say, we live in an era "where everything goes, and nothing matters". His essay from last month in the American Conservative sums it up pretty accurately, for those who are not as cynical as myself, and think politics actually still matters:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/beyond-cynicism-america-fumbles-towards-kafkas-castle/

Ah, if global warming and a tipping point were only true. If the earth burned to a crisp, it would at least put an end to these threads, and wouldn't that be nice?

[davew]

He has scored well on some lists.

Nobel Prize William Cropper's listing from his 2001 book Great Physicists: the Life an
Lists him highly among 20th-21 century physicists.(Numbers to the right are votes
Albert Einstein 80.90
2. Isaac Newton 77.42
3. Galileo Galilei 59.62
4. Marie Curie 33.34
5. Stephen Hawking 28.03
6. Michael Faraday 27.15
7. Niels Bohr 25.73
8. Werner Heisenberg 16.78
9. John Napier 10.53
10. Enrico Fermi 9.20

No Einstein yes but heads and tails above former television meteorologist and current radio meteorologist Anthony Watts:lol::lol:

What makes a physicist more of an expert on climate than say a ex-vice president or an actor?

[Tom]

So what has Hawking contributed that has helped people's lives get better, other than Sheldon's.

[tucker6]

So what has Hawking contributed that has helped people's lives get better, other than Sheldon's.

Exactly. I looked at Cappy's list and the only one that didn't significantly change our view of the universe and our place in it is Hawking. He comes across as s much more intelligent form of Carl Sagsn.

[tucker6]

He has scored well on some lists.

Nobel Prize William Cropper's listing from his 2001 book Great Physicists: the Life an
Lists him highly among 20th-21 century physicists.(Numbers to the right are votes
Albert Einstein 80.90
2. Isaac Newton 77.42
3. Galileo Galilei 59.62
4. Marie Curie 33.34
5. Stephen Hawking 28.03
6. Michael Faraday 27.15
7. Niels Bohr 25.73
8. Werner Heisenberg 16.78
9. John Napier 10.53
10. Enrico Fermi 9.20

No Einstein yes but heads and tails above former television meteorologist and current radio meteorologist Anthony Watts:lol::lol:
Nice post. I don't have much issue with the rankings. I personally would have put Watts at 10, but won't quibble with his #12 ranking.

[boxcar]

This is not a Religious thread. Speak science

Logic trumps science. Feser's argument and illustration is a philosophical one.

[Inner Dirt]

So what has Hawking contributed that has helped people's lives get better, other than Sheldon's.


:lol::lol::lol: I tried to give you reputation for the laugh, but it wouldn't let me:lol::lol::lol:.

[hcap]

Logic trumps science. Feser's argument and illustration is a philosophical one.Climate science is not a philosophical study except if you are trying to find fault as all you PA amateurish climatologists are doing. The ridiculous anti-liberal anti-science, anti-establishment, anti-elite, anti-mainstream medis bonkers philosophy that is

Don't know Feser or do I care to know. However what.does he say about before being always!!! before after?

[Inner Dirt]

This is not a Religious thread. Speak science Theoretical physics shares a lot of similarity to religion whether you want to ignore it or not. It all requires faith to believe in it.
Hawking radiation and black holes have not been proven to exist or not exist. Which is similar to the concept of heaven and God, why do you fail to understand that?

[Inner Dirt]

Climate science is not a philosophical study except if you are trying to find fault as all you PA amateurish climatologists are doing. The ridiculous anti-liberal anti-science, anti-establishment, anti-elite, anti-mainstream medis bonkers philosophy that is

Don't know Feser or do I care to know. However what.does he say about before being always!!! before after?


You still have offered not offered an explanation why the predicted ice age that was all the rage in the 70's did not show up. No one is arguing that the average temperature hasn't ticked up a little over the last couple centuries. We just don't believe the sky is falling and all of Florida will be underwater by the year 2100.

[boxcar]

Climate science is not a philosophical study except if you are trying to find fault as all you PA amateurish climatologists are doing. The ridiculous anti-liberal anti-science, anti-establishment, anti-elite, anti-mainstream medis bonkers philosophy that is

Don't know Feser or do I care to know. However what.does he say about before being always!!! before after?


But why do you care to know this?

And Feser's Hand, Stick and Stone illustration had nothing to do with climate change -- but with cause and effect.

[hcap]

Exactly. I looked at Cappy's list and the only one that didn't significantly change our view of the universe and our place in it is Hawking. He comes across as s much more intelligent form of Carl Sagsn.Hows does Hawking and Sgan compare to Watts?

