Climate change discussion

[Poor Richard Saunders]

nice rant, but you are missing some important realities. If the left (the people who lean left) dont want to control everyone, why do they want to mandate unproven "climate saving" actions?

Gibberish attempting to masquerade as a reasonable argument. Who is mandating "unproven climate saving" actions. Provide your evidence of this being the case.

why do they ignore the half of the scientific community that say that humans are not affecting the climate of earth?

What lovely unsupported nonsense. Half the scientific community doesn't say that at all. Unless of course you are including dentists and civil engineers as part of the scientific community. But your statement makes as much sense as saying half the scientific community says dental work is not necessary.

Remember, we are talking about the climate of planet earth, not the weather in boston or miami.

There is no planet earth climate. The Saharan Desert has a different climate than Malaysia. Climate is related to weather but it isn't weather. Weather is what happens on one day. Climate is the weather over 30 years.

unfortunately this climate debate has become political because some see it as a way to gain power. If you have some facts to prove that the acts of humans are in fact changing the earth's climate, post them. then check into the real science that concludes that sunspots, the earth's tilt on its axis, and ocean currents actually affect the climate.

The problem you have with this argument is that it is simply an argument full of logical fallacies. Many things affect the earth's climactic zones. Just because some things affect the climate does not preclude other things from affecting the climate. One of the first ways humans are affecting climate is by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Science shows that more CO2 in a gas mixture increases the temperature of the gas mixture since more IR is absorbed compared to a N, O2 mixture. Two questions that will show if you accept science or not. 1. Do you agree that the levels of CO2 have increased in the last 200 years and that increase is the result of humans? 2. Do you agree that almost 200 years of experiments have proved that more CO2 in a gas causes it to absorb more energy? Unless you accept such basic science there really isn't much to discuss.

finally, until the AGW crowd finds a way to separate pollution from climate change, there will never be any consensus. Everyone agrees that pollution needs to be curtailed, you don't need a fake link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution.

There is no fake link between pollution and climate. Some pollution an affect climate. Some pollution doesn't affect climate. It's as simple as that. Your logical fallacy doesn't change simple science.

 

[Into the Night]

you are in disagreement with all the AGW clowns.

Why yes...yes I am.

But any reasonable person understands that an ice age is a global climate change.

Nope. A desert climate is still a desert climate. Nothing has changed.
A marine climate is still a marine climate. Nothing has changed.
A tropical climate is still a tropical climate. Nothing has changed.

An ice age, if it took place, is not a climate. It is a change in weather. We could certainly describe such conditions as an arctic climate, but 'arctic climate' has not changed. Further, North America is not the globe. Neither is Europe.

How do we know it happened?

We don't. It is not possible to prove either way. It might have happened, it might not. The belief that an ice age occurred can only be taken on faith. This belief is in and of itself a circular argument (not a fallacy). The other name for a circular argument is 'faith'.

glaciers created the great lakes.

How do you know? Were you there?

fossil and ice core data confirm that warming and cooling of the planet have been happening for millions of years, without any help from humans.

Fossils do not indicate anything except the presence of what was once an animal or vegetation. They do not indicate temperature. That is an INTERPRETATION. It is ASSIGNING meaning to a fossil that simply isn't there.
Ice cores do not indicate temperature other than that they are below freezing. Any other INTERPRETATION is ASSIGNING a guess to it's meaning.

Science does not make use of indirect measurements of any kind. The meaning of anything like ice cores, fossils, etc. are guesses and assignments. They are INTERPRETATIONS.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. That is why observations are not themselves science. Science consists ONLY of falsifiable theories.

A brief introduction to phenomenology: let's use a common event, a simple sunrise being observed by different people.

To one, it is a god, rising into the sky to light the world for his children.
To another, it is a vehicle carrying such a god.
To another, it is a great fireball, circling the stationary Earth.
To another, it is a great fireball, appearing to move because of Earth's spin.
To another, it is not anything burning, it is a a fusion reaction, and the Sun is stationary.
To another, both the Earth and the Sun are orbiting each other, while the Sun-Earth system orbits a central core of a galaxy.
To another, it is just a software simulation, using some ultimate form of VR (aka the Matrix).

