North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 2015

[rxl]

I thought this thread was about climate change? Is the pollution from gunpowder a significant contributor to it?

On a related note, I hope that everyone who is arguing that we must do everything we can to reduce our carbon outputs has not had, nor is planning to have kids. Not having children is the best thing you can do to reduce future outputs, and anyone who chose to be a parent is a big part of the problem. A bit hypocritical to try to control other's activities when you can't resist the urge to pass on your genes and contribute to the world's problems.

Your forum handle makes perfect sense now.

[crazyaviator]

Not having children is the best thing you can do to reduce future outputs, and anyone who chose to be a parent is a big part of the problem. A bit hypocritical to try to control other's activities when you can't resist the urge to pass on your genes and contribute to the world's problems.

Canada is a big country and can support canadians having enough children to prevent a population decrease, problem is , we are not having enough children and are "importing" prolific breeders to do our job !! I have a filipino wife and in the philippines there is overpopulation ( like in asia and africa ) and the country cannot support a family having 4-5-6-10 children, living in poverty. I fully understand WHY they are having too many children and we are not !

Im FOR wise management of the worlds resources and greener technology WHO WOULDNT BE ??? Im for educating the poor nations about their personal family management. Im for the truth about mans negative effects upon the earth NOT what is being fed into peoples brains which passes for science

And thanks Rockie for replying

[Posthumane]

Your forum handle makes perfect sense now.

You'll be happy to know that I didn't come up with that assertion all on my own - in fact it was the conclusion of an article series about climate change (articles were about source data collection, the various models in play and their development/refinement, contributing factors, confounding variables which haven't been accounted for yet, etc.) published in a publication geared towards the science community (New Scientist). While I have no way of knowing how many readers actually agreed with the conclusion (I'm guessing it's less than 97% of all scientists though), the feedback about the article series and the conclusion was generally positive.

Canada is a big country and can support canadians having enough children to prevent a population decrease, problem is , we are not having enough children and are "importing" prolific breeders to do our job !! I have a filipino wife and in the philippines there is overpopulation ( like in asia and africa ) and the country cannot support a family having 4-5-6-10 children, living in poverty. I fully understand WHY they are having too many children and we are not !

Canada could definitely support a lot more people. Canadians could also pollute a lot more without any short term negative effects on Canada. But if we are looking at this from a global perspective, one of the major contributing factors to worldwide pollution is excess population. Controlling emissions per capita is only one part of the equation if you want a future reduction - the other is popultion control. Now, the term population control has a bad rap because it brings with it images of things like the One Child policy, Eugenics, etc. Many western countries already have a birth rate below replacement levels and those who do not have much immigration have declining populations. The way to reduce population growth in less developed countries is through building up their economy and education so that they too can enjoy a high standard of living and not be compelled to have many children in order to secure their future. Redistribution of population by allowing voluntary immigration to less populated countries such as Canada will also help with wealth distribution. Of course, that comes with its own share of problems...

[NunavutPA-12]

Yeah .... I think we've beaten this one to death.

10 pages in ten days - not bad!

[digits_]

I thought this thread was about climate change? Is the pollution from gunpowder a significant contributor to it?

On a related note, I hope that everyone who is arguing that we must do everything we can to reduce our carbon outputs has not had, nor is planning to have kids. Not having children is the best thing you can do to reduce future outputs, and anyone who chose to be a parent is a big part of the problem. A bit hypocritical to try to control other's activities when you can't resist the urge to pass on your genes and contribute to the world's problems.

An inconvenient truth.

[B208]

There is a reason for this happening and the only one scientists can attribute it to is human activity.

So, how did the Earth transit in and out of it's many pervious ice ages previous to the arrival of humans?

I have no idea, but I'm sure science knows.

Rockie, best put some KY in your ear because your mind is about to get stretched. Science knows nothing (remember when I said it was Socratic thought). That is the essence of science, everything is up for revision; Nothing is etched in stone. What we have observed is that for the last very short while, (~100 years), temperatures have been rising. Nobody knows why. Some postulate that it is man made, some postulate that it is a natural process, some postulate that it is a mere blip given that our data sample is miniscule on the geological time scale. Anybody who claims that they know is speaking from the depth of ignorance.

[B208]

130 years ago you would reject internal combustion engines as unproven science and a waste of money, and we would be riding horses to this day if decision makers were stupid enough to listen to you.

But if that scenario played out, then those "stupid" decision makers' rejection of the internal combustion engine would have ironically saved the planet from global warming.

Nice.

