MEMBERS COMMENTS

< Prev  1 / 45  Next >
Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 34 days ago

"He even threatened to end the discussion if I didn't agree with a definition from Wikipedia."  To be fair, being in the ice age is very important to the discussion because it also means that we are currently in a temporary lower than average temperature for the planet.  We will eventually get back to average even if we do nothing because the ice age is temporary.  

The Paris Agreement has failed - what now? 94% Posted Apr 2019

The Paris Agreement has failed - what now?

Comment: 34 days ago

“could increase by up to 400 MtCO2e” Now this is what’s wrong with AGW proponents.  See that little “e” at the end, that means equivalent.  So they are taking things like Methane and CFC’s, and other greenhouse gases and converting them to CO2 numbers.  That is such a bogus way of doing science and educating the public.  Quit skewing the numbers and tell the truth and maybe more people will believe.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 34 days ago

“Now, how do you know that AGW is a hoax …?  You ignore the evidence gathered by experts” What evidence?  All the models they create have been wrong, either under target or over target.  They make claims about CO2 being the cause without talking about agriculture, cement production, CFCs and other chlorine sources, and deforestation.  They never mention that water is the biggest source of greenhouse gas.  It’s all very deceptive so you have to use your own critical thinking skills to check if it passes the smell test.

“professional analysis”  You say analysis, I say opinion.

“cast doubts on the entire peer-review system” Yes because anyone that attempts to publish a paper against AGW will never get it past the peer-review system.  It’s already biased to begin with.  People who wish to speak out against AGW are afraid of losing their jobs or government research funding so they don’t speak out.  Like I said, there is a political agenda here and that casts doubt so you cannot just trust what people are telling you.  This is not something you can visually see like polar ice and alpine glaciers.

“Do you see my point?”  Your point seems to be to argue and that’s all.

“There may well be issues with peer review, even if that is the best system we have.” True so you cannot trust it.  Remember when Galileo Galilei knew the earth went around the sun but the prevailing thought by all the scientists was the sun went around the earth.  He spoke up and got excommunicated for it.  He died in 1642 and it wasn’t until 1758 when the prohibition against heliocentrism was removed from the index of prohibited books.  That’s more than 100 years after he died.

“But if you want to be skeptical, be skeptical.”  I am skeptical.  I never said AGW isn’t true.  I just say there’s not enough evidence.   I never said God doesn’t exist, or the tooth fairy, or Big Foot, or the Easter Bunny, I just say there’s not enough evidence that show they exist.

“because none of my input here has been about my beliefs” Sure it has.  If you blindly trust what you’re told without evidence, then it’s a faith based system — or belief.  Whatever you want to call it.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 34 days ago

“‘Because we know the earth is warming -- that's fact’.  Great.  How do you know?”  Because those were direct measurements taken and not much analysis needed.

“WalterEgo might as well just say ‘It's a fact that AGW is real’.  You would ask him how he knows.” AGW is different, it’s an opinion.  It’s like if I went to the Doctor and he X-rayed my arm and told me I have a broken arm.  That’s fact. But if he tried to identify how I broke it, that’s going to be an opinion.  I could tell him that I broke it falling out of a tree and he might believe me but I could be lying. Maybe I broke it doing something embarrassing like I fell off a bicycle because I don’t know how to ride one and I didn’t want him to know the truth.  AGW has a political agenda and there are reasons for people to lie.  They keep going on and on about how it’s the CO2 but when I ask people to see any correlation with CO2 and the temperatures of the earth according to the historical record, WalterEgo says “But the sun’s output is missing from the graph.”  So it is the sun’s output or is it CO2 that’s more important to the increase?  It gives me a lot of doubt.

“Now to assess whether that definition applies, you have to know whether the planet is warming and whether there are glaciers.  How do you know?”  You do not need to know if the planet is warming.  The definition said it’s a long period of reduction in temperature.  So you can look at the historical record like at the Jurassic period where the temperatures were at 25C and compare it with today’s 16C to see if it’s a reduction of temperature.  You can check if there’s ice and alpine glaciers which is very easy to check and there have been millions of pictures taken from the ground and from satellites.