Seven different people. Seven different observations of the same event. ALL of them are unique. They ALL exclude each other.

Observations, you see are ALL more than just a stimuli on our senses. It is also our minds INTERPRETING those senses and ASSIGNING meaning to them. We assign those meanings according to our own personal model of how the universe works. That model is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. It is formed from our own experiences and beliefs. Without that interpretation and assignment, the observation is meaningless.

So what is 'real'?

'Real' is quite literally what our own personal model of the universe tells us. In other words, 'real' is literally what each of us in our own way defines it. My 'real' is different from yours, just as your 'real' is different from anyone else's. There is no absolute 'real', since 'real' quite literally depends on our observations as interpreted by our own personal model of the universe and how it works.

So...let's take a fossil of...let's say...a lizard.

How do we know how old it is? We don't. It's a rock. Radiometric dating is not accurate over any length of time beyond the date of its invention. It assumes consistent conditions, and we don't know the conditions were even consistent (they probably weren't).
How do we know that temperature it was when the lizard died? We don't. I might've fallen into the crevasse of a glacier and swept many miles from the moment of it's death. It might've fallen into a swamp in tropical conditions, and drifted with the currents until it became embedded in the mud. It may have even trampled into the mud by a charging elephant. It may have naturally lived on a mountain that later wore away due to erosion, carrying the remains of the lizard with it. It may be some faked remains from someone selling fake fossils (that DOES happen. There's actually an entire industry around it in some nations).

We really know NOTHING about this particular lizard, other than it once existed as a living animal? It might not even be a genuine fossil!

Does this show temperature? No. We have NO idea of the history of this lizard fossil.

So what is 'science'? Can it be defined? Yes. By philosophy, just as it defines what 'real' and 'reality' means.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion.
ALL theories begin as circular arguments, whether they are scientific ones or not. What sets aside a theory as 'science' is the test for falsifiability.

The test for falsifiability simply means this:
* develop a null hypothesis of the theory. In other words, ask the question, "how can this theory be shown to be wrong?".
* develop a test against the null hypothesis. This test must be available, practical to conduct, specific, and produce a specific result. This means the test requires the use of a quantity. Science only uses DIRECT measurements. It does not use any INDIRECT measurements due to the extensions imposed by phenomenology. Even direct measurements are observations, however, but they do remove one layer of interpretation.
* as long as a theory survives tests designed to destroy it, that theory is more than a circular argument. It has tests designed to destroy it done against it. As long as the theory survives such tests, it is automatically a part of the body of science. It is a theory of science. It will remain so until a test falsifies it.

A nonscientific theory (one that is not falsifiable) can neither be proven True nor False. It remains the circular argument it started as.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'. It is not in and of itself a fallacy.
Attempting to prove a circular argument either True or False is the circular argument fallacy. Circular arguments cannot be proven either True nor False. This is what a fundamentalist does. Fundamentalists occur in every religion. Some religions are inherently fundamentalist.
This is how 'religion' can best be defined, philosophically. Like 'science', 'religion' is defined in philosophy.

One should not reject philosophy simply because it is a set of arguments and their reasoning. It is not a waste of time. it defines some pretty important words here.

 

[Into the Night]

Gibberish attempting to masquerade as a reasonable argument.

Argument of the stone fallacy.

Who is mandating "unproven climate saving" actions. Provide your evidence of this being the case.

Define 'climate saving'. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy via a buzzword fallacy.

What lovely unsupported nonsense. Half the scientific community doesn't say that at all.

Science is not a 'community'. It is not a government organization, academy, society, scientist, or any group of scientists. It isn't even people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Unless of course you are including dentists and civil engineers as part of the scientific community.

There is no such thing as a 'scientific community'. Science is not a a 'community'.

But your statement makes as much sense as saying half the scientific community says dental work is not necessary.

Void argument fallacy. You have not set the bounds of what you call 'dental work'.

There is no planet earth climate. The Saharan Desert has a different climate than Malaysia. Climate is related to weather but it isn't weather. Weather is what happens on one day.

