Are human activities influencing the climate?

Doctor Jimbob · 24-10-2017 11:14am

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Yes I have a qualification,its called an open mind,and I also have a brain,its my brain,not tainted by the sycophant scientists ,politicians,or media who jump on the climate change bandwagon without recognising the many contributing factors .I point out the many reasons but you are all too blind to see them,hence the taxi driver reference.Youre all experts spouting evidence that you cannot verify and mistake for fact just because some scientist says so.Science is always being proven wrong.As long as the funding keeps rolling in,scientists are quite happy to bull**** us,and you all fall for it.

Hmmm.

We're basing our facts on scientists, you're basing yours on conspiracy theorists. That's your call, but do you not see the hypocrisy in going on about how we're all just getting our information from elsewhere, while you're doing the exact same thing, just from a different source? The key difference of course is that the scientific sources are backed up by facts and figures, while the conspiracy theories are backed up by "HAARP did it because government bad".

flaneur · 24-10-2017 11:15am

The only conspiracy is vested energy interests spreading the notion they climate change is a conspiracy theory and trying to discredit what has been proven many, many times by science.

Combine that with short term thinking, economic systems that only care about the next quarter’s results and a number of popular US Christian fundamentalist outlooks that take a fatalistic approach to life - endlessly waiting for Armageddon or judgement day, then you get a significantly powerful population that refuses and you’ll see why there’s a problem, especially in the United States.

xckjoo · 24-10-2017 11:30am

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Yes I have a qualification,its called an open mind,and I also have a brain,its my brain,not tainted by the sycophant scientists ,politicians,or media who jump on the climate change bandwagon without recognising the many contributing factors .I point out the many reasons but you are all too blind to see them,hence the taxi driver reference.Youre all experts spouting evidence that you cannot verify and mistake for fact just because some scientist says so.Science is always being proven wrong.As long as the funding keeps rolling in,scientists are quite happy to bull**** us,and you all fall for it.

Why would the government and scientists be so determined to make up a climate change conspiracy? There's far more money in the carbon fuel industry.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 11:43am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Hmmm.

We're basing our facts on scientists, you're basing yours on conspiracy theorists. That's your call, but do you not see the hypocrisy in going on about how we're all just getting our information from elsewhere, while you're doing the exact same thing, just from a different source? The key difference of course is that the scientific sources are backed up by facts and figures, while the conspiracy theories are backed up by "HAARP did it because government bad".

The difference is that I am not blinkered into just accepting one version of climate change,im able to see all the contributing factors and just because its source isnt part of a "scientifically backed paper" that doesnt mean its not true.As I said before,the u.n. got countries to sign up to a treaty banning the use of weather modification technology as far back as 1972 if my memory serves me correctly on the date.So if you wish to dismiss this az conspiracy then ts going to lessen your ability to see the problems from all angles and possibilities.Plus ,the words conspiracy theory were injected into mainstream consciousness by the cia after the first kennedy assassination.

srsly78 · 24-10-2017 11:54am

If you actually cared you would study to be a scientist. Without understanding the basics you can't filter out this absolute garbage stuff.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 12:02pm

srsly78 wrote: »

If you actually cared you would study to be a scientist. Without understanding the basics you can't filter out this absolute garbage stuff.

I would never study to become a scientist because learning from any institution limits our own natural ability to question,science is always being proved wrong,and they constantly have to backtrack on findings which were said to be 100% peer reviewed and 100% proven.Still no reply to u.n. weather technology treaty,suppose thats another conspiracy.

srsly78 · 24-10-2017 12:06pm

Scientists are the ones that prove science wrong, that's how it works. Instead you are choosing not to participate and instead just shout nonsense.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 12:07pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I would never study to become a scientist because learning from any institution limits our own natural ability to question,science is always being proved wrong,and they constantly have to backtrack on findings which were said to be 100% peer reviewed and 100% proven.Still no reply to u.n. weather technology treaty,suppose thats another conspiracy.

Plus,the reason I question everything is because I do care,and will not be spoon fed information ,I make logical decisions using an open mind.Most people prefer to believe whats presented to them on a plate,I dont.