Question for you, do you believe there is a God?  100% of preachers say there is one so it must be true, right?

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 35 days ago

"papers from Kwok's co-authors et al as a reason for believing that we're in an Ice Age." No, that's not it.  I know there's polar ice and alpine glaciers.  You somehow think I need to witness that myself to "believe" it exists.  That's flat-Earther mentality right there.  I do not need to orbit the planet myself to know that it’s spherical. 

"I completely understand your views on AGW and your doubts about the 95% figure.  What I don't see is why a peer reviewed consensus about the specific geological epoch we are in (or the presence or retreat of glaciers) should be any different."  Because we know the earth is warming -- that's fact.  AGW say's it's humans that caused it -- that's an opinion.   Having polar ice and alpine glaciers is fact.  The definition of Ice Age has been determined and matches the fact.  There's no opinion involved.

"So again, how do you know we are in an Ice Age?"  And again I ask you to look up the definition and then ask yourself does the planet meet that definition.  I made the determination it does.  You can do that for yourself and if you disagree, that's fine.  I'm not here to convince you either way.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 35 days ago

Here's a good youtube video from an educational channel called Sixty Symbols.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlA1w4OZWQ  

The guy talking had 120 - 130 papers published and has peer reviewed many others.  He explains the peer review process and how it can be biased because there are so few people in the field and they all know each other and shouldn't, but may accept a paper just because they know the person that wrote it.

I do not believe 95% of scientists have agreed in AGW.  I agree that they cherry picked scientific papers that talk about AGW and said that 95% of those AGW papers agree that humans are the cause.  Papers are not scientists.  Many papers could have been written by the same scientists and many scientists never cared to have their papers published or peer reviewed.   They never list the names of the scientists that agreed but there has been a list of 650 - 700 that sent a letter to congress that disagreed with AGW.  And to top it all off, it doesn’t matter scientifically if people all agree. If it did, then 100% of preachers believe there is a God so there must be a God, right?

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 35 days ago

“OK so you're not answering because you agree with WalterEgo's answer, namely that that your belief that we are in an Ice Age is due to a consensus among certain scientists, and the evidence that those scientists have told you about.  “  Is that what I said?  Maybe this is why I don’t want to chat with you.  I took the effort to respond to you anyway and this is what you thought I said.  Absolutely incredible.

“catastrophic climate change” What temperature do you consider to be catastrophic?  And who is it supposedly catastrophic to?

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 35 days ago

“Sorry I assumed you could manage 2 conversations at once” I can but WalterEgo and I have a couple years of history on this topic and I know he already answered your question so there’s no need for me to do it too.

“it's still a question you feel unable to answer.” Not unable but unwilling to repeat an answer already provided by someone else.  

“WalterEgo's explanation was based on the findings of a few scientists (mainly one person in fact)” Assuming you mean R. Kwok, I guess you didn’t notice his other references with different people and the obvious “and” along with another scientist whenever his name was mentioned.  For example, “Kwok, R., and D. A. Rothrock”  So you’re also agreeing with me that peer reviewing is considered cherry picking.  What if R. Kwok peer reviewed the mass majority of those 95% of scientific papers that claim AGW is true?  Hmmmm….  

“I am surprised that you now think a consensus among a certain group qualifies as evidence to you.” I don’t.  That’s not the way to do science.  Providing evidence is science.  There is evidence of us being in an Ice Age but you just refuse to accept it.  Question:  Is there polar ice on the planet?  Are there alpine glaciers?  Answer those questions, then look at what qualifies as an ice age and then get back to me.

“You're right, Google and Bing both say that we're in an ice age, and they both say that AGW is real too” Did Google say the only evidence we are in an ice age is that 95% of scientists agree we are in an ice age or did they include facts that proved it?  Now maybe you can understand the difference.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 35 days ago

“Why do you refuse to answer my very simple question” Have you considered it’s because I’m having a civil conversation with WalterEgo and you’re butting into it?  Why do I need to provide you with evidence that we are in an ice age when WalterEgo answered that for you and there are search engines like google and bing that could help educate you?