This is correct.

Climate is the weather over 30 years.

Wups. Why 30 years? Where did you get this magick number? Argument by randU fallacy.

The problem you have with this argument is that it is simply an argument full of logical fallacies.

Void argument fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.

Many things affect the earth's climactic zones.

Define 'climactic zone'. How do you define these 'zones'?

Just because some things affect the climate

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

does not preclude other things from affecting the climate.

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. A desert climate is still a desert climate. Nothing has changed.

One of the first ways humans are affecting climate

Leaping to conclusion. Non-sequitur fallacy.

is by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Science shows that more CO2 in a gas mixture increases the temperature of the gas mixture

Nope. Science shows quite the opposite.

CO2 is not energy. It takes additional energy to raise the temperature of a gas mixture. You cannot create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. Also note that a gas bottle of CO2 at 3000psi is not hot. It is room temperature, and so is the gas in inside the bottle. Such bottles are commonly used in soda machines, welding apparatus, and fire extinguishing systems.

since more IR is absorbed compared to a N, O2 mixture.

Where is this magickal IR coming from? The surface? Did you know that emitting IR light from ANYTHING cools that surface? Did you know that CO2 in the atmosphere is generally COLDER than the surface?

Two questions that will show if you accept science or not.

Since you have already denied the 1st law of thermodynamics, and are about to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you really have no place to determine of anyone accepts 'science'.

1. Do you agree that the levels of CO2 have increased in the last 200 years and that increase is the result of humans?

Denial of mathematics. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. We simply don't have enough monitoring stations. Several of the ones we do have are compromised by surrounding environment (including the Mauna Loa station).
There were NO monitoring stations before 1956. That is LESS than 200 years ago. CO2 has no marker as to how it formed (or who formed it). It is not possible to determine the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by human activity.

You are attempting a statistical summary as proof of a circular argument (fundamentalism), and creating a math error doing it:
Failure to use unbiased raw data. Failure to use published raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value. Failure to present margin of error with summary. Attempt to use a statistical summary in a prediction.

2. Do you agree that almost 200 years of experiments have proved that more CO2 in a gas causes it to absorb more energy?

Science isn't 'experiments'. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Science has no proofs. It is not possible to prove any theory True. Void argument fallacy. What energy are you speaking of? CO2 does not absorb all energy or all forms of energy or even all frequencies of light.

Unless you accept such basic science there really isn't much to discuss.

You are denying science. You have so far denied the 1st law of thermodynamics by creating energy out of nothing.

There is no fake link between pollution and climate. Some pollution an affect climate. Some pollution doesn't affect climate. It's as simple as that. Your logical fallacy doesn't change simple science.

Define 'pollution'. Climate is a subjective term describing an environment (such as 'desert climate', 'victorious climate', etc). Fallacy fallacy. You are denying science and mathematics.

You are attempting to prove a circular argument True. This is the circular argument fallacy, also known as fundamentalism. Your religion is the Church of Global Warming, an inherently fundamentalist religion. The initial circular argument of this religion is that the Earth is somehow warming. ALL other arguments stem from that initial circular argument. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'.

You have two faiths:
The Church of Global Warming.
The Church of Green.
The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which in turn stems from the Church of Karl Marx.

 

[redfish]

Why yes...yes I am.

Nope. A desert climate is still a desert climate. Nothing has changed.
A marine climate is still a marine climate. Nothing has changed.
A tropical climate is still a tropical climate. Nothing has changed.

An ice age, if it took place, is not a climate. It is a change in weather. We could certainly describe such conditions as an arctic climate, but 'arctic climate' has not changed. Further, North America is not the globe. Neither is Europe.

We don't. It is not possible to prove either way. It might have happened, it might not. The belief that an ice age occurred can only be taken on faith. This belief is in and of itself a circular argument (not a fallacy). The other name for a circular argument is 'faith'.

How do you know? Were you there?

