• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conservatives and climate change

Status
Not open for further replies.
BenBurch said:
The radiation balance is what AGW predicts; The Stratosphere gets COOLER as the Troposphere warms.

I have explained this mechanism repeatedly, and given the physical reasons for it, but MHaze appears to be intellectually unable to comprehend the science.
Click to expand...

Almost like there's an unwillingness to accept the actual optical properties of CO2, isn't it?
 
mhaze said:
leave the lying, misdirection and ad hominems aside for a while, please.

I know it's tempting, though. :rolleyes:

The issue was "The math is simple".

You either agree or disagree.

Which is it?
Click to expand...

I don't think the math is that hard. Do you?
 
BenBurch said:
The maths are not simple to understand, but those that do understand them universally agree with them. The conclusions are also simple to understand, and that is the problem that propagandists have; They need to obfuscate the issue of AGW sufficiently that people don't know what to believe. If the people were exposed only to the most reliable conclusions to be drawn from the scientific investigation of the issue, we would see major societal changes happening very quickly.
Click to expand...
I doubt conservatives will ever favor transferring wealth from first-world to third-world countries as the fix for AGW (or as is current, Climate Change).
 
AlBell said:
I doubt conservatives will ever favor transferring wealth from first-world to third-world countries as the fix for AGW (or as is current, Climate Change).
Click to expand...

This speaks to climate change exactly how?
 
Unabogie said:
It doesn't. It merely explains their irrational denial of the science. For them, it's completely political.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It's an irrational conservative version of the fear of the New World Order. Except in their fantasy the evil liberals want to take the God given riches of the U.S. and give them to poor non blessed non whites of the world.
 
DavidJames said:
Indeed. It's an irrational conservative version of the fear of the New World Order. Except in their fantasy the evil liberals want to take the God given riches of the U.S. and give them to poor non blessed non whites of the world.
Click to expand...

Evil liberals who have bribed the world's climate scientists with the filthy lucre of research grants which must be in the billions thousands of dollars.
 
Robert Prey said:
Still waiting for some smart person to cite any significant period of time in the known history of the earth, when the climate was not changing.
Click to expand...

The trouble isn't that climate is changing, it is that it is changing in a way that is dangerous to our society and the environment our species has evolved within, furthermore, this change is being directly influenced and primarily driven by human activities. Fire isn't necessarily a problem until you start using matches to set your own home and the clothes you are wearing on fire.
 
mhaze said:
leave the lying, misdirection and ad hominems aside for a while, please.

I know it's tempting, though. :rolleyes:

The issue was "The math is simple".

You either agree or disagree.

Which is it?
Click to expand...

The maths needed to grasp the basics of climate science are learned by tens of millions of high school students each and every year. I would consider this level of mathematical understanding and prowess to be fairly simple and basic.
 
DavidJames said:
It's an irrational conservative version of the fear of the New World Order. Except in their fantasy the evil liberals want to take the God given riches of the U.S. and give them to poor non blessed non whites of the world.
Click to expand...


It's even more strange when one considers that the U.S. has been buying more goods from other nations than it has been selling to them for an awful long time now.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Field string?

Whether we're smart enough to use the applicable equations to calculate all the answers we want is not the same as asking whether the equations apply. You asked whether the relevant equations apply. Of course they do.


mhaze is the fellow who chose to "OVERSIMPLIFY the reality of the situation" by pretending there was some question as to whether the Navier-Stokes equations apply to the problem....<<<blah blah blah>>>
Click to expand...

Let me correct one thing and clarify another.

1. I'm laughing too, at "field string". I have NO IDEA out of which drunken stupor that arose. Meant to say "field strength".

2. My intent, if it may not have been clear, was along the lines of of "do the Navier Stokes equations apply, and if so, with what simplifications and initial presumptions, etc, etc, etc....will enable them to yield useful results in the field (actually specified sub sub set of ...) "climate science".
 
Robert Prey said:
The phrase "politically conservative" has nothing to do with science. The earth may be very slightly warming in certain regions for a lot of reasons, mostly natural. Melting ice caps and high seas that devastate coastal cities is Chicken Little Hysteria backed by nothing but politically correct junk science.
Click to expand...
The phrase "politically liberal" has nothing to do with science.

Well, it shouldn't anyway.

Guess we got a little problem there.
 
I suspect jj doesn't think matrix mechanics is "hard" math. I'm very sure he doesn't think fourier transforms are "hard".
 
DavidJames said:
Indeed. It's an irrational conservative version of the fear of the New World Order. Except in their fantasy the evil liberals want to take the God given riches of the U.S. and give them to poor non blessed non whites of the world.
Click to expand...
No you are dreaming, as radical unhinged liberal wackos suggest.

There is no Article 12 to the Kyoto Protocol that does what you say.

Wait....there is....
 
AlBell said:
I suspect jj doesn't think matrix mechanics is "hard" math. I'm very sure he doesn't think fourier transforms are "hard".
Click to expand...
Neither do I. Which is why I think we need some elaboration on what he's talking about.

And Clinger's ad homs, reframing and mis direction are classic True Believer tactics.

I think someone with one semester of CFM wouldn't be competent in the least at "climate science math". Some one with a Pdh in the subject, yes.

Apparently some here think that a PdD in engineering or math is "easy".

Or are they just lying?

I suspect the latter, but hey, let them explain the position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom