MEMBERS COMMENTS

< Prev  2 / 41  Next >
Why do some people not believe the evidence? 94% Posted Dec 2016

Why do some people not believe the evidence?

Comment: 350 days ago

"somehow, you are sure that the warming we are experiencing is due to ice age cycles."  No, I'm saying that it could be and it actually has a high chance of it.  I really don't know the cause and there hasn't been any evidence either way so I'm not going to believe a cherry picked survey as science to prove AGW.  There are other hypothesis but none of them have ever made it to the theory level.

Why do some people not believe the evidence? 94% Posted Dec 2016

Why do some people not believe the evidence?

Comment: 351 days ago

I have no idea what would happen to the climate, if anything, if we removed 40% of the CO2.  Plants wouldn't appreciate it.  At least I say that I don't know instead of making up something.  Once there is evidence that human made CO2 is the cause of us coming out of the ice age and not that the cycle was over anyway, then I will believe it.   But until that evidence is given, I will still consider it as a hypothesis only.

Why do some people not believe the evidence? 94% Posted Dec 2016

Why do some people not believe the evidence?

Comment: 352 days ago

Okay, so the truth finally comes out.  You don't believe in science.  You actually think the earth would continue unchanged for the rest of its future if humans did not exist.  I find that to be a shocking revelation because I actually thought you were smarter than that.

From PBS, "Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere."

We were not around during any of the cyclical formations of any ice age or when we came out of one.  We are still in the middle of one and we don't know what caused it.  If you look at the history of the planet, you can see that the planet's normal temperature is 25C and we are currently at 16C.  It's as plain as day to see this.  You are ignoring science completely if you don't think it's normal for the planet to be at 25C.

At least I learned one thing today, I don't have to argue about this with you anymore.  I know you have a closed mind and will believe anything you want to believe.

Why do some people not believe the evidence? 94% Posted Dec 2016

Why do some people not believe the evidence?

Comment: 352 days ago

We are coming out of an ice age that began 3 million years ago.  That's why our climate is changing.  Even the causes of ice ages and glacial/interglacial cycles is speculative.

I asked you a simple true/false question before and you refused to answer.  Are you prepared to answer it today?  

Question:  True or False, If humans did not exist, the earth would come out of its current ice age and return back to the 25C temperatures it was before the ice age.

Why do some people not believe the evidence? 94% Posted Dec 2016

Why do some people not believe the evidence?

Comment: 357 days ago

You misunderstand the scientific method if you think it varies depending on the discipline.

Also, you misunderstood my point.  I do not disagree that the temperatures have risen.  

Answer this question.  True or False.  If humans did not exist on this planet, the ice age would eventually end by itself and the temperature would rise to the normal 25 degrees?

If you believe the temperature should have stayed at 16 degrees for the entire future of the planet regardless if humans were on the planet or not, then you don't understand the cyclical history of this planet.  If humans are accelerating the temperature increase, that is not proven with evidence.  Your CO2 points don't mean anything because you're just trying to link related things together to prove something.  That is not the scientific method.  At best, that is only a hypothesis.

Why do some people not believe the evidence? 94% Posted Dec 2016

Why do some people not believe the evidence?

Comment: 357 days ago

We do believe in evidence.  As soon as there is evidence that humans are causing global warming, we will believe it.  Survey results are not evidence. 

Some evidence of taking global temperatures do show the climate is getting slightly warmer.  But that is a huge leap to say that humans are the cause of it especially when we are just now coming out of an ice age and the past historical record shows that we should be at 25 degrees normally but we are only at 16 degrees now.  

We do believe in the science but a survey is not using science.  Use the scientific method to prove your hypothesis and we will believe.  Don't just submit survey results or review cherry picked papers to come up with your conclusions.  That is not using the scientific method.  Try getting a hypothesis, create experiments to test your hypothesis, and then repeat those experiments to prove it.

What is really warming the Earth? 88% Posted Sep 2016

What is really warming the Earth?

Comment: 445 days ago

The energy was converted into work.

What is really warming the Earth? 88% Posted Sep 2016

What is really warming the Earth?

Comment: 445 days ago

Don't know what you're talking about with the 2nd law.  It has nothing to do with loss in conversion from heat to work or work to heat or anything to do with not completely recharging batteries.

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process."

What is really warming the Earth? 88% Posted Sep 2016

What is really warming the Earth?

Comment: 446 days ago

Not sure that's accurate.  The first law of thermodynamics explains that energy can be converted into the same amount of heat or work.  It can be either and you can exchange heat into work and vice versa.

What is really warming the Earth? 88% Posted Sep 2016

What is really warming the Earth?

Comment: 447 days ago

It would be easier to convert the country to vegetarian than it would be to remove all the tranportation methods combined.  Most of the people in India are vegetarians so it's definitely possible.

There is no need to eat meat but there is a need for transportation.

What is really warming the Earth? 88% Posted Sep 2016

What is really warming the Earth?

Comment: 447 days ago

"Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation"  http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772#.V8nByz4rJz8

What is really warming the Earth? 88% Posted Sep 2016

What is really warming the Earth?

Comment: 447 days ago

As usual, flawed logic. True it cannot be more than 1 hour's worth of sun.  But not all energy is used to heat things.  You can have energy from the hoover dam used to charge an electric car.  Not all of that energy is converted to heat. 

What is really warming the Earth? 88% Posted Sep 2016

What is really warming the Earth?

Comment: 447 days ago

"A burning candle put underneath a pot of water, however insignificant the small flame may seem compared to the mass of water, will eventually make the temperature of the water rise."  Not necessarily.  It depends on the quantity of water and the material of what the pot is made of.  We know the flame cannot exist without oxygen so there must be air in the general area and the air can cool the pot.  The more water, the less likely you will see any warming from the candle.  A 20 square inch 1/8" aluminum heat sink can dissapate 4 degrees C of heat.  A candle may not get a large pot of water 4 degrees hotter.  People use water to cool their car engines and computers.  It's a good conductor of heat.

"Big electricity plants need cooling towers, (car)engines get hot and need to be cooled by surrounding air and the heat produced to warm your house leaks outside so you need to heat some more."  Are you somehow trying to say that once the heat is created, it never goes anywhere and compounds?  So infrared radiation cannot escape the planet, ever?

Scientists planning to hack the climate 88% Posted Aug 2016

Scientists planning to hack the climate

Comment: 451 days ago

"AGW is true."  That is your opinion.

"Scrubbers don't remove carbon"  A scrubber can remove carbon.  They don't just prevent additional carbon from being released.  A scrubber can take in air, detect the CO2 and separate the carbon out and release O2 and carbon as a waste product that can be collected.

"It doesn't make sense to burning fossil fuels, and then remove the carbon from the atmosphere"  Not everything can be run on Solar or alternate methods.  An example is my edger.  There is no electric version available and the solar panel required to run it would be larger then the portable device.  It would no longer be portable.  Even electric blowers and trimmers are vastly under powered when they are battery operated and aren't sufficient for commercial use.  They have to be portable and light enough for people to lift easily.

"makes oil a very expensive form of energy."  False.  Oil is still cheaper than the alternatives and that is why it's used.  Until oil becomes more expensive then there is no real incentive to spend money for alternative sources.  I have a hybrid car and it cost $7,000 more than the standard all-gas version of the vehicle.  I doubt I will save $7,000 in gas during the time I own the car.I might not even spend $7,000 in gas during the entire time I own it.  Although it's good for the environment, it may not make economic sense to invest in things like that.

"Solar is so much better."  Solar is nice but it will take about 15 years to pay it back if you live near the equator.  If you live further away, it will take longer to pay back.  If you consider the people usually stay in their homes for 5 years before they move, it also doesn't make sense to invest in a long term ROI like that.  Also, solar does not provide power during the night.  If you want battery storage, that will be extremely expensive and requires maintenance (and occasional battery replacement) that will take away any savings you get from your solar.  The best option is, if offered, to sell back your excess energy back to the electric company and then you can use their energy at night time.  That's a good option as long as they give you the same amount of credit if you over produce as if you are consuming.

"I presume you mean nuclear."  No, I don't mean nuclear.  Nuclear is actually a good option.  I was talking about the methods they mentioned in the video.  Maybe you should watch the video again.

"it's the fossil fuel industries that are standing in the way."  Can you explain how the fossil fuel industry will prevent me from putting a solar panel on my house or a wind farm?  They have no control over what I do and cannot stand in my way.  I have no idea what you're talking about and do not believe the fossil fuel industry is standing in anybody's way to generate alternative energies.  It's something you made up in your head.

Scientists planning to hack the climate 88% Posted Aug 2016

Scientists planning to hack the climate

Comment: 453 days ago

If AGW is true and the CO2 is what is causing the warming, then the safest thing to do is to remove the extra CO2.  Build scrubbers that can convert that CO2 back into O2 and keep the carbon.   Why create all these other methods that could actually harm the planet.

Trump's VP Mike Pence criticises theory of evolution 86% Posted Aug 2016

Trump's VP Mike Pence criticises theory of evolution

Comment: 456 days ago

No, that's not true.  AGW is just a hypothesis.  It has never been tested.  They have relied on observation and assumption alone.  Their only proof is based on a survey of cherry picked papers that mentioned AGW.  Papers and/or scientific concensus is not proof.

Brian Cox and Malcolm Roberts clash over climate change 94% Posted Aug 2016

Brian Cox and Malcolm Roberts clash over climate change

Comment: 457 days ago

Regarding the "All life on the planet will die," you need to see some of Walter's older comments where he specifically states that.  He truly believes all life will die.

Regarding the downvotes, just ignore those.  Voting is easily manipulated on this site.  One person can downvote the same comment hundreds of times.

Brian Cox and Malcolm Roberts clash over climate change 94% Posted Aug 2016

Brian Cox and Malcolm Roberts clash over climate change

Comment: 457 days ago

But Walter said it traps heat.  So all I have to do is provide a little heat and a small amount of CO2 and it will be trapped in.

I was basically showing how stupid of an idea it was.  You cannot just say that, since CO2 has increased, that is the cause of global warming.  You even think it sounds stupid when I put it into a smaller scale of my house.

Brian Cox and Malcolm Roberts clash over climate change 94% Posted Aug 2016

Brian Cox and Malcolm Roberts clash over climate change

Comment: 461 days ago

"Why not reduce burning fossil fuels - just in case it makes a difference? What is there to lose?"  I sort of agree with reducing the burning of fossil fuels.  Not only does it put CO2 into the atmosphere, it puts other chemicals like carbon monoxide, radon, and benzene.  CO2 can actually be a good product as that is plant food.  Without it, plants cannot survive.

Why don't we talk more about deforestation which prevents that CO2 from being absorbed by the plants because we are killing those plants?  One of the biggest producer of greenhouse gas is animal farming.  Instead of trying to get everyone to invest $30,000 on solar for their home (and more if you're not close to the equator), make eating animals illegal and force everyone to eat only fruits and vegetables.  Stop creating concrete as that is one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas too.  But the government is only concerned about energy and blind to other solutions.

Another good reason to stop burning fossil fuels is that we will eventually run out of them.  We need to start using renewable energy sources.  Solar is very expensive right now and it is actually cheaper to produce electricity using fossil fuels.  As soon as it becomes more expensive due to its rarity, then there isn't really incentive for companies to produce electricity any other way.  Solar has a break-even payback time of about 15 years (last between 20 and 25 years) but most people live in their homes less than 5 years.  You will not get all your money back when you sell your house so you're flushing your money down the toilet.  

I am in "Group C".  I do not deny that climate change is happening.  I know that humans are producing CO2.  I know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  But how much effect that CO2 has on the planet has not been proven and people of all demographics are quick to give their opinions without any facts.  A common piece of evidence regarding human created CO2 is the reason our planet is warming is the "Overwhelming concensus of all the scientists."  Like Malcolm mentioned in the video, that is not science and therefore is not proof.  I also believe that we are coming out of an ice age and the planet would be warming anyway.  If you look at the historical record of the planet when life had already been here, it is usually 25C and we are only at 16C now.  Once we are completely out of that ice age, we should be back to the normal 25C that the planet has been at the majority of the time life existed. 

Some things that make me skeptical about CO2 and it's correlation to climate is the historical record of CO2 versus temperatures show there is no correlation.  There have been about 60,000 (relying on my memory here) chemical testing the past of CO2 levels and they are greater than they are today but the temperatures were not as high as they are today.   Scientists dismiss those as anomalies because they do not fit within the story they are trying to tell.

If it was stated that we shouldn't use up our precious resources and don't add any more polution which you can visually see in countries like China, then I would be all supportive.  But to make up fake science to scare the public into thinking all life on the planet will die because of CO2 production is, in my opinion, the wrong approach to the problem.

Brian Cox and Malcolm Roberts clash over climate change 94% Posted Aug 2016

Brian Cox and Malcolm Roberts clash over climate change

Comment: 461 days ago
I made it a point to not to answer your questions because you immediately asked them without addressing my questions.

PROFILE

guest123456789

guest123456789