Btw, Sagan had this to say about AGW back in 1980.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135

Here's Carl Sagan's original essay on the dangers of climate change

"There is an additional factor that can alter the landscape and the climate of Earth: intelligent life, able to make major environmental changes. Like Venus, the Earth also has a greenhouse effect due to its carbon dioxide and water vapor.

One more time.....Hows does Hawking and Sgan compare to Anthony Watts?

[hcap]

Theoretical physics shares a lot of similarity to religion whether you want to ignore it or not. It all requires faith to believe in it.
Hawking radiation and black holes have not been proven to exist or not exist. Which is similar to the concept of heaven and God, why do you fail to understand that?Have you studied physics or science or even religion?

You continue to mix up religion and science. You sound like a
mini-Bollixcedupcar

[thaskalos]

Theoretical physics shares a lot of similarity to religion whether you want to ignore it or not. It all requires faith to believe in it.
Hawking radiation and black holes have not been proven to exist or not exist. Which is similar to the concept of heaven and God, why do you fail to understand that?

But only religion condemns you to a fiery afterlife for all eternity for your "disbelief".

[davew]

But only religion condemns you to a fiery afterlife for all eternity for your "disbelief".

Haven't you heard for the call to jail 'deniers'?

[hcap]

Haven't you heard for the call to jail 'deniers'?Why don't you ever source your absurd claims?

[Inner Dirt]

But only religion condemns you to a fiery afterlife for all eternity for your "disbelief".

Have you read some of the doomsday predictions of the climate alarmists?
Hawking has implied the Earth could turn into Venus. Sounds like a fiery hell to me.

[hcap]

Have you read some of the doomsday predictions of the climate alarmists?
Hawking has implied the Earth could turn into Venus.So fid Carl Sagan as I just posted that.

#211

[MONEY]

Haven't you heard for the call to jail 'deniers'?

Why don't you ever source your absurd claims?

Maybe this will help.

"In news that should shock and anger Americans, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil actions against so-called “climate change deniers,” but she has “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.”"

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/10/attorney-general-lynch-looking-into-prosecuting-climate-change-deniers/

[davew]

Why don't you ever source your absurd claims?

because it is so EASY to find, even for libs...

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/20-scientists-ask-obama-to-put-climate-change-deniers-in-jail/

http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888

https://www.christianpost.com/news/jail-global-warming-deniers-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-116797/

https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2014/04/01/disagree-climate-change-deniers-throw-em-jail/7162971/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/

[hcap]

Maybe this will help.

"In news that should shock and anger Americans, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil actions against so-called “climate change deniers,” but she has “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.”"

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/10/attorney-general-lynch-looking-into-prosecuting-climate-change-deniers/From your article....

Lynch was responding to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who urged Lynch to prosecute those who “pretend that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled,” particularly those in the “fossil fuel industry” who supposedly have constructed a “climate denial apparatus.”

Lynch is apparently following in the footsteps of California Attorney General Kamala Harris and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, both of whom have opened up investigations of ExxonMobil for allegedly lying to the public and their shareholders about climate change.

Similar to the lying of the tobacco companies to congress about the dangers of cigarrettes

[hcap]

because it is so EASY to find, even for libs...

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/20-scientists-ask-obama-to-put-climate-change-deniers-in-jail/

Lets start with your first link. From the article:"Liberals spent years calling it Global Warming until everyone realized that things were getting colder not hotter". Yeah right

Enough said.
Besides did any one go to jail?

[hcap]

There have been threats and lawsuits on both sides. Very different than threatening eternal damnation.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16012017/climate-change-noaa-donald-trump-lamar-smith-global-warming-hiatus

Judicial Watch has sought to force the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to release 8,000 pages of researchers' communications regarding a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Science in June 2015.

The study debunked the notion of a global warming "hiatus" between 1998-2012, an argument used by those who dispute the scientific consensus on climate change. A recent paper by a different group of researchers affirmed NOAA's findings, one of several confirmations.

[Tom]

hcap was RIGHT!!!!!!

Global Warming IS dangerous for Polar Bears!

OR should we call them SOLAR Bears!

[buzzy]

All the BS that’s thrown around in this thread ..,visual evidence is conclusive.. there is no doubt about climate change

https://youtu.be/N_ZbAf_U7_c

[davew]

All the BS that’s thrown around in this thread ..,visual evidence is conclusive.. there is no doubt about climate change

https://youtu.be/N_ZbAf_U7_c

Most agree the climate is changing, the question that is being debated is how much (if any) is anthropogenic.

