How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what?
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
- Status
Boston
Active Member
I believe its called cognitive dissonance, when you say one thing and do another. Your insistence that you grok climate change flowed by your refusal to acknowledge its incredible importance in the coming few decades is becoming legendary. Your distractions, discussing Justin Biebers, quoting fantasy writers, presenting conspiracy theories concerning a whole range of irrelevant subjects. is hardly a viable substitute for your assertions that it won't effect you or that it doesn't matter.
Climate shift is already occurring and it seems the system is rushing to catch up with the altered and continuing to be altered atmospheric chemistry. J Jackson in his now famous lecture "a brave new ocean" at Browns university spells out clearly just how long he thinks the worlds oceans have till full anaerobic stratification sets in. And its within the next decade or two.
This is an absolutely critical crisis and it must be acknowledged immediately. It does no good at all to have people who say "oh yah, but its not all that important" and then only confuse themselves by claiming they're not deniers.
Climate shift is already occurring and it seems the system is rushing to catch up with the altered and continuing to be altered atmospheric chemistry. J Jackson in his now famous lecture "a brave new ocean" at Browns university spells out clearly just how long he thinks the worlds oceans have till full anaerobic stratification sets in. And its within the next decade or two.
This is an absolutely critical crisis and it must be acknowledged immediately. It does no good at all to have people who say "oh yah, but its not all that important" and then only confuse themselves by claiming they're not deniers.
Last edited:
I thought that I already acknowledged that the dying oceans and all the rest of it are a crisis within the context of other crises. In fact, the other crises are involved in causing it and it's almost as if people are trying to kill everything on purpose.
I didn't say that it was unimportant. Just not important enough for Eric Pianka to release a virus that kills hundreds of millions of people and so forth. No doubt, whatever evolved to eat the bodies would probably give off some CO2 before heading the way of the Dodo anyway.
It seems to me that what would do some good is inventing and creating solutions. Here and now. In order to help people and other forms of life live and exist longer than they would have otherwise. Ideas about raising awareness are often an excuse, sort of like Alex Jones "raising awareness" while acting like the supposed crises he's trying to point to are going to fix themselves so long as he's there to... raise awareness more. Where are the inventions, what are the proposals? Raising awareness? That's it? Have you really calculated out the possibility of using algae or growing more plants to use more of the greenhouse before species go extinct and so forth anyway?
Malthus will be correct one day about the inevitability of it all, no doubt... but he's also been dead a long time too. Because it's probably impossible to enter creativity and sentience into the calculation of "inevitability." And no, I'm not proposing that people willfully throw themselves off a cliff for short term profits and expect to invent wings for themselves on the way down like they're doing now. I'm just saying that mass extinction in the "near future" is not assured, no more than the extermination of the "lower races" at "some future date" was assured when Darwinists predicted it.
It's called being incongruous and I detect no incongruity in Mnyms statements. I find them extremely cogent and rational, if somewhat amusingly prone to analogy.
So you say but you fail to provide definitive evidence of where the CO2 comes from, other than a generic 'from man's use of fossil fuels'. The reason I want to know 'where' it origins is so methods of cutting it can be employed. You failure to provide the evidence appears to endorse my view that you do not know... ergo what do you want people to do about it.
Simply engaging in useless ritualistic behaviour like stacking rubbish in separate bins, not using refrigerators or cutting down your heating by a degree or two and freezing because it was already cold anyway is pissing in the wind.
Well show us how then, you are claiming to be highly knowledgeable about it all, put it in your own words so that people can understand. Also make it clear what you want people to do about it.
Last edited:
I have repeatedly said... I want to know where it is coming from and in what quantities. No one has shown me that the rise is completely man made. Obviously we are releasing CO2 but are there other sources for the increase. Data shows similar sharp rises and drops which were nothing to do with man because man was either not around or insufficiently advanced to add significantly to the mix.
If I can't hear or see the mob, I have no evidence they are there unless I choose to trust the messenger. If I did choose to believe the messenger, I would say something along the lines of 'Oh what shall I do'?
Look, you are asking people to trust you here. I am saying, 'ok, for the sake of argument and erring on the side of safety... "what do you want me to do"?
No... You are the one who is putting forward the argument. I expect you to highlight the relevant parts to save me the trouble of rooting through a load of garbage, exactly the same as I would do for you, in a subject which I had researched and was explaining to you.
Last edited:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
What evidence have you repeatedly not received? The evidence of co2 rise directly attributable to mankind's activities?
Or the breakdown into ludicrous minutiae of exactly how much co2 each person is directly responsible for?
Belfrey
Senior Member.
So, have you bothered to look at the sources I gave you? It seems like you expect everyone here to spoonfeed you data. This isn't the chemtrails belief, data on this is readily available if you care to search for it.
You could "get up out of the chair" and take a look for yourself before assuming there is no mob. I don't see any sign that you've tried to look for the data that you say you haven't seen, even when I tried to point you to sources.Oxymoron said:
Asking me for huge lists of specific carbon sources is basically a Gish Gallop in reverse. I gave you a source where you could get started.Oxymoron said:
Please do not distort my words to fit into your ridiculous paradigm.
It is hardly minutiae to ask for details of emissions per Country is it. I expect that is off the debate as obviously it is the underdeveloped Countries with little but growing infrastructure which will need the most stringent carbon caps.
Also it is hardly minutiae to ask about figures for things like merchant shipping, military shipping, Air travel, cars, power stations etc.
How else are you going to be able to look into where emissions can be improved.
Oh, of course we don't need to know that do we, all we need to do is do as we are told and accept Carbon Tax on everything and that will solve the problem the same as doing everything we are told to do will defeat terror an aid the war on drugs.
Belfrey
Senior Member.
About thirty second search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Come on, man. This is not hard to find. It took longer for me to type this sentence.
So you cannot back up your claims... no surprise. I'm out. 'Convince'/'browbeat' someone else with your unsubstantiated nonsense which boils down to 'we need to legislate'... "Legislate about what" .... 'emissions and carbon tax'. Yeah right.
It is no different to 'Give up all your rights and we will protect you from the bogey man we created'.
Belfrey
Senior Member.
I'm not your administrative assistant, but give me any single, specific parameter that you want me to look up, and I'll use my amazing Google-Fu to find it for you. Or if you like, I'll teach you the secrets of Google-Fu, so that you can go forth and work such wonders yourself.
The amount of CO2 is directly related to fossil fuel usage. Why is it important to break it down? Just measure how much fossil fuel is produced per year. Nobody is really increasing stockpiles, so it all gets used.
http://www.energy-without-carbon.org/CO2SourcesAndSinks
http://www.energy-without-carbon.org/CO2SourcesAndSinks
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Curious as to what my ridiculous paradigm might be. That mankind is emitting co2 in a significant degree?
That co2 is a proven atmospheric heater? That there are measurable short-term consequences to this, and projections of larger disastrous consequences?
I would say it's a 'ridiculous paradigm' to believe otherwise.
But anyway...
What evidence haven't you received?
Boston
Active Member
just can't bring yourself to admit the climate issue is the single most critical issue of this century without proposing some ludicrous suggestion about killing off billions of people.
Boston
Active Member
Wrong
That evidence was provided but you ignored it. Just for fun I'll present it again, question is, will you ignore it again. I'll even quote a few relevant tidbits just to make it harder to ignore this time around
From
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Boston
Active Member
Oh, of course we don't need to know that do we, all we need to do is do as we are told and accept Carbon Tax on everything and that will solve the problem the same as doing everything we are told to do will defeat terror an aid the war on drugs.