Fossils do not indicate anything except the presence of what was once an animal or vegetation. They do not indicate temperature. That is an INTERPRETATION. It is ASSIGNING meaning to a fossil that simply isn't there.
Ice cores do not indicate temperature other than that they are below freezing. Any other INTERPRETATION is ASSIGNING a guess to it's meaning.

Science does not make use of indirect measurements of any kind. The meaning of anything like ice cores, fossils, etc. are guesses and assignments. They are INTERPRETATIONS.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. That is why observations are not themselves science. Science consists ONLY of falsifiable theories.

A brief introduction to phenomenology: let's use a common event, a simple sunrise being observed by different people.

To one, it is a god, rising into the sky to light the world for his children.
To another, it is a vehicle carrying such a god.
To another, it is a great fireball, circling the stationary Earth.
To another, it is a great fireball, appearing to move because of Earth's spin.
To another, it is not anything burning, it is a a fusion reaction, and the Sun is stationary.
To another, both the Earth and the Sun are orbiting each other, while the Sun-Earth system orbits a central core of a galaxy.
To another, it is just a software simulation, using some ultimate form of VR (aka the Matrix).

Seven different people. Seven different observations of the same event. ALL of them are unique. They ALL exclude each other.

Observations, you see are ALL more than just a stimuli on our senses. It is also our minds INTERPRETING those senses and ASSIGNING meaning to them. We assign those meanings according to our own personal model of how the universe works. That model is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. It is formed from our own experiences and beliefs. Without that interpretation and assignment, the observation is meaningless.

So what is 'real'?

'Real' is quite literally what our own personal model of the universe tells us. In other words, 'real' is literally what each of us in our own way defines it. My 'real' is different from yours, just as your 'real' is different from anyone else's. There is no absolute 'real', since 'real' quite literally depends on our observations as interpreted by our own personal model of the universe and how it works.

So...let's take a fossil of...let's say...a lizard.

How do we know how old it is? We don't. It's a rock. Radiometric dating is not accurate over any length of time beyond the date of its invention. It assumes consistent conditions, and we don't know the conditions were even consistent (they probably weren't).
How do we know that temperature it was when the lizard died? We don't. I might've fallen into the crevasse of a glacier and swept many miles from the moment of it's death. It might've fallen into a swamp in tropical conditions, and drifted with the currents until it became embedded in the mud. It may have even trampled into the mud by a charging elephant. It may have naturally lived on a mountain that later wore away due to erosion, carrying the remains of the lizard with it. It may be some faked remains from someone selling fake fossils (that DOES happen. There's actually an entire industry around it in some nations).

We really know NOTHING about this particular lizard, other than it once existed as a living animal? It might not even be a genuine fossil!

Does this show temperature? No. We have NO idea of the history of this lizard fossil.

So what is 'science'? Can it be defined? Yes. By philosophy, just as it defines what 'real' and 'reality' means.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion.
ALL theories begin as circular arguments, whether they are scientific ones or not. What sets aside a theory as 'science' is the test for falsifiability.

The test for falsifiability simply means this:
* develop a null hypothesis of the theory. In other words, ask the question, "how can this theory be shown to be wrong?".
* develop a test against the null hypothesis. This test must be available, practical to conduct, specific, and produce a specific result. This means the test requires the use of a quantity. Science only uses DIRECT measurements. It does not use any INDIRECT measurements due to the extensions imposed by phenomenology. Even direct measurements are observations, however, but they do remove one layer of interpretation.
* as long as a theory survives tests designed to destroy it, that theory is more than a circular argument. It has tests designed to destroy it done against it. As long as the theory survives such tests, it is automatically a part of the body of science. It is a theory of science. It will remain so until a test falsifies it.

A nonscientific theory (one that is not falsifiable) can neither be proven True nor False. It remains the circular argument it started as.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'. It is not in and of itself a fallacy.
Attempting to prove a circular argument either True or False is the circular argument fallacy. Circular arguments cannot be proven either True nor False. This is what a fundamentalist does. Fundamentalists occur in every religion. Some religions are inherently fundamentalist.
This is how 'religion' can best be defined, philosophically. Like 'science', 'religion' is defined in philosophy.

