|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 3, 2019 9:39:13 GMT -8
The greatest threat to the environment is human over population. Dramatic climate change is the most effective solution to the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on Oct 3, 2019 13:16:39 GMT -8
"I do not know if those pictures are from your family photo album...." You think that's ok? Wait-do not answer that. I already know the answer. A valid point was made displaying mob mentality and showed how it is often detrimental. You just reinforced it. Looks like Exoticimports touched a nerve. -Protests do serve one good purpose though= they generally get the ignorant to burn a lot of energy and then leave. You know....like Earth Day. I'll display a similar example of this kind of rhetoric. Remember this is for example only: I find it disturbing that a 49 year old man spends so much time watching videos of and talking about 16 year old girls...... The arguments are just ignorant. Science shows change is happening by data. Scientists are notoriously bad [examples are myriad] at future predictions because not all data can be predicted or accounted for. People are rebellious. They do not want to be told what to do. Speeding; littering; murder; prostitution is/are generally illegal yet government has yet to stop it. How many off the signers of the Paris accords have succeeded? The USA reduced co2 several years in a row until there was an unusually COLD start to 2018. 2019 may be be worse as there was almost 3 feet of snow in the USA in September. Crying wolf so many times has caused many to tune out predictions. Sending a child to scold leaders rather than provide methods to solve problems. Doesn't work? Read this then: theoceancleanup.com/updates/No government paying for this. Just people trying to be good stewards of the planet by cleaning up after some others. No protest or lectures needed and yet this little group is doing more than all the kids skipping school combined. Exoticimports. We differ slightly. Overpopulation has corrections built into nature like famine or disease or war or natural disaster. A lemming effect so to speak. More importantly to me is that a world with only one billion people would still be walloped by irresponsible caretaking. If you respond please: 1. make sure you understand what I wrote. Just ask if you are not sure. 2. do not use straw man arguments 3. impugn myself or other members 4. work with rather than against forum members in trying to help make the world the place we want it to be [not hotter so the desert animals have more space or colder so the polar bears do. Humans are after all selfish.......] While I will read this thread there is nothing else I will post unless directly asked. Thanks in advance. |
|
leptraps
Banned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,397
|
Post by leptraps on Oct 3, 2019 21:47:56 GMT -8
What, no snide remarks....
|
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on Oct 4, 2019 4:14:05 GMT -8
That may have been meant for me Jan. We are both guilty of that I think. I get Leroy and his very unusual sensibilities.....Reminds me of Calvin and Hobbs somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 4, 2019 9:07:10 GMT -8
I think (AS A MODERATOR) it is time to tone down the comments aimed at other Insectnet members. I would rather not edit/delete posts, but things seem to be getting a bit less friendly in this thread.
Let's keep posts ON TOPIC of climate change, WITHOUT ATTACKING members who disagree with you.
It is one thing making comments about opinions of talking heads in Youtube videos, and another being unfriendly towards forum members.
Adam.
PS. This warning is not aimed at any one particular member, it is for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by gaspipe on Oct 4, 2019 14:11:04 GMT -8
What, no snide remarks.... Then bring some Leroy. You can do it, as you did it before. Something about farts and a dubious video from someone that is not a member of this forum. Back to work... Jan As I said in an earlier post I am willing to accept mankind (oops is that politically correct?) has had an impact . I simply feel all your “studies “ have inherent flaws because they never account for even a small percentage of the variables in the climate equation . |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by phanaeus1 on Oct 4, 2019 18:57:14 GMT -8
No offense or snide remark intended! but Honorable Sir: you frequently refer to "NARF"= is this a form of partison flatulence? Nasty.Ass.Republican.Fart.?/and is there a lift wing version?NADF? Just a'wondering in Walmart....
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 5, 2019 4:50:08 GMT -8
It would have been interesting to be a (modern) scientist 1200 years ago during the previous warming. For example, I wonder what species existed in the alpine mountain islands of the American south west. We know what unique fauna exists there now- how many species were lost to that warming event that we will never know existed?
How did the polar bear survive that event as a species? It was far warmer then than it is today. How did they adapt and await the return to cooler climate? Did the species perhaps just barely survive, and then recover from an isolated population?
Go back further, before the previous ice age 10,000 years ago. During that ice age there were zero Leps in Ontario, Canada since it was covered by a sheet of ice. All species in Ontario are rebounds from southern species following that climatic event. What was there before? I’m musing here...P canadiensis must have come from an ancestor in the glaucus complex and moved/ evolved north. Going back pre ice age, I wonder if there were a different species like canadiensis, but not canadiensis as we know it- a species that perished with no record.