Hilarious our deniers just can't seem to stick to the subject but instead insist on these constant interjections of paranoid delusions of some socio political nature that of course is invisible but omni present
The climate issue resides in and is produced by other issues, like the banking system and the number of people on the earth and so forth. It seems like you have an if/then scenario in your mind as far as raising awareness goes. So if you raise more awareness of the problem, then what?
Do you disagree with some of my proposed solutions and scenarios or not? Not the sacrificing Bieber one... but perhaps some of the other ones.we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years
So maybe Americans should have figured out a way to buy those big forest fire planes from the Russians in order to dump enough water on forest fires to actually put them out. That might help, not to mention that some fire fighters might still be alive too. But we probably couldn't afford it, even if we can apparently afford drones. Not enough paper ponzi and petrodollars for some things as there is for others, it would seem... huh?CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere.
What are your proposed solutions to stop there being as many burning forests and burning fossils, again? Raising awareness. Mission accomplished!
Although, without any solutions or proposed scenarios that seems sort of like the "mission accomplished" sign behind Bush when he flew onto that air craft carrier while spewing out fossil fuel emissions behind his jet and so forth after Operation Iraqi Liberation... or OIL.
I don't want to take your bone away and raising awareness is good. Ok, maybe I do ultimately want to take your bone away some. I'll get it from you eventually, even if I have to pull some dog whispering stuff out.
Last edited:
MikeC
Closed Account
North America has a lot of firefighting planes (a lot of them are Canadian) - including one very, very big one which is often identified as a chemtrailer!!
But fires are occurring all the time, the world over, and always have.
But fires are occurring all the time, the world over, and always have.
I would love to see Al dancing with a tutu also. lol Contrails are by jets who fly specific routes in higher altitudes and the other trails I see that are criss crossing all over the place at low altitudes are ??????? I didn't get all my pictures downloaded off the phone but when I do, I will put them on here.
When Bush was in office there were like 44 air tankers. At one time say about 2 years ago, there were only 9 or 10 in use. Hopefully more have been put in the air.
Sausalito
Active Member
'tis a bit off-topic, but I await your evidence, perhaps in a different thread.
MikeC
Closed Account
A lot of the reduction was due to scandals regarding disposal of surplus military C-130 and P-3 a/c in the 90's, and safety concerns regarding old airframes in the 2000's.
As a result a lot more of the firefighting load is now done by helicopters - which are more versatile and are available almost everywhere in the country on commercial "as needed" contracts. They are a lot more economical for the same amount of firefighting than large old fixed wing a/c.
Canada operates a few dozen CL-215's and -415's as specialist water bombers - a few of which regularly get leased to US entities during the fire season.
Last edited:
I've been reading this site a couple years now, and they have been stating co 2 rises after the temps rise.
It has been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused global warming
The first question to be answered is whether the Earth is warming at all. As the discussion of fallacy 1 showed, there is no certainty that this is the case.
But even were warming to be demonstrated, and assuming a reasonable correlation between an increase in carbon dioxide and an increase in temperature, that does not mean that the former has driven the latter. Good evidence exists from thousands of years ago that carbon dioxide levels rose only after the temperature increased, so why should we assume that the order is somehow reversed today?........[/ex]
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html
As of the beginning of the year there were ZERO. In March there were:
When all of the U.S. Forest Service air tanker contracts expired on December 31, 2012, that left the agency without any when the new year rolled around.
To temporarily fill the gap, the USFS has extended the expired contracts for Minden and Neptune through April 22. Today there are three P2V’s working. Minden’s T-48 is at Porterville, CA, Neptune’s T-07 is at Lake City, FL and Neptune’s T-44 is at Alamogordo, NM. It has been 469 days since the agency issued the solicitation for next-generation air tankers but no contracts have been awarded. Also pending are solicitations for legacy and very large air tankers.
http://fireaviation.com/2013/03/13/status-of-air-tankers-march-13-2013/comment-page-1/
I think there should be a 2 child policy and where there are extreme populations, a one child policy.
