Leftfield

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

One of Biden’s promises was “unite”. 

When was the last time you saw a President say "I'm gonna divide this mf'er?"

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I didn’t say that and you are just talking out of your a$$.

When I asked you if scientists who oppose the mainstream are being paid, you said this:

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course, they are either getting paid or getting grants, but they are not the cash cow climate change money from the government doles out. 

You have made no qualifiers at any point to the effect that there are ethical climate change scientists that are included in the majority. Feel free to point them out if you have. So no, I'm not "talking out of my a$$", you're just showing yours.

So what percentage of ethical scientists do you think there are? If they are ethical, why do you dispute their studies? Can you discern the ethical studies from those that are unethical?

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

Turn the question around on you. Do you believe the myriad of scientists and engineers that are skeptical are all funded by fossil fuel companies and are thus unethical?

Not at all, nor have I ever implied that.

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Well, thanks for clarifying.  You seem to leave things up to the reader a lot.

Um.....you mentioned Boeing, genius. In the paragraph of yours I quoted, there were three other sentences concerning what was actually being discussed. You being so scatterbrained that you can't stay on topic is no fault of mine.

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course, they are either getting paid or getting grants, but they are not the cash cow climate change money from the government doles out.  Kind of like the resistance or another view that should be looked at. 

So this confirms it....you think every climate scientist that posits global warming is corrupt. Every. Single. One. And you think any scientist against the prevailing opinion is not. 

There is no logic that can penetrate an utter belief in conspiracy such as this. 

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Like the Great Barrington Declaration that was discredited by Fauci and team before it even had a chance to be discussed.

And as if on cue, to prove my point.....both about being scatterbrained and a conspiracy theorist.

2 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

You don't notice. You are here like other retired folk much more often than the rest of us gainfully employed folk. We simply cannot afford the time to constantly post like some of you. 

You make a lot of assumptions. Unfortunately for you, you're just as ignorant about my life as you are the environment. I happen to be employed, as an engineer, like you. If it makes you feel better to say you don't have the time to respond, hey, go for it. 

13 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

You don't notice. You are here like other retired folk much more often than the rest of us gainfully employed folk. We simply cannot afford the time to constantly post like some of you. 

Natural variations, oscillations etc...and the sun of course, dominate climatic changes. The oceans are warmed primarily by solar radiation, with some influx of volcanic activity. Variations in cloud cover (which are not modelled adequately) gate the incoming radiation.  Downwelling long wave IR from CO2 cannot penetrate more than a few mm into the ocean surface. That energy from the thin skin is quickly taken away via convection. Only the sun contributes to the upper oceanic warming, and subsequent heat transfer to the air above. It isn't the other way around.  

You're correct, natural variations do dominate climatic changes....normally. Everything you address above, though, has to do with the ocean. While certainly a huge part of the overall climate, you haven't addressed anything concerning radiation from the Earth's surface, nor have you addressed the release of radiation out of the atmosphere and into space. 

Can you account for the sudden spike in temperatures, which are novel in history? Do you have any citations of studies to prove what you assert? When we post something to back up what we're saying, all you say is "wrong," but you don't even try to back up your arguments.

13 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

You are as ideologically blind as anyone I've ever encountered. And yes, you are ignorant if you believe the swill you propagate.

No, we don't KNOW what the climate sensitivity is for the doubling of CO2. It's an estimation based on unverifiable assumptions.

CO2 is claimed to feedback to warming, but there is not substantiated evidence that the effect is significant.

Skeptical science is something you believe is a valid source, but it is propaganda at best.

I've read every reference you have ever read or provided here. The vast majority is garbage, but funded garbage nonetheless. You have never provided FACTS, but it is clear you believe them to be facts as most cultists do. 

My kids will be just fine, as will their children, and theirs. What makes me grin, is that you are so spineless that you decided not to procreate and still virtue signal about it. Our society will be much better off without the weak minded progenies you would have left behind for the rest of us to prop up. We thank you for your service. 

I notice you never answer when I ask you to provide citations, or for a cause of temperature increases. Why is that?