[boxcar]

All the BS that’s thrown around in this thread ..,visual evidence is conclusive.. there is no doubt about climate change

https://youtu.be/N_ZbAf_U7_c

The universe is full of change. So what?

[buzzy]

boxcar
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzy View Post
All the BS that’s thrown around in this thread ..,visual evidence is conclusive.. there is no doubt about climate change

https://youtu.be/N_ZbAf_U7_c
The universe is full of change. So what?


Evidence, besides your word..

[Lemon Drop Husker]

boxcar
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzy View Post
All the BS that’s thrown around in this thread ..,visual evidence is conclusive.. there is no doubt about climate change

https://youtu.be/N_ZbAf_U7_c
The universe is full of change. So what?


Evidence, besides your word..

You should turn off your laptop/PC to conserve energy and save the planet.

[hcap]

Most agree the climate is changing, the question that is being debated is how much (if any) is anthropogenic.Only debated by climate deniers

[davew]

Only debated by climate deniers

why is that? because people like you KNOW ?

[tucker6]

Only debated by climate deniers
You know that statement isn't true. It makes everything else you type suspect when you make silly arguments like this.

[Inner Dirt]

There were all kinds of climate changes and species thriving and then going extinct before man came, what caused those and why aren't those things in play now?

[zico20]

From: http://libertyunbound.com/node/1317

I agree with Pascal Bruckner, that CAGW is just another ideological meme to control people. And, the good news, I hope, is that more & more facts are coming out that rebut CAGW. Most people are just not aware of some basic facts about climate & CO2. Here are some I have learned over the last few years.

1. Currently carbon dioxide amounts to about 0.04% of the atmosphere. (4 / 100ths by percentage or 400 parts per million.)
2. From all of the reading I have done it appears that human caused CO2 generates somewhere between 3-7% of all global carbon dioxide. (For one source see http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth10.htm ) Even if it as high as 10% per cent, natural causes dwarf human generated CO2. And if humans double their CO2 output, global concentrations go up 10%. (400 current ppm all sources minus 10% by humans [40 ppm] when doubled gives 360 ppm natural sources + 40 (current human caused) +40 [doubling] which is 440 ppm.)
3. There is proof that over the history of the earth there have been times when temperatures climbed first, then an increase in CO2 appears.
4. There have been times when CO2 concentration was as high at 7,000 ppm, one of those during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago.
5. If the level of CO2 in the atmosphere goes too low (somewhere around 200 ppm) it will be very detrimental to growing crops.
6. There has also been some research about CO2 “climate sensitivity”. Which means how sensitive is global climate to increases or decreases in CO2. Recent research is showing that climate may less sensitive to CO2 increases than earlier studies showed.

Now some comments on the computer climate models used by the people who support CAGW. Not one of them predicted the current temperature “hiatus”. They call it a “pause”, but that assumes global temperature will go up in the future. They all predicted a much higher global temperature average by now. I think there are a couple of major issues with modeling climate and temperature. I don’t think climate scientists know all of the factors that affect climate and global temperatures. One of their latest theories is that the heat has been hidden in the oceans. But recent studies show that the oceans are stable or cooling slightly. The other issue with the models is I don’t think they take “chaos” theory into consideration. The people building models assume that there are knowable & predictable outcomes from a specific set of inputs. But the current failure of the climate simulation models argues against that. Climate could be “chaotic” where it is not “knowable” with our current human knowledge base. And it is possible that it can never be predicted.

There is also quite a bit of “smoothing” (read “changing”) of historical data to fit their models. Climategate showed that certain people are not above fudging data or outright lying. Having done software design and programming on large data sets for many years, I am very skeptical that they are working with the data with any kind of integrity.

Here’s a web site for a more balanced picture than the “sky is falling” CAGW crowd:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/06/pascal-bruckners-fanaticism-of.html

Interview with Canadian scientist Tim Ball
http://thestagblog.com/qa-with-timothy-ball-proud-climate-skeptic/

Careful there my friend, do you not know that it is taboo to talk about the climate before 1880. If you do it ends their BS crap about temperatures being the hottest ever and CO2 being the highest ever.

[classhandicapper]

So now the PA amateurish climatologists pretend one of the greatest scientific minds of all times warning us about AGW dangers and evidence of approaching tipping points can't be taken seriously because they have no clue to his physics. Why not criticize his work on black holes or gravity?