Doctor Jimbob · 24-10-2017 12:07pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

The difference is that I am not blinkered into just accepting one version of climate change,im able to see all the contributing factors and just because its source isnt part of a "scientifically backed paper" that doesnt mean its not true.As I said before,the u.n. got countries to sign up to a treaty banning the use of weather modification technology as far back as 1972 if my memory serves me correctly on the date.So if you wish to dismiss this az conspiracy then ts going to lessen your ability to see the problems from all angles and possibilities.Plus ,the words conspiracy theory were injected into mainstream consciousness by the cia after the first kennedy assassination.

You're blinkered into accepting bonkers conspiracy blogs though. How is that any better? How is the information you're getting from some headcase with a computer better than the combined education of experts in the field? You're not looking at it from all angles, you're looking at it from one very specific angle that doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

All these conspiracy posts follow the same template. An attempt to discredit the rational outlook, followed by a claim about an "open mind" or "making my own mind up" despite the fact the opinions are being sourced from some nonsense blog.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 12:10pm

srsly78 wrote: »

Scientists are the ones that prove science wrong, that's how it works. Instead you are choosing not to participate and instead just shout nonsense.

Its ok,you can dismiss everything I say as nonsense,I accept that our industrial society is affecting the climate,but there is so much more to it.

dense · 24-10-2017 12:10pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm not intimidated by him.

It looks like you are.

You might succeed where others have failed.
Be confident. Tell him about things he might not know about, ice cores and tree rings.

And about the greenhouse experiment.
I'd say he'd love to learn all about those things.

Doctor Jimbob · 24-10-2017 12:10pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Its ok,you can dismiss everything I say as nonsense,I accept that our industrial society is affecting the climate,but there is so much more to it.

Based on what? You keep going on about how you question everything yet you seem to accept that there's unspecified "more going on" without questioning it at all.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 12:11pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're blinkered into accepting bonkers conspiracy blogs though. How is that any better? How is the information you're getting from some headcase with a computer better than the combined education of experts in the field? You're not looking at it from all angles, you're looking at it from one very specific angle that doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

All these conspiracy posts follow the same template. An attempt to discredit the rational outlook, followed by a claim about an "open mind" or "making my own mind up" despite the fact the opinions are being sourced from some nonsense blog.

I suggest that its you that is blinkered.

Doctor Jimbob · 24-10-2017 12:12pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I suggest that its you that is blinkered.

Yep, so you keep saying. How are you any different though? You're not engaging in any independent thought, you're just reeling off well known conspiracy theories.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 12:13pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Based on what? You keep going on about how you question everything yet you seem to accept that there's unspecified "more going on" without questioning it at all.

As I said before,u.n. treaty on weather modification technology .

xckjoo · 24-10-2017 12:15pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

As I said before,u.n. treaty on weather modification technology .

What's that?

Doctor Jimbob · 24-10-2017 12:15pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

As I said before,u.n. treaty on weather modification technology .

And the fact that treaty exists proves...what, exactly?

B0jangles · 24-10-2017 12:17pm

One benefit of having no background in any relevant discipline is that it makes composing your posts a hell of a lot faster.

It takes quite a lot of time to write up a well-structured, coherent argument using strong data.

It takes mere seconds to come up with any old twaddle that pops into your head.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 12:18pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yep, so you keep saying. How are you any different though? You're not engaging in any independent thought, you're just reeling off well known conspiracy theories.

The difference is that I accept climate change is influenced by human activity of all kinds,not just the type that is peddled by scientific papers and politicians/media.Ofcourse any climate influence that is not part of the agenda will be summarily dismissed as conspiracy .Plus my thoughts are infinitely more independant than your own

Doctor Jimbob · 24-10-2017 12:19pm

B0jangles wrote: »

One benefit of having no background in any relevant discipline is that it makes composing your posts a hell of a lot faster.

It takes quite a lot of time to write up a well-structured, coherent argument using strong data.

It takes mere seconds to come up with any old twaddle that pops into your head.

It's also a complete and utter waste of time when the people you're dealing with are the type that think every scientist in the world is involved in some conspiracy.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 12:20pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And the fact that treaty exists proves...what, exactly?

Do I have to spell it out for you?