Hilarious our deniers just can't seem to stick to the subject but instead insist on these constant interjections of paranoid delusions of some socio political nature that of course is invisible but omni present
Hilarious our deniers just can't seem to stick to the subject but instead insist on these constant interjections of paranoid delusions of some socio political nature that of course is invisible but omni present
For starters, I don't believe anything the IPCC says. A couple years ago there was Climategate. Another thing you hear all this hoopla about the Antarctica ice melting, but do they happen to tell you that there are 9 underwater active volcanos near there? Of course not.
http://iceagenow.com/The_IPCC_is_lying.htm
and do they tell you thats there this many volcanos? No.
Researchers have counted 201,055 cones in which 39,000 rise over 1000 meters over the seabed.
http://iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm
So I don't believe half the garbage, the Al Gores of the world tell me. When he went on his Antartica excursion with Richard Branson last year or the year before, I asked him if he happened to sail over one of those active underwater volcanos. He wrote back something stupid. I think he was on a stupid drunk.
Considering there were ZERO air tankers at the beginning of the year and about 4 in March, he's getting a well deserved dissing wouldn't you say? The Obama administration has been particularly sluggish in having enough air tankers to fight these fires. At least he was nice enough to fly out to the Colorado Springs fire of last year. A local commented that the fire was seen about 7 am and that 1 air tanker showed up around 9;30 and by then the fire was way out of control.
MikeC
Closed Account
And why does that matter to believing or not believing the IPCC??
If you understand what actually happened there then you should be firmly convinced of the dishonesty of many CC deniers!
so what?
Presumably they were also there when the Antarctic was NOT melting - so it seems quite spurious to suggest they are suddenly causing it.
and so what again? they have all (or at least mostly) been inexistence for a long time - since long before global warming was discovered - so unless you can show that hey have CHANGED to cause something then their existence doesn't actually mean anything at all.[/quote]
MikeC
Closed Account
As I pointed out you do not actually need air tankers to fight fires at all - they are expensive and often useless.
Boston
Active Member
Oh and I've a pretty good handle on dog training, dog whisperer is a quack.
That was actually one of your more rational posts, other than a couple bits and pieces, had it been all you've said, I'd suspect you were actually just a bit off with your political views.
Boston
Active Member
Bingo, the only real issue is that deforestation has accelerated the process, and reduced the "lungs" with which the planet sequestered CO2 in the first place. It does mess with the mass balance ratios a bit but we can calculate the amount of CO2 prematurely released into the environment by excess deforestation and compensate for it within the fossil fuels calculation.
Hilarious our deniers just can't seem to stick to the subject but instead insist on these constant interjections of paranoid delusions of some socio political nature that of course is invisible but omni present
Heres these hot Antarctica volcanos that are heating up the waters.
http://iceagenow.com/Underwater_volcanoes_heating_Antarctic_waters.htm
Boston
Active Member
And they have no idea what they are talking about. Do they discuss ice data, did they neglect to mention "fern" depth ? I see they still ( in the light of all countless scientific studies to the contrary ) insist there is no warming.
you might want to vet your sources a bit better, sounds like classic disinformation. Look up the term Agnotology and get back to us
Boston
Active Member
its been tried, if China can't do it, no one can, besides its not really the issue, the issue is burning of fossil fuels.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
TBH, it doesn't seem that I can blame Congress for this and other can't blame the President.
http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Right now, the federal government has exclusive contracts for only 10 large air tankers nationwide, said Jennifer Jones, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Forest Service, which handles federal contracts for all large air tankers. Another plane is reserved on a "call-when-needed" basis. Seven more planes are scheduled to come online by the end of the summer. All of the planes are owned and operated by private companies.
...
Fortunately, fire managers say, large air tankers aren't the only — or the most important — tool they have in combatting wildfires. Federal agencies also have contracts with dozens of small, single-engine air tankers and hundreds of water-hauling helicopters. State and local governments also have their own contracts for helicopters or small air tankers.