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What scientists have I presented as a counter?  If you are talking Boeing, they will lie with the best of them to deflect blame.  Watch dog groups have to hold their feet to the fire (the FAA).  

I didn’t trust Boeing when I flew them and I didn’t trust Airbus when I flew them. The only thing I had control over was flying the aircraft the way the manuals instructed and if something happened the union would have to be on my side because the manufacturer would place the blame on the pilot.

In a debate about global warming you think I'm talking about....Boeing?

I'm referring to all the posts you've been putting up with scientists claiming CO2 isn't the cause. Aren't they dependent on grants for research, also? Aren't they getting paid? Or do you think they're the only ethical ones?

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

It’s only human nature isn’t it.  Why would you think Boeing is defending its brand as furiously as it is?  It isn’t a conspiracy scientist (environmental scientist) further their cause.  It really is milking the cash cow of the government and they can feel good about it.

So the scientists that you present as a counter, are they ethical? If so, why are they the only ones? If not, why do you trust them?

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

As he mentions in the video; the climate scientists have a financial interest in continuing their research.

All of them? Thousands of scientists have been bribed into producing junk science just for financial gain? And nobody is blowing the whistle on it?

Who knew that percentage of scientists were so unethical? If so, why do we trust them for anything that doesn't provide them with a large financial incentive? 

As you so often accuse others of doing, why doesn't Sowell debunk the actual science, instead of attack the source of it?

If Sowell really believes there are little-to-no ethical scientists, then he's gone full conspiracy theorist, as have you.

1 minute ago, johnnyAU said:

Predict incorrectly. The models clearly show considerably more warming than is actually occurring. Why? Because of the assumed climate sensitivity due to doubling of CO2 baked in the models are too high. 

Citation?

2 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

You, or anyone else for that matter, have no idea what the temperature would be without CO2 increases since the dawn of the industrial age. We all know what a feedback loop is. However, there is no real scientific data showing the climate to be significantly altered due to increases of CO2 above the signal of natural variability. Unsubstantiated claims and unverifiable computer models are garbage science used as propaganda for the ignorant, like yourself. 

You've been asked this many times....to what do you attribute the warming climate?

Or do you deny the global temperature is increasing?

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Here is another denier:

 

But [the scientists] who are pushing global warming are doing their damnedest to make sure that those who believe the opposite don't get heard in the public."

Sowell is completely wrong in saying scientists can't confront the lead/lag issue. No idea why he would say that, other than he was clearly on a sympathetic program and wouldn't get pushback.

Also, Sowell is an economist. Tell me why his opinion is more valid than thousands of climate scientists?

I will agree with him that any legitimate science that counters the prevailing opinion should not be suppressed. Science should always be questioned, and if contrary evidence is found, theories revised.

Unfortunately that's not what deniers are doing. Deniers simply shout that not everyone believes the prevailing opinion or that the prevailing opinion is only there because scientists are bought. They never present any legitimate evidence as to why it's wrong, or what other factors are causing warming.

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

Finally a true statement. However, you immediately jump to claims immediately afterwards. You have no idea how much CO2 amplifies warming, and you have no idea when the current warming would have started without increases in CO2.  

Feel free to post evidence of other reasons the climate is warming.

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

Typical of you isn’t it.

This is the part that is disputed by many.  You state it as fact, it is a theory perpetrated by an echo chamber that is very popular with the environmental cult and media.

Only time will tell.

It's a theory backed up by ample evidence. Feel free to post evidence to the contrary.

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The numbers changed because the UN, a trusted source, said they changed.  Under pressure from Hamas they retracted the change.  There is no organization allowed to question the Health Ministry and it is pure propaganda.

Here is another gem from the article:

The ministry does not distinguish between casualties among fighters and civilians.

If you are not told the truth to begin with you are left with subjective reality.  You choose your truth, I choose not to believe terrorists.

They didn't retract the change. The interpretation of the data was wrong. The "reduction" in the estimate of women and children killed was simply the number of those identified, and it was roughly half of the total that had been identified. The total estimated killed (identified vs unidentified) did not change.