With round after round of climate fluctuations, I wonder how many species disappeared that we will never know anything about.
Chuck
|
|
leptraps
Banned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,397
|
Post by leptraps on Oct 5, 2019 5:54:11 GMT -8
No offense or snide remark intended! but Honorable Sir: you frequently refer to "NARF"= is this a form of partison flatulence? Nasty.Ass.Republican.Fart.?/and is there a lift wing version?NADF? Just a'wondering in Walmart.... I have read your remarks, you lead a sheltered life. NARF is a Acronym. Naturally Aspirated Rectal Fluids. NARF. That comes when you pop a juicy "Fart" and you leave speckel marks in your shorts. Bleach will generally remove NARF unless you consume Sauerkraut. Sauerkraut generally results in Splatter. Then you will need lots of TP followed by a shower with soap and hot water. As a result you will burn your skivvies. I hope my explanation was educational! "Lift Wing" was a new one. However, that must occur when a Democrap slightly lifts his left leg to let one fly and it comes out lumpy... Enough of this childish humor. I have have moths to ID and place in my collection. |
|
|
|
Post by gaspipe on Oct 5, 2019 16:20:46 GMT -8
On another note, Greta Thunberg made a surprise visit at a climate strike in Iowa City, Iowa, Friday 4th October. Only 3000 persons turned up, as her appearance was apparently also only announced to a small circle of local climate activists, on a short notice. A local high school science teacher was placed under administrative leave after making a threatening comment on Facebook saying "Don't have my sniper riffle", when asked if he would like to join the climate strike. Wonder what that "science" teacher is actually teaching his students in 2019! It can't be real science though. A science teacher that is still stuck in the carbon ages. The Guardian quoted Thunberg in Iowa: " Explaining why she believes she is now on the receiving end of criticism from world leaders like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, she suggested: “They do it because they see something that is threatening and they want to silence that and if they don’t have anything else to say, if they can’t criticize the science, which is all we are saying, then they start attacking us personally and sending threats and hate and so on so maybe they can’t cope with it.“It could definitely be they feel threatened by a new generation,” she added “There is a lot of young people especially young girls in this movement who are leading and maybe they don’t like that, I don’t know!” Grownups behaving like small kids.... Jan You have consumed the koolaid and have closed your mind . As long as it’s considered a “ scientific study” you will swallow it hook , line , and sinker. There are probably conservatively, hundreds of variables (most beyond any human ability to control)that affect climate and yet you are willing to consider proposals that not only would be disruptive beyond imagination, impossible to fund , unenforceable, and without even a shred of evidence any would have even a bit of impact on climate. I’ll say it again ; complete nonsense. I hope the kind moderator does not edit this post as was done with my last one . I trust I’ve been more delicate . |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 6, 2019 9:41:36 GMT -8
I reluctantly decided not to edit this post, but please try to avoid any comments aimed at forum members.
Just to make it clear, I am not specifically aiming my moderation at you or any particular viewpoint.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by gaspipe on Oct 6, 2019 12:41:16 GMT -8
I reluctantly decided not to edit this post, but please try to avoid any comments aimed at forum members. Just to make it clear, I am not specifically aiming my moderation at you or any particular viewpoint. Adam. Fair enough. My reply was aimed at the calling out of Leptraps and also , while admitting indirectly , me. In any event I’ve said my peace . Great forum . Peace and out. Sincerely Gaspipe |
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Oct 27, 2019 4:49:18 GMT -8
Just got back from another month in Europe and I see this topic is still going strong.
One thing that has been mentioned by gaspipe is that the models of the climate do not include all the necessary variables. This is almost certainly a wrong idea. At least it would take an expert in climate modeling to make such a statement, and he/she would then mention the missing variable, would include it in the model and would show what effect it has.
I was a research scientist for most of my career studying plasma chemistry/physics. Plasmas are notoriously complex systems, equal or worse than the climate in complexity. I worked years measuring plasma behavior and comparing to modelling attempts. In my last decade of work, I did plasma-modeling software development and plasma simulations on thousands of massively-parallel processors. My wife also worked with both experiments and modeling of chemical systems used to make microelectronic device chips, and her models are still used by the chip manufacturers to refine the processes. We really understand modeling of complex systems.
