IanMcLean68 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, HopeUgood said: I think I will watch some Carl Sagan youtube tomorrow while I enjoy a cigar!! I havent seen many of his shows, but have gone to see a Neil deGrasse Tyson presentation. He does a great job of dumbing down and delivering the information in an entertaining manner. I highly recommend watching the original Cosmos series presented by Carl Sagan. It is now freely available on the Internet. Most of what was presented by him then is just as relevant today. And yes, that is a Tesla coil in my Avatar ? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Presidente Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanMcLean68 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, El Presidente said: Hey @El Presidente, you ain't seen nothin' ? Just ask @Luca. I wasn't kidding about the "mad scientist" thing in my avatar!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Presidente Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 19 minutes ago, IanMcLean68 said: Just ask @Luca. ......we haven't seen him lately 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnS Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 I believe he's dusting the Fez for some more reviews this weekend! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanMcLean68 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 32 minutes ago, El Presidente said: ......we haven't seen him lately I'm not sure how to respond. There is no emoticon I can use! Thanks, haha, confused or sad, each has it's own creepy connotation! He lives! Bwa ha ha ha! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfc1016 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 1 hour ago, IanMcLean68 said: I get the hint. I'm done ? Feel like I'm just quoting common knowledge anyway! Hate to preach! Ha! Sure doesn't look like it today. Hangs head in shame. It wasn't directed at anyone in specific (or their position in the debate). It's just that I feel I'm watching a rerun of a sitcom... in syndication... for the 30th year. Every 'discussion' on this subject matter goes the same way. People get angry about the other side not hearing what they're saying. Both sides get angry and take things personally/make it personal. Neither side sees the inanity of repeating an argument that has already been beaten to death. In short, people refuse to be willing to do what @El Presidente suggested - agree to disagree. I'll try to 'be the change I wish to see in the world', as it were, here. I have plenty to say on the subject at matter at hand. I'm going to keep it to myself, however, as I don't feel that it would be productive for me to publicly state my stance on an issue that is so hotly contested. Instead, I choose to focus on common ground, and accept that if I want to be friends with people who will expose me to things that are outside my daily scope, I need to also accept that the people who are most likely to broaden my horizons, are going to disagree with me on a slew of issues. I will never hear the good they have to share if I focus on changing their minds about the things we disagree on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanMcLean68 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 6 minutes ago, cfc1016 said: It wasn't directed at anyone in specific (or their position in the debate). It's just that I feel I'm watching a rerun of a sitcom... in syndication... for the 30th year. Every 'discussion' on this subject matter goes the same way. People get angry about the other side not hearing what they're saying. Both sides get angry and take things personally/make it personal. Neither side sees the inanity of repeating an argument that has already been beaten to death. In short, people refuse to be willing to do what @El Presidente suggested - agree to disagree. I'll try to 'be the change I wish to see in the world', as it were, here. I have plenty to say on the subject at matter at hand. I'm going to keep it to myself, however, as I don't feel that it would be productive for me to publicly state my stance on an issue that is so hotly contested. Instead, I choose to focus on common ground, and accept that if I want to be friends with people who will expose me to things that are outside my daily scope, I need to also accept that the people who are most likely to broaden my horizons, are going to disagree with me on a slew of issues. I will never hear the good they have to share if I focus on changing their minds about the things we disagree on. Just lively discussion. No preaching (well trying not too), no trying to change peoples minds. Certainly not taking anything personal. I hope the same is for everyone else. Thats the point of allowing these sort of discussions. I immediately saw the humour and truth to your response and it made me check myself. It really is the same-old same-old isn't it! Cringe. I would never want to see a sided slinging match on here either. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Presidente Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 if I only surrounded myself with people like me.....how boring would that be I love nothing more than arguing with ken for a couple of hours knowing full well that Ken has never been wrong nor apologised for anything 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfc1016 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Gargett Posted February 1, 2019 Author Share Posted February 1, 2019 1 minute ago, El Presidente said: if I only surrounded myself with people like me.....how boring would that be which should give you some idea of what it is like for the rest of us. 2 minutes ago, El Presidente said: I love nothing more than arguing with ken for a couple of hours knowing full well that Ken has never been wrong nor apologised for anything ah, the dreadful whimpering get-the retaliation-in-first because we can't rely on the validity of the argument. and i am certainly not apologising for that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodigy Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Personally, I find myself somewhere in the middle of the debate. I've heard, lots, if not all, research that's done on the matter is funded by companies that want data to prove global warming is man made. Hard to fund research proving it's not on your own dime. I also can't fathom what man has done to the Earth has had "no" impact on nature. Also, I read somewhere that a single volcanic eruption emits more CO2 into the atmosphere than man ever had combined. Not sure if there's any truth to that, but there are eruptions that change weather patterns for centuries... I firmly believe that no one alive today, or for several generations, will ever know the truth to this debate, which makes it that much more fun to see people getting all bent out of shape over it haha. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Gargett Posted February 1, 2019 Author Share Posted February 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, prodigy said: Personally, I find myself somewhere in the middle of the debate. I've heard, lots, if not all, research that's done on the matter is funded by companies that want data to prove global warming is man made. Hard to fund research proving it's not on your own dime. I also can't fathom what man has done to the Earth has had "no" impact on nature. Also, I read somewhere that a single volcanic eruption emits more CO2 into the atmosphere than man ever had combined. Not sure if there's any truth to that, but there are eruptions that change weather patterns for centuries... I firmly believe that no one alive today, or for several generations, will ever know the truth to this debate, which makes it that much more fun to see people getting all bent out of shape over it haha. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk can i ask, quite seriously, what then of all of the research by NASA? my understanding that NASA's funding is from the US govt budget (and their results to date are hardly toeing the party line, for want of a better way of putting it). anyway, then i thought i'd google 'independent climate change research'. this came up and i have copied it in below. it might assist you. it has an aussie influence but not totally. googling something similar in your region might assist you to find information that could assist. and without going into the political side of it as much as i can avoid that, it would be fair to say that if anyone thinks that the aussie reports are to get the favour of the current govt, they would be very much on the wrong track. one final thing - i've heard both sides of the climate change debate described as many things but never 'fun'. we have a very different sense of humour if the death of the planet is amusing. Finding reliable information about climate science Climate change science is provided to the Australian Government by agencies such as the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, as well as university research groups and cooperative research centres. Climate change science from these sources is reliable and quality assured because it goes through a stringent process of peer-review during which other scientists check the results of the research. Peer-reviewed research The peer-review process involves scientists evaluating the quality of other scientists’ work. It provides a mechanism to quality control scientific discourse and peer-reviewed papers, by ensuring that the work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and adds to what we already know. . Climate change science that has been peer-reviewed therefore provides a reliable and quality assured source of information. To publish in most scientific journals, conference proceedings, and to apply for grants, scientists have to go through a peer review process. The peer review process is usually a 'blind' review. This means that the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. This process is designed to ensure evaluation is independent. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses the peer-reviewed literature on climate change every five to six years, and publishes its findings in Assessment Reports. The IPCC reports are themselves subject to an intense peer-review process involving hundreds of scientific experts and government reviewers. This unprecedented level of peer and government review makes this compendium of climate change science one of the most scrutinised documents in the history of science. The Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report, released by the IPCC in 2013, provides stronger evidence than ever that the Earth’s climate is changing and human activities are the primary cause. Further information Good resources for reliable information on climate change science include: Bureau of Meteorology CSIRO climate change information for Australia Climate Change in Australia Australian Academy of Science's report The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) The Royal Society Joint Science Academies American National Academies 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopeUgood Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 @Ken Gargett Can I add this to your list of reliable information? It is an online course through Harvard, and it's free. https://online-learning.harvard.edu/course/climate-energy-challenge-0?delta=0 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Gargett Posted February 1, 2019 Author Share Posted February 1, 2019 21 minutes ago, HopeUgood said: @Ken Gargett Can I add this to your list of reliable information? It is an online course through Harvard, and it's free. https://online-learning.harvard.edu/course/climate-energy-challenge-0?delta=0 thanks for that. be a really interesting course to do. i suspect that there is plenty of stuff out there funded but both sides but also plenty of independent info. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esteban77 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 10 hours ago, IanMcLean68 said: Hold on. The problem with excess CO2 levels has I believe nothing to do with either its ability to form ions or compounds, or its isotopic nature. It comes from a far more fundamental property of atoms and their respective compounds - atomic absorption. Quantum effects of electron orbitals. CO2 absorbs infrared light. Also partially (or correctly, inversely) why a CO2 laser produces an intense infrared beam. Because of this absorption, excess infrared radiation cannot escape into space. As the levels rise, too much infrared radiation is retained - global warming. Look at Venus. Thats our future if we are not careful. Really, Venus’ atmosphere is >95% CO2 and the Earth’s is <0.05%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fugu Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 So, groundhog day again? 