Climate change

[Idcatman3]

Science has zero to do with the internet or GPS. Neither were created or even though of by the science world. The Internet was conceived and developed by our defense department to talk to and control the minute man missiles we had staged all over the country, they opened it to the public when we no longer needed the minutemen due to the cold war ending. GPS, WiFi and blue tooth were conceived by Hedi Lammar an actress in the late 1930's and 40's.



Science works when the rules are followed and the scientist have ethics and follow them. The climate "scientists" have neither ethics nor the ability to follow the proven rules. If they did they would prove themselves frauds and kill the cash cow.



But you libtards won't acknowledge that either.

The military had ARPANET, which used TCP/IP communication in about 1983. It became more recognizable as what we would call the internet in 1990, when a computer scientist invented the "world wide web" layered on top.

Hedy Lamarr (spelled correctly, because I actually knew this anyway) was many things, an inventor was one of them. She helped invent frequency hopping, which makes radio signals more difficult to jam.

This is part of what makes a GPS signal work. Other parts are time synchronization due to the time dilation effects of relativity. Want to know who figured that out?

Tell the whole story, not just the pieces that you like.

You're saying every single climate scientist is being paid off to lie? That's pretty frickin hilarious.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

[Slick]

The military had ARPANET, which used TCP/IP communication in about 1983. It became more recognizable as what we would call the internet in 1990, when a computer scientist invented the "world wide web" layered on top.

Hedy Lamarr (spelled correctly, because I actually knew this anyway) was many things, an inventor was one of them. She helped invent frequency hopping, which makes radio signals more difficult to jam.

This is part of what makes a GPS signal work. Other parts are time synchronization due to the time dilation effects of relativity. Want to know who figured that out?

Tell the whole story, not just the pieces that you like.



You're saying every single climate scientist is being paid off to lie? That's pretty frickin hilarious.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Some truth and reality

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c&feature=share

 

[Idcatman3]

Some truth and reality

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c&feature=share

Yay, more videos, rather than actual studies!

He sources the IPCC report from 2007 (out of context, but in any case.)
Go read it, if you don't want to read the whole thing, read this chapter:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter9-1.pdf

Then read the one from 2013.

Yes, I said read. Actually read something yourself, not what someone tells you to think about it.

I won't hold my breath.

2007 report breakdown:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/

2013 report breakdown:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Interesting chapters:
8. ANTHROPOGENIC AND NATURAL RADIATIVE FORCING
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

10. DETECTION AND ATTRIBUTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE: FROM GLOBAL TO REGIONAL
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

11. NEAR-TERM CLIMATE CHANGE: PROJECTIONS AND PREDICTABILITY
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

12. LONG-TERM CLIMATE CHANGE: PROJECTIONS, COMMITMENTS AND IRREVERSIBILITY
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

The info is there, free for the reading. Sources, methods, all of it, available for critique.

 

[Jaynelson]

Science has zero to do with the internet or GPS.

aaand we’re done here

 

[freekweet mods]

You guys might want to pick up what what Idcatman3 is putting down. He can can splain it much better than I.

 

[Slick]

The words most prominent i notice when perusing your selected articles were “infer and probability and likelihood”. Here’s an actual picture for you to deny and refute.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155902133281500&set=a.484470541499&type=3&sfns=mo

 

[Mafesto]

You guys might want to pick up what what Idcatman3 is putting down. He can can splain it much better than I.

I don't think that we're as impressed by him as you are.

 

[Idcatman3]

The words most prominent i notice when perusing your selected articles were “infer and probability and likelihood”. Here’s an actual picture for you to deny and refute.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155902133281500&set=a.484470541499&type=3&sfns=mo

Wow. Facebook again. How scholarly.

Looky there. Right from the source you mock, data to explain that you're not really going to see massive changes. The effects of the small changes are just not what you think.

The difference between high tide and low tide dwarfs changes due to seal level rise. That doesn't mean those changes aren't there.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140

 

[Idcatman3]

I don't think that we're as impressed by him as you are.

I'm equally unimpressed by youtube and facebook.

come on, is reading that difficult?

 

[Mafesto]

Yay, more videos, rather than actual studies!

He sources the IPCC report from 2007 (out of context, but in any case.)
Go read it, if you don't want to read the whole thing, read this chapter:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter9-1.pdf

Then read the one from 2013.

Yes, I said read. Actually read something yourself, not what someone tells you to think about it.

I won't hold my breath.

2007 report breakdown:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/

2013 report breakdown:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Interesting chapters:
8. ANTHROPOGENIC AND NATURAL RADIATIVE FORCING
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

10. DETECTION AND ATTRIBUTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE: FROM GLOBAL TO REGIONAL
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

11. NEAR-TERM CLIMATE CHANGE: PROJECTIONS AND PREDICTABILITY
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

12. LONG-TERM CLIMATE CHANGE: PROJECTIONS, COMMITMENTS AND IRREVERSIBILITY
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

The info is there, free for the reading. Sources, methods, all of it, available for critique.

