Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 01-21-2018, 10:27 AM   #241
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap View Post
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.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 10:56 AM   #242
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6 View Post
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 you
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6
You 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?

Last edited by hcap; 01-21-2018 at 10:57 AM.
hcap is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 11:05 AM   #243
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
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
hcap is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 11:06 AM   #244
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap View Post

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.
tucker6 is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 11:12 AM   #245
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6 View Post
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.
hcap is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 11:36 AM   #246
zico20
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: st louis
Posts: 2,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap View Post
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.



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.
__________________
You will never achieve 100% if 99% is okay!

Last edited by zico20; 01-21-2018 at 11:38 AM.
zico20 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 12:06 PM   #247
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by zico20 View Post
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-acces...a/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.
hcap is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 01:00 PM   #248
davew
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,461
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/...er-global.html

some place the number closer to 40%

https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimat...Global_Warming

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

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/2...have-to-cheat/
davew is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 01:34 PM   #249
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by davew View Post
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/...er-global.html

some place the number closer to 40%

https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimat...Global_Warming

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

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/2...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.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 04:12 PM   #250
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,472
If it ain't multi-colored and huge it ain't science!
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-22-2018, 12:28 AM   #251
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by davew
hcap,
your 97% is exaggerated as many scientists just quit the organization after the 'group' declares they agree with AGW
I posted many consensus studies. There are NO scientific organizations supporting AGW. Zero. So let me get this straight all the members of hundreds of national and international expert groups have all left and disavowed what they published.

A representative sample of Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

Do you know what peer review is?




Your sources arte garbage

Last edited by hcap; 01-22-2018 at 12:31 AM.
hcap is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-22-2018, 12:51 AM   #252
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post

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.
There's a much stronger case to be made that the fossil fuel industry who supports much of the anti AGW climate deniers have lied thru their teeth

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...y#.WmV7VHlrwsU

Union of Concerned Scientists’ Campaign on Fossil Fuel Climate Deception and Accountability: A Timeline


...UCS has worked on climate change since 1988. Since those early days, we’ve set the record straight when individuals, organizations, and corporations misled the public about climate science.
hcap is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-22-2018, 01:16 AM   #253
davew
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,461
peer reviewed means reviewed by people doing the same stuff - birds of a feather flock together....

on youtube -> Retractions, Post-Publication Peer Review, and Fraud: Scientific Publishing's Wild West

davew is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-22-2018, 01:28 AM   #254
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by davew View Post
peer reviewed means reviewed by people doing the same stuff - birds of a feather flock together....

on youtube -> Retractions, Post-Publication Peer Review, and Fraud: Scientific Publishing's Wild West

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGBrfyOCCII
So? Are you rejecting all of peer review? What do you plan to replace it with?

Fox News?NY post?
hcap is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-22-2018, 01:53 AM   #255
davew
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,461
not rejecting it, just realizing it is not foolproof


and skeptical of papers that look like opinion pieces rather than science.
davew is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.