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Think you started the “numbers” conversation. What did you expect?

You....read the rest of my post, right?

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

From your article:

Two officials from the Palestinian Ministry of Health have told CNN that although the ministry keeps a separate death toll for identified and unidentified individuals, the total number of people killed remains unchanged.

You and CNN will believe numbers from the Palestinian Ministry of Health? Why would anybody believe them about anything?

So why post that the numbers changed when you don't believe them to begin with?

Oh, I've got it....when the numbers changed you could use it as proof that the Palestinians were originally lying, so that must have meant the numbers are right. 

Now the Fox News article has been shown to be crap, so you're back to not believing the numbers at all.

The world of subjective reality is fun, isn't it?

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Sure I do, as Gore mentioned in the intro to the clip, CO2 is the culprit and forgets to mention is a lagging indicator, but is the cause of the increase in temp.  You guys keep on pushing CO2 is the dirty villain in climate change.

When did you change your mind about CO2?  or have you?  59 said CO2 isn’t the cause just a week or so ago, but goes to greenhouse gasses as the mechanism.  I don’t recall you making the same sort of statement.

The boogie man has always been fossil fuels because man uses a lot of it.  Are we just afraid of *man made* climate change and abandoning CO2 as the cause?

You guys are changing again and blaming the deniers.  What is the true scoop?  Are you just going to show more charts that show CO2 increasing from .03% of the atmosphere and now it is .04% with the correlating temp raise.  Are you trying to say *something* change in science that now makes CO2 a leading indicator?

You guys must be confused, or you really don’t know and you’re guessing.  Now Gates wants to put out chemicals to block the sun’s rays from hitting the earth.  This guy has more money for his and our own good.

And you’re in favor of killing the fossil fuel industry just because.  Do you think maybe things are moving too fast?

 

 

I was typing up a point by point response, then realized there was no use. You clearly didn't understand the responses to your posts with the studies on CO2's enthalpy, because @Aufan59never said CO2 wasn't the cause. 

I usually take people at their word when they tell me something, but I just can't believe you're reading everything we're posting. It's better to believe you're not, because the alternative is that you're a moron. You are not comprehending any of this, and you're jumping to completely incorrect conclusions.

Once again, temperature increases lead to release of CO2 into the atmosphere - release from oceans, ice, soil, plants, etc. That extra CO2 amplified the warming of the Earth, but was not the main cause. Now, we're dumping a huge amount of excess CO2 into the atmosphere, which wouldn't normally be there, so we've begun the warming process earlier than it would if just left to nature. 

Of course, the information in the previous paragraph can easily be found with a simple Google search, but please tell me again how I only believe what I want to believe.

9 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This seems to be important:

 

 

This. Has. Already. Been. Pointed. Out.

Many times. 

CO2 is usually a lagging indicator. The very fact it isn't now is the whole damn point.

You really don't read anything, do you?

9 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Say it isn’t so, please:

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/13/middleeast/death-toll-gaza-fatalities-un-intl-latam/index.html

1 hour ago, JMWATS said:

There is no such thing as free.  Somebody is paying.   As I recall in America there is this thing called an academic scholarship where "higher education is free for those who make the grades and pass the exams".  

I agree with you that somebody is paying. However, full-ride scholarships are far less common than you imply here.

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

It’s the smart bombs that will be missed if the civilian

casualties are to be kept to a minimum.

Biden is stopping the shipment of 2,000 pound bombs. With a place as densely packed as Rafah, this is the equation that shows how much difference a "smart" bomb would make over a regular bomb:

Joules of energy/Square meter of area......or J(ack)/S(**t)

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Hamas numbers are not accurate, but go ahead spread that propaganda. 

https://time.com/6909636/gaza-death-toll/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-and-charts-live-tracker

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-war-statistics-95a6407fac94e9d589be234708cd5005

https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/04/05/israel-war-gaza-strip-human-toll-visualized/73130709007/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/world/middleeast/gaza-death-toll-war.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/32552-palestinians-killed-gaza-since-oct-7-health-ministry-says-2024-03-28/

I'm sure they're all lying, though.