[B208]

You guys aren't sceptics. You're deniers because there is nothing that will convince you. Scientists themselves are the real sceptics as many of you ironically point out and to them you don't even rank as high as amateurs.

Dude, If I rank as an amateur scientist, (which I do), and being only an amateur scientist disqualifies one from expressing an opinion, then you rank somewhere with the lower primates and should never have opened your mouth in the first place. Nothing personal, just putting everything into the scale you defined.

[Rockie]

You guys aren't sceptics. You're deniers because there is nothing that will convince you. Scientists themselves are the real sceptics as many of you ironically point out and to them you don't even rank as high as amateurs.

Dude, If I rank as an amateur scientist, (which I do), and being only an amateur scientist disqualifies one from expressing an opinion, then you rank somewhere with the lower primates and should never have opened your mouth in the first place. Nothing personal, just putting everything into the scale you defined.

Oh my, so you're an amateur scientist are you?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[B208]

Oh my, so you're an amateur scientist are you?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Yep, major in chemistry, minor in physics, ten years teaching science, five years as a teacher trainer. Still read the journals and even Chemical Abstracts every once in a blue moon. Compared to the guys doing original research that ranks me as very much an amateur. However, when it comes to understanding the philosophy of the scientific method I'm light years ahead of you.
I readily admit that I haven't participated in original research since my senior thesis, and even that was so limited as to be trivial.
So, Rockie, what is your training and background that allows you to comment with authority on science and the practice thereof?

[Boreas]

11 pages in and we're debating guns and throwing Fox 'news' links around... awesome!

Keep it going guys.

[pelmet]

11 pages in and we're debating guns and throwing Fox 'news' links around... awesome!

Keep it going it guys.

Well, Rockie brought the subject up. I repeatedly asked how we could have had so many global warming events in the past and the best I could get was that we should google it(because he obviously has no explanation) and all of a sudden after tough questions are asked, the subject is changed.

You are being lied to. Global warming is perfectly natural. Enjoy it.

[Rockie]

So, Rockie, what is your training and background that allows you to comment with authority on science and the practice thereof?

For the 101st time I have none, but I have to throw my cards in somewhere. I can believe the 197 organizations listed on page 6 of this thread or I can believe some anonymous guy on the internet with extreme views, quotes metapedia and has deluded himself into thinking he's a scientist because he's melted a few chemicals over a bunsen burner.

Pretty easy choice.

[B208]

So, Rockie, what is your training and background that allows you to comment with authority on science and the practice thereof?

For the 101st time I have none, but I have to throw my cards in somewhere.

So, in other words all you have is an opinion without any training to back it up.

[Rockie]

So, Rockie, what is your training and background that allows you to comment with authority on science and the practice thereof?

For the 101st time I have none, but I have to throw my cards in somewhere.

So, in other words all you have is an opinion without any training to back it up.

Phrase it any way you like. I have the opinion of at least 197 scientific organizations to explain what I have personally observed over many years. You don't even have that because for some delusional reason you think you're smarter than they are and know more than they do.

[Rockie]

I repeatedly asked how we could have had so many global warming events in the past and the best I could get was that we should google it(because he obviously has no explanation)

Not correct. I suggested you could look it up yourself or if that proved too difficult you could simply click on the links provided in the post directly above yours. Somehow you proved incapable of doing even that.

There's no reason I should look up the answers for you especially when they're placed directly in front of your face by someone else who did. You know where the links are, get off your ass and go click on them...

By the way for the 102nd time...I AM NOT A SCIENTIST...nor will I pretend that I am.

[pelmet]

Well thanks Rockie for no information once again. Notice everybody that he cant answer one simple but hugely important question....explain all those previous global warming events. We are the ones who have to read up on it, somehow. Just explain it to us in your own words Rockie. You don't have to be a scientist to do so. I have to assume that you have read up on these links you talk about(can you confirm this for us oops, got ya again didn't I).

I notice that you have stopped using the 97% of scientists statement now that I have proved that you were lying or completely fooled by others. Obviously, I can't find much detail about most of these 197 organizations such as that group in Zimbabwe, but I suspect that it is safe to say that most of them likely did what you said is critical but has been debunked in this thread,....peer reviewed the studies.

In other words, because you have achieved a document in a field, you can read and agree with something because it sounds reasonable, and if a study has been done by a scientist, it absolutely must be right, no questions asked.

Global warm ups have happened many times before. Imagine the flooding we had from the ice age. It would have been massive. Our very small temperature rise has been an extremely minor blip in the climate changes of history. All part of earth's natural cycle.

[Rockie]

Notice everybody that he cant answer one simple but hugely important question....explain all those previous global warming events.

No I can't answer it, because for the 103rd time...I AM NOT A SCIENTIST. More relevantly I'm content that science knows and I'm not willing to do your work for you. Get off your lazy ass and look it up yourself if you simply cannot live without knowing. Or just make s**t up which is what you've been doing all along anyway.

Obviously, I can't find much detail about most of these 197 organizations such as that group in Zimbabwe, but I suspect that it is safe to say that most of them likely did what you said is critical but has been debunked in this thread,....peer reviewed the studies.

Sorry, but a bunch of simpletons on an aviation forum do not "debunk" science done by organizations on that list or discredit the peer review process. Claiming that you have just makes yourselves look like clowns and if you were smart enough to be embarrassed you would be.

[rxl]

I'm a guy who happens to make his living flying airplanes. I have concerns about the environment. That's it that's - that's all.

I have 3 questions -
1. Why would we be lied to? What's in it for the so-called "liars"?
2. Has there ever been 7+ billion human inhabitants of this planet, every single one of them producing green house gases to a greater or lesser extent?
3. Is the emerging concept of an Anthropocene applicable to this debate?

[pelmet]

Notice everybody that he cant answer one simple but hugely important question....explain all those previous global warming events.

No I can't answer it, because for the 103rd time...I AM NOT A SCIENTIST. More relevantly I'm content that science knows and I'm not willing to do your work for you. Get off your lazy ass and look it up yourself if you simply cannot live without knowing. Or just make s**t up which is what you've been doing all along anyway.

Obviously, I can't find much detail about most of these 197 organizations such as that group in Zimbabwe, but I suspect that it is safe to say that most of them likely did what you said is critical but has been debunked in this thread,....peer reviewed the studies.

Sorry, but a bunch of simpletons on an aviation forum do not "debunk" science done by organizations on that list or discredit the peer review process. Claiming that you have just makes yourselves look like clowns and if you were smart enough to be embarrassed you would be.

There you go guys. Rockie can't even take the time to read and supply us with information about why the earth has warmed up and cooled down over and over. But he wants you to spend billions anyways and if you ask any questions you will get a line of "I am not a scientist". And if you do have any doubts, well you are not a scientist and will be called as he states above..."a simpleton". And even though we have people on this forum state that peer review is no guarantee and is actually much about people with no significant knowledge of the subject agreeing with something(sort of like Rockie), he still holds up peer review as something sacrosanct.

So for the 104th time, can you explain why the earth warms up and cools down over and over again. Actually, we don't need explanation of that. It is accepted reality according to the science.

And climate change is happening once again because the climate is almost always changing. We should be celebrating because it is warming slowly. I feel sorry for those in the future that will be heading toward the next ice age.....which will happen. Our fruit fly expert, Mr. Suzuki was extremely concerned about this himself in years gone by. Too bad he appears to have sold out his scientific beliefs to political beliefs when he was fortunately wrong.

[Rockie]

There you go guys.

What's this a schoolyard gang up? Checking behind you to see if your buds are still there?

[photofly]

1. Why would we be lied to? What's in it for the so-called "liars"?

Oh that's easy... influence, power, research grants, peer respect, jobs, media attention and popularity along with a healthy dose of the Jeremiah syndrome, the prophet-of-doom kick. Every human motivation except sex, in fact.

[5x5]

And when you have ...

influence, power, research grants, peer respect, jobs, media attention and popularity

...you get sex, so that's included as well.

[pelmet]

There you go guys.

What's this a schoolyard gang up? Checking behind you to see if your buds are still there?

Expect this to be the quality of answers you will get from the alarmists for important questions.

Who wants to bet that Rockie hasn't even read up on the reason for climate change over the millennia. I would suspect he read about all the terrible things predicted, heard about peer reviewing for the first time, accepted it as fact, somehow came to the conclusion that only a scientist, regardless off their area of expertise could have a valid opinion, but could have a valid opinion because they were a scientist and believed.

Or he has money invested in green technology and is waiting for a nice fat return on his investment.

[Rockie]

Okay Pelmet, I've done your work for you because clearly you're not able to do it yourself. Here's a theory I found but I warn you, not being an astronomer I don't fully understand it so if you're looking for an explanation you'll have to ask B208 who rumour has it has melted chemicals over a bunsen burner and is a scientist. You'll have to read it yourself though unless you want me to come over and do it for you before you go to bed...

Place your mouse over the link and left click. I am unable to do it remotely for you.

Good luck with it. Anxiously awaiting your proclamation that Milankovitch was full of s**t too and the reasons why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/enviro ... ural-cycle