12 hours ago, Colt45 said: There is no question that everything we do has an impact. Mining, driving, eating and wearing animals, etc. Are humans part of nature? Is our evolution and everything associated with that evolution part of nature? If not, what are we? If that were your (read our) stance, you could act inconsiderate, destroy your own environment and just say it's part of nature. Sure you can define it that way, but the question is, do you - read we - want that? If we agree so, then no action needs to be taken, indeed. And that fatalistic approach would then not only be holding for aspects of climate change. A matter of human convention. But - and that's the good news here - if we do take action, that will also be part of nature then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fugu Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 16 hours ago, HopeUgood said: My mistake, I meant isotopes instead of ions. 12 hours ago, IanMcLean68 said: Hold on. The problem with excess CO2 levels has I believe nothing to do with either its ability to form ions or compounds, or its isotopic nature. I think the gist of his post regarding isotopes - as I understood it - was to adress the issue of the debate whether the rise in CO2 observed since the beginning of the industrialization is man-induced or due to natural cycles. That's done by showing that the change in isotope ratio of atmospheric C12/C13 is due to burning fossil carbon (different ratios of the two stable carbon isotopes for fossil and for naturally emitted CO2 from the recent biosphere). The human effect is there, plain to see, that simply is not the question. The question, if any, might be whether this effect will be offset, stabilized or even intensified by natural geo or cosmic cycling (e.g. changes in the solar constant) at some time in the future. Changes and concentrations of gasses such as methane or carbon dioxide had been far higher in the geological past. The thing is, as @IanMcLean68 already said, we are inducing concentrations and a rate of change never seen before during the short time of our being on this lovely planet. That is fact, not a matter of debate. We may debate whether we should care. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esteban77 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Fugu said: I think the gist of his post regarding isotopes - as I understood it - was to adress the issue of the debate whether the rise in CO2 observed since the beginning of the industrialization is man-induced or due to natural cycles. That's done by showing that the change in isotope ratio of atmospheric C12/C13 is due to burning fossil carbon (different ratios of the two stable carbon isotopes for fossil and for naturally emitted CO2 from the recent biosphere). The human effect is there, plain to see, that simply is not the question. The question, if any, might be whether this effect will be offset, stabilized or even intensified by natural geo or cosmic cycling (e.g. changes in the solar constant) at some time in the future. Changes and concentrations of gasses such as methane or carbon dioxide had been far higher in the geological past. The thing is, as @IanMcLean68 already said, we are inducing concentrations and a rate of change never seen before during the short time of our being on this lovely planet. That is fact, not a matter of debate. We may debate whether we should care. The decay of dead plant matter produces CO2 and science should always be a matter of debate because consensus is not science. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fugu Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 23 minutes ago, Esteban77 said: The decay of dead plant matter produces CO2 And? What do you want to tell me? 23 minutes ago, Esteban77 said: and science should always be a matter of debate because consensus is not science. Oh, you cannot imagine how much in agreement I am with you on this! But proven facts don't need further debate. Man-induced rise in atmoshpheric CO2 over the last two centuries is fact. While you may dispute its influence on climate - this is fact. We can debate flat-earth, shall we? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esteban77 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 8 hours ago, Fugu said: And? What do you want to tell me? Oh, you cannot imagine how much in agreement I am with you on this! But proven facts don't need further debate. Man-induced rise in atmoshpheric CO2 over the last two centuries is fact. While you may dispute its influence on climate - this is fact. We can debate flat-earth, shall we? It is clear when you understand what the C13/C12 isotope ratio represents in relation to plant matter and the parallel of burning hydrocarbons. The fact that you did not get it shows your lack of knowledge and/or understanding. I think you should practice what you believe. Ideology is not science, so you and I do not agree that consensus is not science. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_jack Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 I was told there would be no math hereSent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby07 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 42 minutes ago, Jimmy_jack said: I was told there would be no math here The last 60 years of predicting death and destruction every 10 years or so is all the math I need. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozen North Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 No global warming here ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Presidente Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 1 hour ago, SenorPerfecto said: 2 favorites So you are saying that there have been no examples of scientific doctoring of climate change reports? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.e2a46b57b5880109ddf171d1b6f9daea.png)
Recommended Posts