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes you can, but we are in the middle of it and Biden’s decisions are counter productive to long term peace.

Good point...Netanyahu is clearly concerned about peace. Guy might as well be a dove.

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is such BS.  Hamas teaches hate in their schools, loosing this war and eliminating Hamas maybe a start to a better future for Gazans. 

Not denying that Hamas is horrible. Is wiping out those children justified? Do you think flattening the place they live is going to change their minds, or reinforce that Israel is the enemy? 

58 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If the U.S. is 13% of the carbon emissions and we reduce to net zero we have spent $50 for 13% of the problem, our deficit is $34 trillion now, where does that put us by 2050?  

Disingenuous again. The 50 trillion number was for worldwide. Not just the US.

And you once ignore ignore the costs of coping with the problem if it's not avoided.

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, and my carbon footprint has reduced significantly since I retired.  I do not apologize for burning so much fossil fuels when I was gainfully employed though.  It is virtually impossible to *leave no trace*.

Didn't ask you to apologize. I don't expect anyone to have to apologize for not knowing there was a problem. Now, willfully ignoring the problem after you've been made aware of it....

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is an assumption not all agree with.

"Assumption"  

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

You said we obviously influence the climate.  I am asking for the proof that we have influenced the climate, not that some scientists say we can influence the climate.  You can’t can you.

Again, look to any of the numerous links that have been provided. They show the climate has warmed, they show the mechanisms by which increased CO2 traps more heat. 

You rail against the inflation that Biden has caused, yet offer no proof. Why is the information we've provided not enough?

I am confident we can influence the climate. How much it will cost and how fast, I don't know. It's foolish of anyone to try to nail down numbers, because the scale is enormous and there are huge numbers of variables at play, both with the climate and economics.

We're not talking about deliberately trying to control anything. We're just talking about removing what we can of our influence. Were you in Boy Scouts? The phrase "leave no trace" mean anything to you?

18 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I do agree that any further deal was unlikely since Hamas is on the brink of losing Rafah until Biden stepped in to save them.

How is he saving them? Israel is proceeding with the operation, aren't they? What difference does our lack of bombs make?

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why has the Biden administration been telling Netanyahu he was going too far? 

Well, gee, maybe because half of the almost 35,000 casualties in Gaza have been women and children, and tens-to-hundreds of thousands more are suffering because aid can't get in? Think that might have something to do with it?

Alas, your disregard for human life bares itself once again.

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Biden only came forward publicly after his gratuitous speech on the Holocaust Memorial Day as he preached unwavering support for Israel in that speech and you believe he isn’t a wind sock?

You can stand by Israel and not support everything that the leader of their country is doing. Hell, you don't support anything that Biden does, but you'll still defend America, right?

23 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is a winnable war for Israel against a terrorist organization and Biden is delaying the win.  Why?  Hamas uses human shields as propaganda and it is working on Biden.  The only way to save any hostage that still might be alive is to take out Hamas and that entails going into Rafah.  The negotiations are over.

Everything a hammer sees is a nail.

Of course negotiations are over. Netanyahu was going into Rafah regardless. This is exactly what Netanyahu has wanted all along - an excuse to go scorched earth. 

This is a winnable battle. The war doesn't end until a permanent solution is found. What Netanyahu is doing is breeding generations of enemies who will point to Israel's razing of Gaza as proof it is evil.

Israel had a wave of goodwill and support after October 7. Netanyahu has pissed it away, and actually reversed it - there is a renewed effort to have Palestine join the UN. 

Nobody is saying Israel shouldn't have acted. Even in the beginning, people were understanding that some innocent lives were going to be lost, but when Israel doesn't even follow their own rules (bombing escape routes they assured would be safe and such), opinion began to turn against them.

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

How have we influenced the climate?  Anything solid you can point to?

You mean other than the eleventy billion things some of us have already posted? Or all the evidence online that you could dig up yourself if you actually were interested in reading anything or thinking outside of your own opinion?