Doctor Jimbob · 24-10-2017 12:21pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

The difference is that I accept climate change is influenced by human activity of all kinds,not just the type that is peddled by scientific papers and politicians/media.Ofcourse any climate influence that is not part of the agenda will be summarily dismissed as conspiracy .Plus my thoughts are infinitely more independant than your own

No, just any that isn't backed up with even a shred of evidence.

Doctor Jimbob · 24-10-2017 12:22pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Do I have to spell it out for you?

Keep it a secret instead if it suits you better. I'm sure I'm not #woke enough to understand it anyway.

B0jangles · 24-10-2017 12:23pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's also a complete and utter waste of time when the people you're dealing with are the type that think every scientist in the world is involved in some conspiracy.

So true; it's like trying to argue with anti-vaxxers - literally every piece of actual evidence and data is instantly rejected because it's produced by medical professionals; the only 'data' they'll accept is the kind produced by such luminaries as 'vaXXinesKILL45367' on youtube.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 12:24pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Keep it a secret instead if it suits you better. I'm sure I'm not #woke enough to understand it anyway.

You have a valid point in the last sentence.

Doctor Jimbob · 24-10-2017 12:26pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

You have a valid point in the last sentence.

I'm sure I'll cope.

Funny how unwilling you are to explicitly share these ideas you seem so sure of.

xckjoo · 24-10-2017 12:26pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Do I have to spell it out for you?

You can spell it out for me if you want. I've no idea what it is or what it's about.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 12:47pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm sure I'll cope.

Funny how unwilling you are to explicitly share these ideas you seem so sure of.

I would much prefer for you to do the footwork and find out for yourselves.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 12:50pm

xckjoo wrote: »

You can spell it out for me if you want. I've no idea what it is or what it's about.

It would be much better if you look into it.Anything I say will get a negative reaction.Youve nothing to lose.
into

Akrasia · 24-10-2017 1:12pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

As I said before,u.n. treaty on weather modification technology .

There is no treaty

There is something called the
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

It's not a 'weather control treaty' because other than cloud seeding which can cause it to rain, there is no technology that can cause extreme weather events at will

We do have one set of technology that is causing devastating effects on weather and climate however, and it's the internal combustion engine and other methods of burning fossil fuels.

Doctor Jimbob · 24-10-2017 1:22pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I would much prefer for you to do the footwork and find out for yourselves.

I've spent over 5 years studying science, including a fair bit of climate science. You've read a couple of blogs that told you the government control the weather.

Not sure I'm the one that needs to be doing some footwork here.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 1:39pm

Akrasia wrote: »

There is no treaty

There is something called the
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

It's not a 'weather control treaty' because other than cloud seeding which can cause it to rain, there is no technology that can cause extreme weather events at will

We do have one set of technology that is causing devastating effects on weather and climate however, and it's the internal combustion engine and other methods of burning fossil fuels.

Thiz is a limited outlook on your part.Cloud seeding is wwll technology.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 1:40pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I've spent over 5 years studying science, including a fair bit of climate science. You've read a couple of blogs that told you the government control the weather.

Not sure I'm the one that needs to be doing some footwork here.

This is not accurate.What im zaying is climate change has many elements to it.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 1:41pm

Hope you make some progress with this limited outlook.

Doctor Jimbob · 24-10-2017 1:42pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

This is not accurate.What im zaying is climate change has many elements to it.

You're completely unqualified and are telling people educated in the area to go and do research.

You should heed your own advice.

xckjoo · 24-10-2017 1:56pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

It would be much better if you look into it.Anything I say will get a negative reaction.Youve nothing to lose.
into

I've everything to lose in terms of time. You won't even give me some jumping off points?

I was willing to listen but you either won't or can't elaborate on what you're talking about. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about anything you posted. If you don't have the courage of your convictions then why bother post in the first place? Who cares if random internet people don't react positively. Post or don't post but you can't moan about close minded people not listening to you when you're not willing to say anything.

c_man · 24-10-2017 2:11pm

Will the proponents of climate change here at least accept there's a possibility the whole thing is being orchestrated by Nazis (from their Antarctic base) with their alien technology, in an attempt to flood huge parts of the world and make their own continent flourish again?

