The ugliness of the Climate Change debate.

[Joshua T. Clark]

I'd love to see some arguments against against climate change that aren't rooted in, or at least tethered to, a political or religious angle. It just seems ignorant to assume that the millions (billions?) of tons of crap we pump into the atmosphere isn't having some effect.

What about climate change pisses off people so much anyways? Is it the fear of losing your gas guzzling F150?

No Rob, you are completely off-base. The supporters of anthropogenic climate are the ones who have an emotional connection to it. It is their religion.

Let's just see you try to transport millions of tons of freight cross country on windpower only, it cannot be done at this time. You lost you argument the moment you said in the second paragraph of your post.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.

 

[rdale]

The supporters of anthropogenic climate are the ones who have an emotional connection to it. It is their religion.

By "supporters" you mean those who trust the scientific method is the best way to examine issues? Hmmm... In any case, I have no "emotional" connection to it, and it clearly is not my religion.

Let's just see you try to transport millions of tons of freight cross country on windpower only, it cannot be done at this time.

Again you're going FAR off topic. Now it appears you object to alternative fuel methods. The evidence of climate change is NOT dependent on alternative energy systems. Proof is proof. How to ADDRESS the issue is a POLICY issue guided by science. Not a science issue.

You lost you argument the moment you said in the second paragraph of your post.

Again, it's not an argument. It's a discussion. I (among others) anxiously await your evidence.

 

[Rob H]

No Rob, you are completely off-base. The supporters of anthropogenic climate are the ones who have an emotional connection to it. It is their religion.

Let's just see you try to transport millions of tons of freight cross country on windpower only, it cannot be done at this time. You lost you argument the moment you said in the second paragraph of your post.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.

I lost the argument the minute I decided to post, but I'm looking to kill time on the way home from a crappy chase.

You seem to be the one with the emotional attachment to it. I'm going to log off and forgot about this, where you'll probably stay up for a few hours stewing about how naive I am, and how you know the truth and you *need* to set me right.

I was being serious - what makes you so mad about climate change? And do you have a Ford F-150?

 

[Joshua T. Clark]

I'd love to see some arguments against against climate change that aren't rooted in, or at least tethered to, a political or religious angle. It just seems ignorant to assume that the millions (billions?) of tons of crap we pump into the atmosphere isn't having some effect.

Well we might as well plug up every volcano in the world, when Krakatoa went, it lowered the global temperature for years.

Chicxulub pumped 3,000 years worth of greenhouse gases in the the atmosphere in a blink of an eye.

Atmospheric constituents where dramatically different eons ago.



Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.

 

[Joshua T. Clark]

By "supporters" you mean those who trust the scientific method is the best way to examine issues? Hmmm... In any case, I have no "emotional" connection to it, and it clearly is not my religion.

You are accusing me of being emotional, you are the one accusing me of being some kind of kook.

Again you're going FAR off topic. Now it appears you object to alternative fuel methods. The evidence of climate change is NOT dependent on alternative energy systems. Proof is proof. How to ADDRESS the issue is a POLICY issue guided by science. Not a science issue.

Renewable energy is the future but is is far from being economical to be implemented on a broad scale. The US has a supply of clean burning natural gas that could last for 100 years, the natural resources that we have (oil, natural gas, and coal) will bridge the gap.

Again, it's not an argument. It's a discussion. I (among others) anxiously await your evidence.

I have given several examples of far more cataclysmic events in Earth's past that have resulted in far greater impacts on Earth's climate than the lowly human race.

Rob, why do you hate the F-150 so much.
It is the best selling pickup for over thirty years.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.

 

[rdale]

You are accusing me of being emotional, you are the one accusing me of being some kind of kook.

Initially that was a joke based on your claim that anyone who agrees with the consensus on climate change has psychosis issues.

Renewable energy is the future but is is far from being economical to be implemented on a broad scale.

No argument there. No connection to the discussion of the science on climate change.

I have given several examples of far more cataclysmic events in Earth's past that have resulted in far greater impacts on Earth's climate than the lowly human race.

Absolutely. But see above note (i.e. this has nothing to do with the climate change of today.)

 

[Joshua T. Clark]

It is all relative to the discussion. You want to brand me with a scarlet letter because I do not agree with the reports.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.

 

[rdale]

I don't want to "brand" you with anything. Since you are a scientist, I just want to know what peer-reviewed, evidence-based science exists that can refute the consensus. So far you've come up lacking, and if you can't find proof - maybe it doesn't exist?

 

[Joshua T. Clark]

I present you graph of global land and sea temperature anomalies back to 1880. After WWII it shows an increase in the anomalies. Something else is very apparent. Weathermen are taught to recognize patterns and what I see is a pendulum effect. Towards today's time frame, the anomalies are on the decrease.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.

 

[rdale]

I would question the "pendulum" effect, but it doesn't appear you did any statistical analysis on the data and are trying to do eyeball only. Don't let what you WANT to see deceive you. But in any case, you only took 3 months of the year. Let's look at the whole year.



I see no pendulum.

 

[Joshua T. Clark]

You are seeing what you are wanting. Climate change is cyclical. In the winter months, temperature contrast from the poles to the equator is at a maximum.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.

 

[rdale]

In the winter months, temperature contrast from the poles to the equator is at a maximum.

If you truly are a meteorologist, I'm going to let that one sink in overnight and let you address that again tomorrow...

(Hint - if it's cold in the northern hemisphere in Jan to Mar, it might be cold in the southern hemisphere in different months...)

 

[Joshua T. Clark]

The northern hemisphere has a vastly marked difference is temperature contrast due to the distribution of land masses.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.

 

[rdale]

Still doesn't make your graph say what you want it to say. Please show the actual data derived analysis which indicates a pendulum that is now on the downward swing.

 

[Joshua T. Clark]

Look at the chart, the temperature anomaly for the sample period depicted has stabilized and is on the decrease.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.