Posted on 05/26/2018 10:28:24 AM PDT by rktman
Since we first covered the Climategate Files here at PJ Media in 2009, the controversy has continued, but with some interesting changes. For example, the term "global warming" has pretty universally been replaced with the term "climate change." The language has changed, and the facts have changed. There are lots of new facts, and a whole lot of them dispute the climate dogma.
Of course, the more the climate dogma is disputed, the more the climate change cultists resist. On the other hand, we've seen a lot more people coming out as thinking maybe, just maybe, there are some points of responsible dispute in the argument about climate change.
On the other hand, there are a lot of dogmatists who simply can't be productively argued with. (On both sides, actually.) So how can we tell when we're trying to argue with someone who is worth the effort, or if we should just move on to some other topic, like baseball?
So, here are some suggestions of things to watch for in order to know when you should be talking about the Mets.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Attending the Florida Parent Educators Association convention as my granddaughter will be graduated tomorrow. This morning I caught a session by a science teacher that walked through the scientific method and global warming claims. The presentation was a soft sell, expressing doubt, and based on published information. Will be asking for his slides and notes - he offered them to us.
What if he starts yelling, “Allah Ackbar!!!”? Probably the guy to talk to about the weather.
That would be awesome if he would share his slides and notes.
I tend to use strictly history, if the pro-climate change guy wants to get into a hard-sell routine. Once you lay out the 12,900 year situation and ask how the glacier over Chicago (2 miles thick)....melted in a matter of days to weeks...there’s a limited comeback. The fact that ocean levels rose 300 feet, to where they are today...means we’ve already done some massive global warming-deglaciering routine, and they can’t resolve how or why.
That’s a pretty good article about the complexities from an author with experience,. The views that are simplistic are almost certainly wrong.
I like to ask the devout evangelical climate-change zealot if they managed to finally “get rid of” the Medieval Warm Period like the IPCC wanted.
First thing I ask is if they have any kind of STEM degree. One which requires real math. Then I ask them to draw a quickie black body rad curve from the sun, and give a general idea of what percentage of the heat portion (if they can find it) is absorbed by CO2. (The answer is just a very few thin lines within the heat range.)
If they get that far, the next question is how much of that heat represented in those thin lines was absorbed by CO2 200 years ago, vs how much is absorbed now. (Correct answer is 100% then and 100% now.)
Then the fun comes.
Any time you have a system as complex as the Earth, with it's atmosphere, oceans, abundance of life; and the Sun, with all its energy output, sunspots, cycles of activity, and highly coupled feedback loops of nuclear, gravitational, and electromagnetic energy...
Any time you have a system as complex as this, "doubt" is always a good position to take with some theory that professes to have it all figured out and can predict its behavior going forward over a span of decades.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
When you get to the more militant believers, I alway like to go with belittlement: So you are the sucker that helped put 200 Million in Al Gore’s pocket from fake Carbon Credit trading. That drove up utility cost for those on fixed income and children trapped in impoverished homes. I hope that fake environmentalism made you feel better about yourself. Are you going to anymore of these international communist conventions like Rio?
They had to dump the global warming nomenclature because the facts eventually didn't square with their argument.
Their real issue is to destroy capitalism and replace it with a socialist revolution.
Climate change is just a ruse to to effect that change.
Beyond that, it is fairly easy to argue against their hidden agenda.
The climate is changing because the climate is dynamic, not static.
Climate changes because that is what climate does.
It's like arguing with them that water is wet, because....well....it's wet.
Especially, when every time they make a prediction it comes up wrong, and when they’re repeatedly caught fudging data.
.
EARTH TO COOL DOWN WARNS GEO SCIENTIST
Scientific reports from Canada and Greenland has indicated that the the shrinking arctic ice sheets have begun to replace themselves rapidly. Strongly suggesting the earth instead of warming, is beginning to cool down. It is still not known (or proven) if this is the result because of the reduced rate of sun spot activity.
Canadian geo scientist Professor R. Timothy Patterson of Carelton University is urging a go-slow on the rush for governments to “Play God” with global warming legislative blaming this on CO2 (carbon dioxide) discharges. Legislating corrections attempting to control a natural cyclic occurrence caused by; sun spots, the magnetic solar wind, and cyclic earth magnetic polarity reversal, among other natural occurrences including volcanism, meteors etc. Probably plays a very significant role in climate change. Yet ignorantly blaming man made CO2 emissions for climatic change. which is becoming a rapidly discredited and minuscule cause of global warming in his article published by Canada’s Financial Post. 6/20/07
Patterson was selected by the Canadian government to study the fluctuations in certain types of fish populations.
While doing so the Canadian Geo-Scientist found a correlation when certain species of fish had high population and then drastic drop offs. He discovered these fluctuations corresponded with sun spot activity and solar radiation vs cosmic activity. When earth cooling occurred.
Studying deep fjords along the Western Canadian coast where deep pools of low oxidation water exist. The Patterson study reached deep into the earths recent past of 4000 years of undisturbed sediments. Patterson found that when aquatic activity was highest and lowest in those collected sediments having high aquatic content had matched known solar protection when the magnetic wind was highest, and dropped off when earth magnetic fields activities were lowest.Thus causing cosmic radiation to intensify.
Then because the earth became unprotected by its magnetic fields from galactic cosmic activity. Patterson cites several accepted theories which concludes this then created cloud activity during such periods which increased drastically. Thus cooling earth and bringing in its ice ages.
In his presentation here is a professor urging more scientific study (like Pope Benedict)is needed. That politicians including Al Gore, of The Earth Is Flat Society, don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Strongly suggesting that the global warming may be caused by exhaling politicos rather than serious scientific examination.
Patterson seems to be saying before Canadians start investing in palm trees they should be considering better parkas because what goes up must come down and the Mexicans better move over for a reverse population flow. The story was featured in The Drudge Report, and World Net Daily, which were linked in The US Mat’s last page. But lost due to source link changes . http://www.theusmat.com/index.htm
Duh
Double duh
I always start with the question
What happens every 110000 years ?
( cue the music from the game shows )
A: ice ages
Next question
What causes them ?
Long puzzled silence
Only if a climate genius honestly answers that question. Which clearly and irrefutedly shows the sun and it’s patterns govern climate.
Do I continue the discussion
If the conversation comes up, I usually end it by with something skin to the following...
“I have studied that the climate has generally been increasing in temperature ever since the last ice age.” - “Did you know that geologically scientists have been able to determine that there have been at least five ice ages in the history of the Earth? But probably more! All followed by a warming trend as established by the fossil record!” “In fact the only difference with this period of climate change is that Civilized Society has figured out how to fleece taxpayers out of money for a naturally occurring cycle that the earth goes through, and one that is probably solar-based for the most part” at that point the conversation or, if you will, argument is almost completely shut down because I let it sort of be known that Earth abides and to STFU thankyouverymuch. The reason I say almost completely shut down is that there’s always the Harfer out there who will just keep on trying to argue stupidly.
If anyone can accuratize my soliloquy please feel free to let me know!
1. They are in traction and unable to run away. Preferably mute and unable to reply.
Economics and real estate is my area of expertise.
When someone starts talking about “climate change” I just ask them one simple question:
Have shoreline real estate prices gone up or down in the next ten years?
Maybe they will babble something about “people don’t understand...”.
My response: maybe they do understand and you are the one in error.
Yes of course, but they had to fudge the data in order to protect the theory.
Ah, Reno’s law. Didn’t think of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.