Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Except for adding to my/our carbon footprint none of this has anything to do with climate change

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-13, 09:22:13

Except for adding to my/our carbon footprint none of this has anything to do with climate change

You're good at finding things in DND. Can you find one topic where the focus is maintained? All topics drift.

Except for adding to my/our carbon footprint none of this has anything to do with climate change, but it is pretty clear we've stopped discussing this years ago.

Ecological Debt Day, also known as Earth Overshoot Day, is the (claimed) approximate calendar date on which humanity’s resource consumption for the year exceeds Earth’s capacity to regenerate those resources that year.

(World Biocapacity/World Ecological Footpring)x365=Ecological Debt Day

This year it was yesterday, say sources like WWF. But they are a loony cult like Scientology, those greenie bastards...

New political parties, that defends the principles of New Economics, needs to appear. A new economy, a new environment, a new society.

That's what happens when a majority of people get their "science" from literary sources.

Doing real science is hard!

And it is quite instructive to see which groups opt for the easier tasks of opinion polling and fanciful computer modelling.

When you think industries are good - because they say so and they cannot lie -, you easily assert that there's no pollution.

Surely, even a bright middle-school pupil knows what a straw man is?

Your problem is not pollution of the environment… It's pollution of the mind: Fanaticism or fatuousness!

If you actually maintain that man's pollution is about to (or even can) catastrophically disrupt the earth's climate "system" — please provide evidence!

Half-baked ideas based upon and supported by computer models whose predictions have mostly failed won't do. Not for me.

Please explain your position via a one-word answer.

We simply disagree what the core model of climatology is. For me it's the greenhouse effect. For you it's predictions of warming. Different topics.

In economics you are just fine with them.

I never was in any science.

We simply disagree what the core model of climatology is. For me it's the greenhouse effect.

For you it's predictions of warming.

"Ultimately," noted [Walt] Meier [,a research scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Cryospheric Sciences Lab], "it is an editorial decision as to what to show and how."

Confirms [Rosemary] Wardley [National Geographic's senior GIS cartographer]: "We do not show the minimum extent simply because there is only so much information we can put on the map before it becomes confusing to the user."
(your source, Bel…)

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-15, 02:55:28

In economics you are just fine with them.

That's a presumption of yours… (You do that quite a lot!)

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-15, 02:55:28

We simply disagree what the core model of climatology is. For me it's the greenhouse effect.

If such a model fails even the simplest of tests -verification- than why would you cling to it so desperately?

The models (based upon a simplistic understanding of the greenhouse effect) have predicted warming that has not occurred; ...

And why do you keep confirming the silliest things I say about you, such as that for you it's only about predictions of warming? It's ridiculous.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-15, 22:48:39

And why do you keep confirming the silliest things I say about you, such as that for you it's only about predictions of warming? It's ridiculous.

Well… The "In" crowd changed that to "Catastrophic Climate Change" a while back — and has vacillated since.

For the rest of the world it always was and remained the greenhouse effect. I have said this several times over, but you keep forgetting.

Edit: This does not mean there's no warming. There is. But the more important effect is turbulence. It's not linear warming. This has been the actual model for 200 years.