One should not reject philosophy simply because it is a set of arguments and their reasoning. It is not a waste of time. it defines some pretty important words here.

another nice rant, but devoid of facts. What is a desert climate today may have been a rain forest 500,000 years ago. What is under the ocean today may have been a high desert centuries ago. So, yes, the earth's climate has changed. No one has ever said that the entire planet had a common climate. your argument there is flawed. The real point, that I think we agree on, is that human activity has never had any affect on climate, either local climate or "world" climate.

 

[Into the Night]

another nice rant,

Obviously you don't know what 'rant' means.

but devoid of facts.

Obviously you never read the post. Go back and read it.

What is a desert climate today may have been a rain forest 500,000 years ago.

Nope. A desert climate is still a desert climate. A rain forest climate is still a rain forest climate. Nothing has changed, even if the location of a desert or rain forest has changed.

What is under the ocean today may have been a high desert centuries ago.

Nope. An underwater climate is still an underwater climate. A high desert climate is still a high desert climate. Nothing has changed, even if whole continents have come and gone.

So, yes, the earth's climate has changed.

There is no such thing as a global climate. Earth contains many climates.

No one has ever said that the entire planet had a common climate.

YOU JUST DID. You are now locked in paradox. You are being irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. You MUST clear your paradox. You must choose one and only one of your arguments and utterly discard the other.

your argument there is flawed.

Inversion fallacy. A paradox is flawed argument. So is any fallacy.

The real point, that I think we agree on, is that human activity has never had any affect on climate, either local climate or "world" climate.

Irrational. You must clear your paradox.

Oh, and learn what 'fact' means. A 'fact' is not a proof or a Universal Truth. A 'fact' is simply an assumed predicate.

 

[redfish]

Obviously you don't know what 'rant' means.

Obviously you never read the post. Go back and read it.

Nope. A desert climate is still a desert climate. A rain forest climate is still a rain forest climate. Nothing has changed, even if the location of a desert or rain forest has changed.

Nope. An underwater climate is still an underwater climate. A high desert climate is still a high desert climate. Nothing has changed, even if whole continents have come and gone.

There is no such thing as a global climate. Earth contains many climates.

YOU JUST DID. You are now locked in paradox. You are being irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. You MUST clear your paradox. You must choose one and only one of your arguments and utterly discard the other.

Inversion fallacy. A paradox is flawed argument. So is any fallacy.

Irrational. You must clear your paradox.

Oh, and learn what 'fact' means. A 'fact' is not a proof or a Universal Truth. A 'fact' is simply an assumed predicate.

the fallacy is yours, my friend. Yes, there are still, and always will be, different types of climates in different parts of the world, desert climates, rain forest climates, arctic climates et.al. What has changed over the centuries is the location of the various climates. what is now a desert may have once been a rain forest, etc. What is now under water may have been dry land 500,000 years ago.

But the real point, which you seem unable to discuss, is that human activity has never had any affect on any of these changes. The AGW crowd wants us to believe that WE, through our use of hydrocarbons, are changing the various climates of the earth. whereas the truth is that the activity of sunspots, the earth's slight wobble on its axis, and ocean currents are the real climate influencers.

You are twisting my words with your "paradox" BS, get real dude.,

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Gibberish attempting to masquerade as a reasonable argument. Who is mandating "unproven climate saving" actions. Provide your evidence of this being the case.

What lovely unsupported nonsense. Half the scientific community doesn't say that at all. Unless of course you are including dentists and civil engineers as part of the scientific community. But your statement makes as much sense as saying half the scientific community says dental work is not necessary.


There is no planet earth climate. The Saharan Desert has a different climate than Malaysia. Climate is related to weather but it isn't weather. Weather is what happens on one day. Climate is the weather over 30 years.

The problem you have with this argument is that it is simply an argument full of logical fallacies. Many things affect the earth's climactic zones. Just because some things affect the climate does not preclude other things from affecting the climate. One of the first ways humans are affecting climate is by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Science shows that more CO2 in a gas mixture increases the temperature of the gas mixture since more IR is absorbed compared to a N, O2 mixture. Two questions that will show if you accept science or not. 1. Do you agree that the levels of CO2 have increased in the last 200 years and that increase is the result of humans? 2. Do you agree that almost 200 years of experiments have proved that more CO2 in a gas causes it to absorb more energy? Unless you accept such basic science there really isn't much to discuss.