These models, like the climate models are very complex, but they yield results that are correct- meaning that the experimenters check and say the model predicted correctly. The climate model cannot say whether the USA will have a cold year or whether there will be cloudiness over Germany next week. Likewise I could not use my plasma model to say lots of plasma details, but I could predict some things very well- good enough to guide the device designers.
Importantly, with many models of climate available and many hundreds of scientists using them, it is ridiculous to say the models have missed something, unless you can say what you think they are missing. You might think insects are eating lots of wood and belching methane and the models have forgotten to include this. As soon as it is suggested, and the numbers look plausible, then some researcher will add this to the model and see if it does anything (I suspect termites are already accounted for).
The model does not have to be perfect to give very good results. That is what the error bars on the predictions are all about.
So I would suggest you forget about criticizing the models unless you can flesh out the weakness you perceive.
Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 27, 2019 6:17:09 GMT -8
So I would suggest you forget about criticizing the models unless you can flesh out the weakness you perceive. Rick I can't argue your point, except to say that scientists, like so many organizations, are guided by cash rather than science. Anything funded by government is suspect, as governments have agendas, as does the notoriously corrupt UN. That climate is changing is, in my observation, true. Some- maybe most- of it is due to mankind. No kidding. We dump loads of gasses and chemicals into the earth. What concerns me is radio waves. We have signals of a huge spectrum running through our bodies constantly, and for the most part nobody cares. Sure, some studies show mobile phone radio waves cause cancer. The government says don't worry. When I think about the big bucks behind mobile phones and other radio transmitters though, I question whether there might be a serious problem that's being covered up. Back on climate change, and a student of science I look for outliers and evidence that questions the purported conclusion. Is it not our duty to do so? That said, I've posted here, and elsewhere, some supposedly simple questions and get zero response. These are: 1. So 1000 years ago Greenland was inhabitable and they raised cattle and sheep. Then it got cold. What does this mean about global warming? Are we in a cold period and perhaps returning to normal? 2. My friends in Tuvalu and Majuro sure don't like king tides and cite global warming as the cause of massive flooding. But what were Funafuti and Majuro like 1000 years ago? Were they under water? Was this perhaps natural, and the current exposed atolls a freak of cooling? 3. If the oceans are indeed rising- and we are lead to believe to unprecedented levels- why is there fossilized coral above the shoreline on Rarotonga? Why are there tons of marine fossils 10 meters above sea level on Tetepare? Instead, I get some twelve year old Youtube twit spouting. Look, I'm not a disbeliever, I'm just playing devil's advocate and the bandwagon doesn't want to address it- which makes me question the motives and study results. I mean, if we have so many advocates and experts, why can't I get an answer? Chuck |
|
|
|
Post by gaspipe on Oct 27, 2019 10:19:31 GMT -8
So I would suggest you forget about criticizing the models unless you can flesh out the weakness you perceive. Rick I can't argue your point, except to say that scientists, like so many organizations, are guided by cash rather than science. Anything funded by government is suspect, as governments have agendas, as does the notoriously corrupt UN. That climate is changing is, in my observation, true. Some- maybe most- of it is due to mankind. No kidding. We dump loads of gasses and chemicals into the earth. What concerns me is radio waves. We have signals of a huge spectrum running through our bodies constantly, and for the most part nobody cares. Sure, some studies show mobile phone radio waves cause cancer. The government says don't worry. When I think about the big bucks behind mobile phones and other radio transmitters though, I question whether there might be a serious problem that's being covered up. Back on climate change, and a student of science I look for outliers and evidence that questions the purported conclusion. Is it not our duty to do so? That said, I've posted here, and elsewhere, some supposedly simple questions and get zero response. These are: 1. So 1000 years ago Greenland was inhabitable and they raised cattle and sheep. Then it got cold. What does this mean about global warming? Are we in a cold period and perhaps returning to normal? 2. My friends in Tuvalu and Majuro sure don't like king tides and cite global warming as the cause of massive flooding. But what were Funafuti and Majuro like 1000 years ago? Were they under water? Was this perhaps natural, and the current exposed atolls a freak of cooling? 3. If the oceans are indeed rising- and we are lead to believe to unprecedented levels- why is there fossilized coral above the shoreline on Rarotonga? Why are there tons of marine fossils 10 meters above sea level on Tetepare? Instead, I get some twelve year old Youtube twit spouting. Look, I'm not a disbeliever, I'm just playing devil's advocate and the bandwagon doesn't want to address it- which makes me question the motives and study results. I mean, if we have so many advocates and experts, why can't I get an answer? Chuck Bingo |
|
