myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Climate Change
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 176, 177, 178 ... 192, 193, 194  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno, what makes you think you have any qualifications whatsoever to either confirm or rebut human impact? What qualifications do you have to interpret your own conclusions? What expertise do you have to disprove anything?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Oh look, instead of acknowledging his mistakes, Techno moves the goalposts. His article, which he may have read, says that an increase in temperature leads to an increase in water vapor.

which Techno got wrong in his initial claim. Nonetheless, he clings to his religious belief that humans have nothing to do with this.

Sad but not surprising.


Go ahead and make up more BS. Please show us where I have said that (in bold above). Create all the stories you wish, but your credibility tanks even further.

Mac said:
Quote:
It also notes that increased water vapor can exacerbate global warming—a feedback loop—or increased clouds, which can decrease warming. That is hornbook climate science,


So, you believe that the American Chemical Society is hornbook science.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/sustainability/globalclimatechange.html#:~:text=The%20American%20Chemical%20Society%20(ACS,activity%20is%20the%20primary%20cause.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Denier.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17743
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
I have always acknowledged that there is global warming. How much mankind's role in it is still debatable, in my opinion.


Now he's pissed off that I described this as a religious view. But it is. When you disregard science, and your own resources, and essentially say , well I just don't believe it, you're in the quasi-religious realm.

This is what Techno is ignoring, from his own source (which, of course, he took out of context.)



Quote:
The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of a broad range of human activities. The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, presents serious risk for civil society and business, and that human activity is the primary cause. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations are increasing at a rate never observed before, primarily due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Extreme weather and related events, such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, heatwaves and wildfires, are increasing in frequency and intensity threatening Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being. Continued uncontrolled GHG emissions will compound the effects and risks of climate change well into the future
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here’s what will do Techno, maybe you can actually change. Since you seem to like quoting the American Chemical Society, I assume you read their statement on climate change I posted.

Let’s start with chemists and if if needed Techno, we will work up the ladder to each countries, Atmospheric, Space and Environmental agencies. These people know more than you and I right?

Those German chemists are pretty smart right? From the German Chemical Society Gesellschaft Deutschmark Chemiker, otherwise know as (GDCh)
https://gdch.app/article/climate-change-reasons-requirements-and-realities-4123828

Those Australian chemists are pretty smart right?
From the Royal Acadamy of Chemists Institute…
https://www.raci.org.au/common/Uploaded%20files/Website%20files/About%20pages/Policies/climate%20change.pdf

British are pretty smart right?

https://www.rsc.org/globalassets/22-new-perspectives/sustainability/strategic-approach-to-sustainability/royal-society-of-chemistry-climate-change-position-statement.pdf

Should I go on to other countries Chemical societies before moving up the ladder? Now is probably the time you leave the forum since you don't have a leg to stand on. Should we keep going or are you going to fall back on statements from “The No trick zone“? Will you comment on this? I thought not. Denier.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you guys paying ANY attention to the Copenhagen Consensus (of dozens of countries)?
Just for starters and a drop in the bucket, see
https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/copenhagen-consensus-climate

Just one of scores of endorsements:
"I certainly don't agree with Bjorn [Lomborg] (or the Copenhagen Consensus) on everything, but I always find him worth listening to. He's not an idealogue. He's a data driven guy who cares about using scarce resources in the smartest possible way."

- Bill Gates on Gates Notes Blog, June 2014

mac so hates Lomborg that he repeatedly refused to read any of his many books and countless publications. IMO, I don't consider anyone not familiar with Lomborg's work to be qualified to comment intelligently on AGW in general, let alone AGWA(larmism).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yeeeeha



Joined: 19 Jun 2000
Posts: 30
Location: Deep in the woods

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How long do you think it'll take mac and friends to pop their butt plugs and launch into their usual diatribe of derogatory hate for anybody who would dare to disagree with them.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/alarmist_claim_rebuttals_updated/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17743
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
Are you guys paying ANY attention to the Copenhagen Consensus (of dozens of countries)?
Just for starters and a drop in the bucket, see
https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/copenhagen-consensus-climate

Just one of scores of endorsements:
"I certainly don't agree with Bjorn [Lomborg] (or the Copenhagen Consensus) on everything, but I always find him worth listening to. He's not an idealogue. He's a data driven guy who cares about using scarce resources in the smartest possible way."

- Bill Gates on Gates Notes Blog, June 2014

mac so hates Lomborg that he repeatedly refused to read any of his many books and countless publications. IMO, I don't consider anyone not familiar with Lomborg's work to be qualified to comment intelligently on AGW in general, let alone AGWA(larmism).
Hysterical. I've paid some attention to Lomborg--and in doing so, discovered how his views have changed and how Isobars has misquoted him. Funny moment for the day. Then Yeehaa emerges from the wildlands of Idaho where he impersonates Big Foot without needing a costume. Of course he writes something insightful.

Idiocracy on parade.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isobars, you do realize when you dive deep into the website you posted, they say the worst thing you can do is reduce Co2? They recommend turning clouds MORE WHITE! Of course they offer no explanation of how much energy it will take to do that, or how to TURN CLOUDS MORE WHITE! By the way, the website you posted says humans are responsible for global warming. I don't think that is what you want to be saying. Get some sleep and stay off the internet. Turn your mind off, it will perform better.

Techno you all in on Isobars website?

I thought so, crickets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 176, 177, 178 ... 192, 193, 194  Next
Page 177 of 194

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group