The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

At one time 99.9% of scientists believed in luminous aether or quintessence.

The Electric Universe and the Aether are one and the same

Originally Posted by Red Devil

More CO2 is good for plants. And the earth is flat.

earth-chan is not flat

[oil pan 4]

Then if you want to talk about distance past then the atmospheric CO2 was several times higher than it is now.
2 things happened.
The world didn't end and it was only slightly warmer than today.
I say that if the believers are right, then I propose that maybe there wasn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere for the last million or so years and that's why we kept having ice ages.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by vBulletin

Page 107 of 428 « First < 7 57 97 105 106 107 108 109 117 157 207 > Last »

I think this thread broke the forum.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

No. He can have an opinion. But his site, and his organization, is not neutral. At all.

So we can't believe IPCC then, since they have a biased opinion.

It sounds like if someone agrees with the held belief, then it's unbiased and credible, and if they disagree with the held belief, then they are biased and uncredible.

Research that results in data saying everything is fine gets no funding. Proclaiming apocalypse gets all the funding and results in a belief system.

Some research claims that global warming has been a net benefit at least until now, and possibly until 2080. Certainly it's been a net benefit since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, and since the little ice age 500 years ago.

Even mentioning this is heresy in the AGW religion.

It's absolutely pointless to propose a course of action regarding climate change without also considering the benefits of warming. Most people who are fearful of GW have never even Googled "benefits of global warming" because they aren't interested in a narrative that goes against the one they have decided to believe.

Acknowledging the benefits of global warming and also acknowledging the negatives are not mutually exclusive, but people treat them as such. Knowing about one without the other is to only have half the story. 50% is a failing grade.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So we can't believe IPCC then, since they have a biased opinion.

It sounds like if someone agrees with the held belief, then it's unbiased and credible, and if they disagree with the held belief, then they are biased and uncredible.

Research that results in data saying everything is fine gets no funding. Proclaiming apocalypse gets all the funding and results in a belief system.

Some research claims that global warming has been a net benefit at least until now, and possibly until 2080. Certainly it's been a net benefit since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, and since the little ice age 500 years ago.

Even mentioning this is heresy in the AGW religion.

Precisely.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So we can't believe IPCC then, since they have a biased opinion.

It sounds like if someone agrees with the held belief, then it's unbiased and credible, and if they disagree with the held belief, then they are biased and uncredible.

Research that results in data saying everything is fine gets no funding. Proclaiming apocalypse gets all the funding and results in a belief system.

Some research claims that global warming has been a net benefit at least until now, and possibly until 2080. Certainly it's been a net benefit since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, and since the little ice age 500 years ago.

Even mentioning this is heresy in the AGW religion.

It's absolutely pointless to propose a course of action regarding climate change without also considering the benefits of warming. Most people who are fearful of GW have never even Googled "benefits of global warming" because they aren't interested in a narrative that goes against the one they have decided to believe.

Acknowledging the benefits of global warming and also acknowledging the negatives are not mutually exclusive, but people treat them as such. Knowing about one without the other is to only have half the story. 50% is a failing grade.

Whose religion? Those who believe the climate is not affected by our activities are the cult ones.

Researchers get funding, all of them, or they couldn't do their jobs. And dreamers who theorize on their own and build a website to proclaim their fixed views, with a little help from their brother and dad, they don't do proper research.

What I've seen leads me to acknowledge that we do change the climate. But if I find evidence against it, that will definitely change my position.
The problem is the quality of the data. Someone makes a fancy video or plonks down a website, puts down some outrageous claims, that's no evidence.
Research needs to be verifiable - and verified - to prove or disprove it. If that can't be done it is a theory at best.

I'm a believer - in certain scientific theories that seem plausible or downright correct to me. I do not 'believe' in man made climate change; that has been proven beyond doubt.

[oil pan 4]

We never said "man has no influencen".
Just that man is not the driving force.

What it looks like is the belivers exaggerate, inflate, falsify, cherry pick varrious circumstances, events, weather and spin it look like man is destroying the planet.

[All Darc]

Are you from some Eco-Family ?
Not making fun of you, but I think there are some american traditions in this field. Nice.

Thhe problem with aircrete for me it's about some claims. Fort example one guy who created a pump foam generator by low cost, tolding than he can cast large and high pieces, but in youtube another guy tried to create a piece of less than his own hight and the aircrete own weight made problems, since the weight would compress the foam in nthe lower areas.

So I presume the only way to cast large pieces it's in a step by step, layer by layer. One layer applied, let it dry just enough to hold the weight, so another layer come in, and so on, taking a entire day or more.

Look at 03:54, the casting, supposed one step, that I don't belive :

https://youtu.be/llsQL2bPWqY?t=238

How such tall piece how hold itself and dry without problems without it own weight compress it in the lower portions, making a uneven aircrete ?

Originally Posted by aerohead

My dad used to make it.He could get the density down to 11-pounds/per cubic foot,versus about 130-pounds/cu- ft for conventional concrete.

[All Darc]

Aircrete could be a good alternate building system for Brazil, since here portland ceament it's quite less expensive than in USA.

But one thing I don't understand.and sound foolish, maybe my ignorance : Ceament it's a kind of glue to connect sand or sand and small rocks (concrete). How can just the "glue" alone work as a material, resistent ?
Aircrete it's just this "glue" and air.

Originally Posted by aerohead

yes,it was cellular concrete.He used DuPont 'Duponal' surfactant,with a very strong surface tension bond.
The surfactant was diluted in water,then forced through a foam-gun (Valved PVC tube full of stainless steel mesh),under about 150-psi air pressure,and injected into the back of a Ready Mix truckload of 8-sack,sand mix,and mixed in.The bubbles are so strong they survive the torture of the mixing and ram-forced passage through a concrete pump and hose.It's trippy stuff! Hollywood special effects!

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

We never said "man has no influencen".
Just that man is not the driving force.

What it looks like is the belivers exaggerate, inflate, falsify, cherry pick varrious circumstances, events, weather and spin it look like man is destroying the planet.

If man isn't the driving force something else is, right?

You came up with sun cycles end volcanoes. There can be a sudden increase in cosmic rays. Giant meteor strike has caused climate change before.
But as far as I can tell none of these can be held responsible for the current changes. Nothing that can melt 14 thousand tonnes of glacier ice in the arctic per second.

I would not count those out as effects - just that I don't see any proof, at least this far you did not convince me that those effects do really contribute to the problem.
For me CO2 is still the main suspect.

There's enough information on climate and CO2 in the past, like here:
https://www.clim-past.net/
(by The European Geosciences Union, up to 21 december 2018)


It shows the intensity of sunlight (red) CO2 levels(yellow) and sea level changes in meters (blue) over the last 800,000 years.

You asked whether there wasn't enough CO2 during the ice ages.
Indeed, there wasn't. Over this period it has been nowhere near as high as now. Nor has the sea level...
We are at 400 ppm now, that is way off this chart. It will take some time, but sea level is certain to follow.

The European Geosciences Union is a non-profit organization of 15,000 scientists. Not just a guy, his brother and his father.
Cherry picking? This is a fat one...