There is no fake link between pollution and climate. Some pollution an affect climate. Some pollution doesn't affect climate. It's as simple as that. Your logical fallacy doesn't change simple science.

a lot of words here to deny the obvious. you're a control freak, non science fool and eugenicist.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

What 'no bid contracts'?

You still don't know what fascism is.

So we agree on that. The federal manipulates the money market....the price of money. That's fascism. They are also the only ones that can print money. That's communism.

no. you don't know what fascism is.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Void argument fallacy.

it's just an observation.

 

[Into the Night]

the fallacy is yours, my friend.

Fallacy fallacy.

Yes, there are still, and always will be, different types of climates in different parts of the world, desert climates, rain forest climates, arctic climates et.al. What has changed over the centuries is the location of the various climates. what is now a desert may have once been a rain forest, etc. What is now under water may have been dry land 500,000 years ago.

So?

But the real point, which you seem unable to discuss, is that human activity has never had any affect on any of these changes.

Yes it has. We brought irrigation to the desert and the desert bloomed. We plant huge crops there now. We have produced crops that can grow more easily in arid soil. They have been planted and are helping out many a poor community in other nations survive better. We can ship the entire guts of a factory in one day, then come back and do it the next day, with a SINGLE AIRCRAFT.
We have cleaned up rivers, sounds, and lakes, through the use of better wastewater treatment systems.
We have built houses where once was vacant land filled with trees.
We have planted trees where once was desert.
We have changed the course of major rivers through the use of dams.
We have put soot into the atmosphere, then built better engines that don't do that anymore.
We have put CO2 into the atmosphere, thus aiding plant growth.

All of these are human activity. All of these have affected where deserts are, where forests are, the composition of materials in the atmosphere in certain areas, where rivers are, etc. Yes. Humans have effected changes like this.

The AGW crowd wants us to believe that WE, through our use of hydrocarbons, are changing the various climates of the earth.

It is not possible to change a climate. A desert climate is always a desert climate. No change. What human activity is changing is where deserts are located, where forests are located, where rivers are located, whether more CO2 is available in the atmosphere in some region that improves plant growth, etc.

whereas the truth is that the activity of sunspots, the earth's slight wobble on its axis, and ocean currents are the real climate influencers.

Nope. They don't change a climate either. Such events can certainly change the weather, however.

You are twisting my words with your "paradox" BS, get real dud.

A paradox is a thing of your own making. You are the only one that created it. You are the only one that can clear it. Attempting to argue both sides of a paradox as you are continuing to do, is irrational. A paradox itself is a twisting of words. Inversion fallacy.

You say there is no global climate, then you say there is. Which is it, dude?

 

[Into the Night]

no. you don't know what fascism is.

Fascism is a form of socialism. Fascism is government manipulation of markets. It is on the road to communism, or government ownership of markets.
Both are theft of wealth. Both can only be implemented by oligarchies and dictatorships.

 

[Into the Night]

it's just an observation.

Void argument fallacy.

 

[redfish]

Fallacy fallacy.

So?

Yes it has. We brought irrigation to the desert and the desert bloomed. We plant huge crops there now. We have produced crops that can grow more easily in arid soil. They have been planted and are helping out many a poor community in other nations survive better. We can ship the entire guts of a factory in one day, then come back and do it the next day, with a SINGLE AIRCRAFT.
We have cleaned up rivers, sounds, and lakes, through the use of better wastewater treatment systems.
We have built houses where once was vacant land filled with trees.
We have planted trees where once was desert.
We have changed the course of major rivers through the use of dams.
We have put soot into the atmosphere, then built better engines that don't do that anymore.
We have put CO2 into the atmosphere, thus aiding plant growth.