The Forest Service also has eight Modular Airborne Firefighting System units, which can be loaded into the back of military aircraft. Two such units were used at the Black Forest fire.
"I have never seen national resources deployed so quickly," Maketa said Friday morning.
Large air tankers also have limitations. They are less effective during high winds. And, even at their best, they are merely tools to help firefighters — by ringing a fire in slurry to slow its progress, not actually extinguish its flames.
Jim Fletcher, the manager at the Rocky Mountain Area Coordination Center, which moves firefighting resources around a five-state region, said crews almost always trump airplanes when battling fires.
"It's the firefighters that put the fires out, not aircraft," Fletcher said. "It really boils down to the boots on the ground."
http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
The U.S. Forest Service on Monday announced a much-anticipated plan to field the 'next generation ' of large air tankers - a move that could modernize and nearly double the nation's dwindling fleet of large slurry-dropping planes.
Serious questions remain, however, on when those planes would take to the sky.
Hours after the agency announced plans to award $158 million in contracts for seven tankers over five years, at least one business threatened to appeal the move.
The threat mimicked a similar contract dispute last year, which kept a seven-plane fleet from flying during one of the nation's busiest fire seasons. As a result, the nation relied heavily in 2012 on eight Defense Department C-130 aircraft and another fleet of tankers on loan from a Canadian/Alaskan partnership.
U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., called for tanker companies to honor the agency's decision. In a statement, he urged them to 'refrain from unnecessarily tying up these tanker contracts in red tape.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Forest Service is acquiring seven advanced firefighting air tankers to help modernize its aging fleet ahead of what is expected to be a bad season for wildfires.
The Forest Service has awarded five companies contracts to supply the planes, which dump fire-retardant chemicals on blazes, the agency said on Monday. Financial terms were not released.
"It is critical that we complete the next generation air tanker contracting effort as quickly as possible as we face the prospect of another challenging wildfire season with a dwindling legacy air tanker fleet," Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said in a statement.
The new tankers are turbine powered, can each carry at least 3,000 gallons (11,400 liters) of retardant and have a cruising speed of at least 300 knots when fully loaded, the statement said. The tankers are several makes of aircraft including a four-engine C-130 and a three-engine DC-10.
The Forest Service's firefighting fleet includes some aircraft that have been in service for decades. The agency expects to have available up to 26 air tankers as well as up to three water scoopers, dozens of single-engine air tankers and hundreds of helicopters.
And they have no idea what they are talking about. Do they discuss ice data, did they neglect to mention "fern" depth ? I see they still ( in the light of all countless scientific studies to the contrary ) insist there is no warming.
you might want to vet your sources a bit better, sounds like classic disinformation. Look up the term Agnotology and get back to us
Would an example of that be like using NIST data, scientific data for the WTC?
Tell me.
Seriously what is the disinformation?
There was warming in the Medieval Ages, warming in the 1920 to late 1930's.
http://mclean.ch/climate/Arctic_1920_40.htm
Is this person Robert.......an example of that?
Robert E. Stevenson, an oceanography consultant based in Del Mar, California, trains the NASA astronauts in oceanography and marine meteorology. He was Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans from 1987-1995, and worked as an oceanographer for the U.S. Office of Naval Research for 20 years. He is the author of more than 100 articles and several books, including the most widely used textbook on the natural sciences. The following report first appeared in 21st Century Science and Technology in the Winter 1996-1997 issue.
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/globwarm.htm
Boston
Active Member
Joe Newman
Active Member
I don't keep up on the latest drone technology, so maybe the abilities they have are only limited to spying on shit or blowing shit up and I am just a crazy dreamer. But I wonder, given the seeming freakish intensity of some of these fires, why isn't their a bevy of drones to help fight them. Ok, maybe I don't wonder. It ain't military, it ain't crowd control, and it ain't intelligence, so it's not a top priority for the folks so invested in Keeping Us Safe and so the bucks go towards the critical stuff.
- Status
Similar threads