Youse guys need to study theoretical physics. I have

https://ny.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/can-we-time-travel-lesson-plan/can-we-time-travel-lesson-plan/#.WmBwYXlrwsU

What is time? Is time travel possible? Today, we know that time travel indeed exists beyond myths, science fiction, and Hollywood movies. According to Stephen Hawking, time travel is possible, and not just in the way we might think. Backward time travel is not supported by Hawking’s theories, because new matter (a new you) would need to be created – one existing in the past and one in the present, traveling back in time. This doesn’t hold up, because matter cannot be created. However, time travel to the future is possible if gravity warps the space-time continuum. Anytime you climb a mountain, fly in a jet from place to place, or even ride in an elevator, you alter the speed at which you get to the future because you are encountering a change in gravity’s pull. Time goes faster when there is less gravitational force at play.

Too bad Einstein is not around so the PA amateurs can ALSO irrationally mangle his work on velocity, gravity and time

Albert Einstein proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age. Einstein's theory of relativity states that time and space are not as constant as everyday life would suggest.


This OLD news.

When people refer to time travel they are not talking about the effects of fast travel or gravity on time. They are talking about the ability to bounce back and forth THROUGH time like "Back to the Future".

I want to go forward in time, get a sports book with the results of all the Kentucky Derbies between 2018 and 2040, then I want to come back.

I want to go back in time and warn my friend Jim that a drunk driver is going hit and kill him so he can avoid it.

That's "time travel".

[tucker6]

This OLD news.

When people refer to time travel they are not talking about the effects of fast travel or gravity on time. They are talking about the ability to bounce back and forth THROUGH time like "Back to the Future".

I want to go forward in time, get a sports book with the results of all the Kentucky Derbies between 2018 and 2040, then I want to come back.

I want to go back in time and warn my friend Jim that a drunk driver is going hit and kill him so he can avoid it.

That's "time travel".
The consequences of time travel are fun to think about. You provided an altruistic reason for going back in time, but failed to mention the downside. Maybe if Jim doesn't die, he ends up killing a young mom by accident who would eventually produce another Einstein if she had lived. By the same token, if you go into the future for the sports book, how do you know your presence in the future doesn't alter the timeline, thus making the sports book meaningless.


We'll never know the answer.

[classhandicapper]

The consequences of time travel are fun to think about. You provided an altruistic reason for going back in time, but failed to mention the downside. Maybe if Jim doesn't die, he ends up killing a young mom by accident who would eventually produce another Einstein if she had lived. By the same token, if you go into the future for the sports book, how do you know your presence in the future doesn't alter the timeline, thus making the sports book meaningless.


We'll never know the answer.

I'll take my chances with that book. ;)

[hcap]

This OLD news.

When people refer to time travel they are not talking about the effects of fast travel or gravity on time. They are talking about the ability to bounce back and forth THROUGH time like "Back to the Future".

I want to go forward in time, get a sports book with the results of all the Kentucky Derbies between 2018 and 2040, then I want to come back.

I want to go back in time and warn my friend Jim that a drunk driver is going hit and kill him so he can avoid it.

That's "time travel".Hawking was criticized as out there and irrationally deemed not qualified speak to climate change by the extremely amateurish uneducated PA critics not understanding WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID about time travel.
Who cares what you want about time travel. That is not the discussion nor is it "old news" or relevant to this absurd debate

[tucker6]

I'll take my chances with that book. ;)
Wait a second. You had an ethical dilemma with Ivey's card reading, but you don't with time travel to get rich? :lol:

[tucker6]

Hawking was criticized as out there and irrationally deemed not qualified speak to climate change by the extremely amateurish uneducated PA critics not understanding WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID about time travel.
Who cares what you want about time travel. That is not the discussion nor is it "old news" or relevant to this absurd debate

why are you always angry? It's a friendly back and forth on a Sunday morning. Relax a little. National policy will not be made or changed by what is said on this forum, even though it should be.

[hcap]

You know that statement isn't true. It makes everything else you type suspect when you make silly arguments like this.No science is ever “settled”; but science deals in probabilities, not always certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”. Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades. By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged omn the conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

You know all consensus studies have shown this.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/studies_consensus.jpg

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/VisionParticipants.jpg

[Tom]

Only debated by climate deniers

Because the Hawkings of the world are afraid of honest debate.
Get a life.
You know what you call a planet whose climate is not changing?



DEAD.
MARS.
VENUS.
PLUTO.

Take your pick.

Climate change is part of life.