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 35 days ago

“About 10% of the Earth is covered in ice. Apparently, that is still defined as within an ice age. It's just a mild part of an ice age.”  Yes, I agree it’s a mild part of an ice age and there have been worse periods where the most of Earth was covered in ice including at the equator.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150112-did-snowball-earth-make-animals

But I’m referring to the cooling that started during the Eocene era where the planet was constantly cooling and has never recovered.  That was around 50 million years ago and the temperature dropped from +14C delta from 1960-1990 levels down to -6C delta. We are simply recovering from that period.  The lowest recent temperatures were 20,000 years ago during the end of the Pleistocene era.

Would you agree that plants and animals thrived during the Jurassic period?  The average temperatures around that time were 25C so life easily goes on living with those temperatures.  Then an asteroid hit and there was a mass extinction event and the temperatures haven’t recovered back to 25C yet.  So I claim the earth could go all the way back to 25C and life will continue thrive on this planet while WalterEgo claims all life will die in the entire universe if we go up a couple more degrees.  Which seems more plausible considering the historical record of the planet?

There was a little ice age and we are also coming out of that but that was a short term situation because there were a lot of temperature fluctuations between 800,000 years ago and 20,000 years ago. It’s now pretty steady in comparison.   I’m looking at the bigger picture like millions of years of history.

I would still like someone to show me some correlation between CO2 and temperatures in the planet’s historical record because I see none.  Here’s a graph that shows both overlayd on top of each other.  See if you can see that correlation.  https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017c37fa9895970b-pi

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 36 days ago

I agree the planet has been warming since 1880.  We know this because there have been direct measurements of the temperature.  This has never been in dispute.

About the cause of the warming, AGW proponents are quick to blame humans and CO2.  I’m not so quick to make that leap of faith because there are many potential causes of the warming.  I do not deny that humans may be the cause of a portion of it but not all of it.

If humans were not on this planet, Earth would return to the temperatures it was prior to the asteroid event that killed the dinosaurs.  That temperature was 25C.  It is only 16C today so we have a lot of heating to do before it’s back to normal.  It may take millions of years to get there but it will.  

The current ice age is an abnormally cold period for the planet.  We would eventually get back to normal temperatures.  This would occur regardless if humans were here or not.  The only question is about when it would occur and how much did human activity cause the acceleration of that event?  That is the unknown factor.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 36 days ago

“I just agreed we are in an ice age.” Fair enough but it took you a long time to admit it.  Don’t know why because it’s clear and scientists do agree we are in an ice age.

“So how do you come to the conclusion that part of the warming is due to ‘the act of coming out of our ice age’?”  This is so obvious.  You can look at the historical record of the planet to see that Earth goes in and out of ice ages naturally.  So if history is any indicator of a probable future, then it is logical we would naturally come out of our current ice age too.  There’s no reason to believe this ice age is any different from previous ones.

“Is this your personal theory?” I wouldn’t use the word theory for something that’s a fact.  Ice ages are period of colder than average temperatures.  This means if the Earth goes back to it’s average (or what I keep calling normal) temperature, it will have to warm up.

“Or are there any climate scientists who can back you up?”  Yes, scientists agree on this too.  They agree that the warming between 1850 to 1950 was caused by increases in solar output and decreases in cooling volcanism.  Although scientists don’t attribute the last 50 years to solar activity or lack of volcanism, that previous 100 years of warming has started a runaway warming loop.

So now that you finally agree we are in an ice age, please answer this question again.  What year would it be to have reached our current temperature naturally if humans were not on the planet?  Last time you said if it wasn’t for human activity, we would go into an ice age but we are already in one.  You also said that it would defer the next ice age by 1500 years but again we are already in an ice age.  So neither of your past comments are valid.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 36 days ago

Sorry but if we cannot even agree that we are currently in an ice age then it's not worth my time discussing this further with you.   And yes, scientists agree we are in an ice age.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 37 days ago

If you deny we are in an ice age then our conversation is over.  There is no sense in going further because that’s obviously where we fundamentally disagree.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 37 days ago

You didn’t answer my question above where I asked you, “Maybe we should clarify something else.  Do you believe we are currently in an ice age or not?”