All of these are human activity. All of these have affected where deserts are, where forests are, the composition of materials in the atmosphere in certain areas, where rivers are, etc. Yes. Humans have effected changes like this.


It is not possible to change a climate. A desert climate is always a desert climate. No change. What human activity is changing is where deserts are located, where forests are located, where rivers are located, whether more CO2 is available in the atmosphere in some region that improves plant growth, etc.

Nope. They don't change a climate either. Such events can certainly change the weather, however.

A paradox is a thing of your own making. You are the only one that created it. You are the only one that can clear it. Attempting to argue both sides of a paradox as you are continuing to do, is irrational. A paradox itself is a twisting of words. Inversion fallacy.

You say there is no global climate, then you say there is. Which is it, dude?

Your "brought water to the desert" narrative is flawed. Bringing water did not change the climate of the desert. It is still a desert climate. It is now, due to humans, a desert climate where plants grow, but it it still a desert climate.

I never said there is or was a global climate. I said that different climates exist on the planet because of differing amounts of rainfall, latitude, ocean currents, latitudes, and altitudes.

Humans have never change either a local climate or, as the AGW fools claim, the "global climate".

I am really not interested in continuing to play word games with you, please find another thread to drone

 

[redfish]

Just a comment on the prior posts about government no bid contracts. the government only uses no bid contracts when there is only one supplier of the good or service being ordered. In that case the price is negotiated by the purchasing agency and the supplier. You may question the abilities of the government negotiators or that they get to the best price, but the allegation that they just pay whatever the supplier asks is simply not true.

 

[moon]

Into the Night Soil

The federal manipulates the money market....the price of money. That's fascism.

 

[redfish]

For the AGW advocates in the mid west and northeast today. How is that global warming working out for you? Walk outside barefoot and report back.

 

[cancel2 2022]

For the AGW advocates in the mid west and northeast today. How is that global warming working out for you? Walk outside barefoot and report back.

There is Solar Grand Minimum starting, activity is at its lowest in 200 years. Yet these arseholes want to destroy the world totally after Covid, why are people so ignorant?

NORTH AMERICA’S WIDESPREAD AND RECORD-BREAKING ARCTIC OUTBREAK SET TO INTENSIFY FURTHER

https://electroverse.net/north-americas-arctic-outbreak-set-to-intensify-further/

 

[Into the Night]

Your "brought water to the desert" narrative is flawed.

Why?

Bringing water did not change the climate of the desert. It is still a desert climate.

But it now has farms. This was human activity.

It is now, due to humans, a desert climate where plants grow, but it it still a desert climate.

True.

I never said there is or was a global climate.
I said that different climates exist on the planet because of differing amounts of rainfall, latitude, ocean currents, latitudes, and altitudes.

So you are going to discard ANY argument from here on out that there is a global climate. I'll consider this paradox of yours resolved then, unless you return to it.

Humans have never change either a local climate or, as the AGW fools claim, the "global climate".

True. It's not possible to change a climate. There is no quantity to change.

I am really not interested in continuing to play word games with you, please find another thread to drone

Frankly, it is YOU playing word games here. I simply called you out on it.

I am willing to leave this behind and consider the paradox resolved...for now.

 

[Into the Night]

Just a comment on the prior posts about government no bid contracts. the government only uses no bid contracts when there is only one supplier of the good or service being ordered. In that case the price is negotiated by the purchasing agency and the supplier. You may question the abilities of the government negotiators or that they get to the best price, but the allegation that they just pay whatever the supplier asks is simply not true.

Quite right. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Into the Night]

There is Solar Grand Minimum starting, activity is at its lowest in 200 years. Yet these arseholes want to destroy the world totally after Covid, why are people so ignorant?

NORTH AMERICA’S WIDESPREAD AND RECORD-BREAKING ARCTIC OUTBREAK SET TO INTENSIFY FURTHER

https://electroverse.net/north-americas-arctic-outbreak-set-to-intensify-further/

The last cycle was weak tea, that's for sure. The last time we had a cycle that weak was in the 1870's, not really 200 years ago.
Future cycles are unknown. You are speculating.

Either way, your point about the arseholes is spot on.