[hcap]

why are you always angry? It's a friendly back and forth on a Sunday morning. Relax a little. National policy will not be made or changed by what is said on this forum, even though it should be.I an accused of lying by youYou know that statement isn't true. It makes everything else you type suspect when you make silly arguments like this. and others. How am I supposed to feel?

Btw, you never responded to my query about how does Hawking and Sagan compare to Watts?

[hcap]

Because the Hawkings of the world are afraid of honest debate.
Get a life.
You know what you call a planet whose climate is not changing?



DEAD.
MARS.
VENUS.
PLUTO.

Take your pick.

Climate change is part of life.Take a deep breath and CALM DOWN.
ON SECOND THOUGHT THAT IS "NORMAL" FOR YOU
:sleeping:

[tucker6]

Btw, you never responded to my query about how does Hawking and Sagan compare to Watts?

Two of the three are on the wrong side of history. Emotion can do that to the greatest of us. Not that Carl Sagan was really great. He was simply good at what he did.

[hcap]

Two of the three are on the wrong side of history. Emotion can do that to the greatest of us. Not that Carl Sagan was really great. He was simply good at what he did.Amazing! Once again Anthony Watts and Faux Noos against the rest of the world. Emotion no, delusion yes.

BTW, not really angry. This is the same argument ad infinitum. :sleeping::sleeping:

[zico20]

No science is ever “settled”; but science deals in probabilities, not always certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”. Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades. By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged omn the conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

You know all consensus studies have shown this.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/studies_consensus.jpg

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/VisionParticipants.jpg

So you want to spend 100 trillion dollars over the next 82 years based on 138 years of research, completely disregarding the other 4.5 billion years, you call that sh!t science? Studies have shown that the temperatures were much warmer long time ago than they are now. BTW, how much have you personally contributed to the fund. Since many alarmists are predicting doomsday outcomes, I figure you give every last dime to the "fund."

That 100 trillion is what the Paris agreement has now called for to save the planet.

[hcap]

So you want to spend 100 trillion dollars over the next 82 years based on 138 years of research, completely disregarding the other 4.5 billion years, you call that sh!t science? Studies have shown that the temperatures were much warmer long time ago than they are now. BTW, how much have you personally contributed to the fund. Since many alarmists are predicting doomsday outcomes, I figure you give every last dime to the "fund."

That 100 trillion is what the Paris agreement has now called for to save the planet.Before we can deal with climate change practically we must recognize the problem. I don't think your grasp on Paleoclimatology is correct. Previous periods have shown how abrupt tipping points in greenhouse gasses impacted the planet.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/perspectives

Abrupt Climate Change: A Paleo Perspective
Paleo Perspective on Abrupt Climate Change

The paleoclimatology record shows rapid and dramatic changes in climate have occurred in the past at global and regional scales. The Abrupt Climate Change Paleo Perspective discusses the current state of knowledge surrounding the causes and effects of these changes.

The Paleoclimatology Program's main goal in creating this comprehensive website was to help educate, inform, and highlight the importance of paleoclimatology research. The perspective shows how paleoclimatology research relates to global warming and other important issues regarding climate variability and change.

[davew]

hcap,
your 97% is exaggerated as many scientists just quit the organization after the 'group' declares they agree with AGW

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global.html

some place the number closer to 40%

https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_G lobal_Warming

and then there is always the question - if the science is sosettled, why the need to cheat?

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/206732-if-agw-is-real-why-do-govt-scientists-have-to-cheat/

[boxcar]

hcap,
your 97% is exaggerated as many scientists just quit the organization after the 'group' declares they agree with AGW

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global.html

some place the number closer to 40%

https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_G lobal_Warming

and then there is always the question - if the science is sosettled, why the need to cheat?

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/206732-if-agw-is-real-why-do-govt-scientists-have-to-cheat/

From the last link:

Please don't be surprised. Government-paid researchers are desperate to perpetuate the climate shock. They know that if there is no warming as they have predicted, the generous public funds that support their work will eventually dry up.

It is in their financial interest to keep the public tied up in knots of anxiety and to dupe politicians, who are eager to assume the posture of caring guardians of the environment so they'll to continue to hand them money.

I've been saying this for many years. "Government-paid researchers" aren't very likely to bite the hand that is feeding them, clothing them, putting a roof over their head, sending their kiddies to school, etc., etc. What they are much more likely to do, however, is tickle the ears of their employer by telling politicians what they want to hear.

[Tom]

If it ain't multi-colored and huge it ain't science!