If you did answer that, you would also agree, I’m pretty sure, that the planet would eventually come out of that ice age just as it has done on all previous ice ages.  Maybe you don’t agree we are in an ice age and that’s why you don’t understand the concept.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 39 days ago

“OK, so you agree human activity is warming the climate, but you don't think all the warming is caused by humans, just some of it, but you're not sure how much. And you think climate scientists don't know either, they are guessing. I hope that's a fair summation of your current position.”  Yes, I think you understand my position now.

“then some natural process must also be involved” Yes, it’s the act of coming out of our ice age which is outside the normal for our planet based upon the history.  Usually an ice age is caused by a sudden change such as a super volcano explosion or an asteroid impact.  It can take thousands or millions of years to recover from those events.

“At this point in time, if human activity had no impact on the climate, we would be cooling with an ice age beginning within 1500 years. “  What do you mean by that?  We are currently in an ice age.  Maybe we should clarify something else.  Do you believe we are currently in an ice age or not?

Define Ice Age: “An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers”  There are polar ice sheets in case you didn't know.

"According to research published in Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will defer the next ice age.” We are already in an ice age so that sentence is completely bogus.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 39 days ago

You’re attempting to put words in my mouth.  I didn’t say it’s not much.  I said we aren’t 100% responsible and I don’t know how much humans are responsible and neither does anyone else.  They take guesses and seem to only concentrate on burning oil and coal but somehow think it’s okay to burn bio mass renewables.  Until someone can tell me, with evidence, what year it would be in order for the earth to have its current temperature if humans were not on the planet would I agree that the scientists know what they are doing.  

Do you at least agree that we are in an ice age and the planet would eventually come out of it, just like all previous ice ages, regardless of what the humans are doing?

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 40 days ago

“You just agreed with AGW” I agree that humans may have some impact on the environment but how much is still open to debate.  Some say it’s 100% of our warming is caused by humans and for that I disagree.  I’d still like to know what year it would be in order for the earth to have reached our current temperature naturally without human intervention.  Since the planet naturally goes in and out of ice ages, it seems likely the planet would have eventually reached this same temperature even if humans were not on the earth.  But when that would have been is the greatest question of them all.

“The atmospheric energy rise of CFCs since 1750 has been about 0.34 Watt/m2.”  First, can you tell me how much of that was since 1880? Second, that’s actually huge since it represents 20.5% of CO2’s contribution but you never hear about it.  That’s only talking about CFCs as in the stuff they use in refrigerators and air conditioners but what about all the evaporating raw chlorine from all the swimming pools around the world?  The chlorine is the part of the CFC that attacks the O3 molecules that protects the planet from the radiation in the first place — sort of the first line of defense.

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe 51% Posted Apr 2019

Yanis Varoufakis | Green New Deal for Europe

Comment: 43 days ago

“100 companies produce 71% of worldwide CO2 emissions.”  There they go again limiting the “problem” to CO2.  How many companies are responsible for CFC’s, agriculture, and deforestation?  Wouldn’t you agree that those are also important?  25% of greenhouse gas is from Agriculture, forestry, and other land use. 

Small amounts of chlorine and CFCs have a huge impact on the global temperatures.  All those people with swimming pools that need to put chlorine in the water every week, where do you think all the chlorine that was there went?

ESA keeping an eye on climate change 87% Posted Apr 2019

ESA keeping an eye on climate change

Comment: 43 days ago

Maybe you should look at the comment just before mine, a response to my comment with just a random link posted.  I don’t read pages from random links.  If someone wants me to read a page, they can state their claim and then post a link that backs up their claim as a reference.

PROFILE

guest123456789

guest123456789