I know that you're just posting this stuff to keep the argument going.
There's no way that you are buying into it.
You're too intelligent for that.

 

[Idcatman3]

I know that you're just posting this stuff to keep the argument going.

There's no way that you are buying into it.

You're too intelligent for that.

Oh boy, how long did it take you to come up with that excuse for not reading it?

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

[Mafesto]

Oh boy, how long did it take you to come up with that excuse for not reading it?

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I'm giving you the benefit of doubt out of graciousness because you're a fellow snowmobiler.
This is your opportunity to bow out without having to admit that you're wrong.
I do this because I am kind an thoughtful and it is Sunday after all.

 

[Mafesto]

I'll be off the grid for awhile.
Gotta go out and move some of this "global warming" so the neighbors can get to work in the morning.

 

[Slick]

https://goo.gl/images/Ruum5y

 

[Slick]

Wow. Facebook again. How scholarly.

Looky there. Right from the source you mock, data to explain that you're not really going to see massive changes. The effects of the small changes are just not what you think.

The difference between high tide and low tide dwarfs changes due to seal level rise. That doesn't mean those changes aren't there.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140

Facebook is what it is, shared info and opinion. It’s not scholarly and it’s not always incorrect. But you obviously believe if you can find it in a book written by someone whose motivation was to sell a book it’s somehow correct. That’s either one if two things, naive or arrogantly condescending. Doesn’t matter which to me, but this whole “ all the scientists I talked to agree” is as dumb as saying I went to a Trump rally and 98 percent of those I talked to favor Trump . Want a favourable consensus and validation of your preconceived opinion , simple, just cherry pick your target audience.

 

[Idcatman3]

Facebook is what it is, shared info and opinion. It’s not scholarly and it’s not always incorrect. But you obviously believe if you can find it in a book written by someone whose motivation was to sell a book it’s somehow correct. That’s either one if two things, naive or arrogantly condescending. Doesn’t matter which to me, but this whole “ all the scientists I talked to agree” is as dumb as saying I went to a Trump rally and 98 percent of those I talked to favor Trump . Want a favourable consensus and validation of your preconceived opinion , simple, just cherry pick your target audience.

Yeah, This stuff isn't in a book written to sell books. It's freely available, publicly funded research.

You're projecting again.

 

[Jaynelson]

So let’s take opinion (and facts) right out of it. Basically we have 2 groups.

Some people think humans have no influence on the climate, and that we can pollute as much as we possibly can with no ill affect.

Others believe we do have effects on the climate, and that they have negative consequences...or could ultimately lead to negative consequences.

Pretty clear which ideal has higher risks. Say we are able to clean up our act and it turns out humans have less climate influence than we thought. What is the worst that could happen? We wound up with some new technology and a cleaner place to live?

 

[Mafesto]

So let’s take opinion (and facts) right out of it. Basically we have 2 groups.

Some people think humans have no influence on the climate, and that we can pollute as much as we possibly can with no ill affect.

Others believe we do have effects on the climate, and that they have negative consequences...or could ultimately lead to negative consequences.

Pretty clear which ideal has higher risks. Say we are able to clean up our act and it turns out humans have less climate influence than we thought. What is the worst that could happen? We wound up with some new technology and a cleaner place to live?

I agree, but must add two comments....
1 Improvements must be economically feasible.
2 Most importantly, Your premise that skeptics are pro-pollution is incorrect.

I will go so far as to say man's actions likely do affect global temperature, however my belief is that this is immeasurable. Much like when you get into a swimming pool, your body heat is absorbed by the pool water, technically this has increased water temperature, but not by a measurable or meaningful amount.

 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

Science has zero to do with the internet or GPS.

Wow. How do you get global positioning satellite into orbit without science? How do you get a Tube television to work without science? The amount of Science Philo Farnsworth had to study to get the whole Television idea to work shoots holes in your theory right there. Inventors are scientists. Rockets require Rocket science, genius.

I'm not saying scientists are infallible, but based on your arguments, Its like God spoke & the internet was.


It boggles my mind the amount of research, science & engineering that go into every little thing that makes our modern lives so convenient. I don't think Doom & Gloom is productive, but can we encourage some responsible innovation?


Both "camps" make some fairly absurd assumptions if you ask me.

1 - We're not going to stop using Fossil fuels overnight, But we'd use LESS if we had a nice pipeline to transport it instead of 12,000 oil trucks moving it every day.

2 - If you light a campfire in your living room, you're going to suffer some smoke inhalation & generally trash the inside of your house. Burning things creates smoke & other toxins. But it's also what has seperated man from the "lower life forms" for many millenia. We've just learned to do it on a far grander scale than our great great great great grandparents. So imagine instead of a campfire in your living room, a giant bonfire. And throw a tire or two in it. And some Gasoline.



Use common sense.

 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

So now that the anointed mafesto has confirmed through revelation by slick as per the great president trump.