Akrasia · 24-10-2017 2:19pm

c_man wrote: »

Will the proponents of climate change here at least accept there's a possibility the whole thing is being orchestrated by Nazis (from their Antarctic base) with their alien technology, in an attempt to flood huge parts of the world and make their own continent flourish again?

nope. Because if I say it's a possibility, their reality/fantasy filter will interpret that to mean it's just as likely as any other cause.

srsly78 · 24-10-2017 2:20pm

Clearly nonsense when everyone knows the nazi base is on the moon.

Akrasia · 24-10-2017 2:23pm

Thats what they want you to think, The Nazis were really just a front for the Illuminati who have their base in a volcano on Hawaii

Doeshedare · 24-10-2017 2:37pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Thats what they want you to think, The Nazis were really just a front for the Illuminati who have their base in a volcano on Hawaii

Wrong. It was Spectre and it was Japan

cfuserkildare · 24-10-2017 2:53pm

Akrasia wrote: »

There is no treaty

There is something called the
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

It's not a 'weather control treaty' because other than cloud seeding which can cause it to rain, there is no technology that can cause extreme weather events at will

We do have one set of technology that is causing devastating effects on weather and climate however, and it's the internal combustion engine and other methods of burning fossil fuels.

Hmmm,

No mention of the Methane Gas created by Live-Stock?
Or the Fossil fuels burned to power Electric Cars?
Until there is a Proper Viable alternative, then we are stuck with using what we have available to us!!!

Mountainsandh · 24-10-2017 3:38pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Glaciation is driven by earth's eccentric orbit and a wobble in the earths rotation that changes the season lengths and greenhouse gas concentrations.

Currently we are fundamentally changing the composition of our atmosphere. It's not permanent though. If humans were to stop this pollution, or go extinct, the earth would find a new balance after a geologically short period of time.

If humans survive this period of our history and figure out how to live sustainably on our planet, we will no doubt be able to regulate the earths climate in order to maintain a suitable habitat for humans. Humans need never experience another ice age on earth as long as we continue as technologically advanced species, but if humans disappear, the climate will return to natural cycles controlled by whatever elements of the carbon cycle dominate a post human globe

Are you suggesting that humans will be geo engineering in the future to avoid glaciation ?

Akrasia · 24-10-2017 3:46pm

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Are you suggesting that humans will be geo engineering in the future to avoid glaciation ?

If we survive tens of thousands of years, sure, why wouldn't we?

We already know how to warm the planet.

server down · 24-10-2017 4:17pm

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Are you suggesting that humans will be geo engineering in the future to avoid glaciation ?

just start producing carbon again, job done.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 4:35pm

server down wrote: »

just start producing carbon again, job done.

I think perhaps most people in this thread should give up their bedrooms at mummy and daddys and get out into the real world.

Subcomandante Marcos · 24-10-2017 4:38pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I think perhaps most people in this thread should give up their bedrooms at mummy and daddys and get out into the real world.

I think you should get out of their basement and enroll in a foundation science course in your nearest third level institution.

Master of the Omniverse · 24-10-2017 4:40pm

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

I think you should get out of their basement and enroll in a foundation science course in your nearest third level institution.

More brainwashing?

server down · 24-10-2017 5:05pm

dense wrote: »

Anyone seriously interested in learning about how the IPCC has got it wrong should read this.

"Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2"

http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

And the comments.

I have invited Akrasia to log on there and chastise the author pointing out various flaws etc;, but they've refused......

They can't dispute it. Yet, they will, here.

But folks, don't take my word for it, read it yourselve.

You've already been fooled by the 97% of scientists lie.

Don't get fooled again. Unless you want to be, that is.

Read it and come back here to say what you think.

If you can disprove it log on there and post a link here so we can follow you.

If you can't or won't like Akrasia here, well then Ed Berry is right and the IPCC bandwagon is wrong.

As it stands:

Ed Berry 1
Akrasia and the whole IPCC hysteria bandwagon 0

That whole post assumes that there will be an outflow equal to the human added inflow and that the oceans will absorb any extra carbon emissions. This leaves him with an explanation of the carbon increase in the atmosphere being down to some external increase in temperature, but he doesnt explain where the increase in temperature comes from.

server down · 24-10-2017 5:06pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

More brainwashing?

some ( I wouldnt say more) scientific training might help you know what you are on about.

Are human activities influencing the climate?

Comments