It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

page: 32
74
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

Not sure how many different ways I can say it Mr. Thumpy.


You could try just answering the question

See here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I even bolded the answer, how could you miss it? What part of the answer do you have an issue with?


How does the paper you posted prove what you claim?




posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy
go back and reread the posts please before asking the same question over and over, it's been asked and answered.
If you have an issue with my answer, thats one thing, but to ask the same question over and over is not conducive to communication.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jesus, there's not even a correlation causation issue to disprove. There has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise according to the tidal gage data. Pretty simple really. If the sea level isn't rising faster than it was 150 years ago, whats the issue?
edit on 4-1-2018 by EvidenceNibbler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy
go back and reread the posts please before asking the same question over and over, it's been asked and answered.
If you have an issue with my answer, thats one thing, but to ask the same question over and over is not conducive to communication.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jesus, there's not even a correlation causation issue to disprove. There has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise according to the tidal gage data. Pretty simple really. If the sea level isn't rising faster than it was 150 years ago, whats the issue?


This issue is that the paper you posted doesn't prove that as evidenced by your inability to show that it does
edit on 4-1-2018 by mrthumpy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

How doesn't it?
The only way you could correlate rising C02 to rising sea levels is if the sea level rise was actually accelerating right?
Do you disagree with that Mr. THumpy?
edit on 4-1-2018 by EvidenceNibbler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

How doesn't it?


How does it? YOU posted it as evidence



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

How doesn't it?



How does it? YOU posted it as evidence


Maybe your comprehension level is low?

Hmm, lets see. Analysis of the worlds tidal gage stations indicates that there has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise.

Meanwhile C02 has been increasing.

Seems one does not have a cause effect relationship right?

Like, what part of that do you have a problem with?????????????????

Anyways i stalked some of your threads, if you are committed to arguing nukes took down the towers and won't listen to any reason on that end, climate change will be no different.

Is there a block function on ATS?
edit on 4-1-2018 by EvidenceNibbler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

How doesn't it?



How does it? YOU posted it as evidence




Like, what part of that do you have a problem with?????????????????



The problem is that the paper you posted is simply disagreeing with the way that sea level rise is acceleration is calculated

Maybe your comprehension level is low



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Is there any part of the paper that you disagree with?

Show me in that paper what is wrong with how RSL is measured via the tidal gage network.

If you cannot debunk the paper, then it is taken that the RSL rate of rise is not increasing. And it's not just that one paper.

I do not believe you are here for honest debate. You are being intellectually dishonest and making it very difficult to have an adult style conversation. It seems I am dealing with a petulant child and have to constantly repeat myself, just my observation.


Although many climate models predict that rising CO2 levels should cause accelerated sea level rise, sea level measurements show that, thus far, in response to roughly 3/4 century of substantial anthropogenically-driven CO2 increases, there has been no detectable acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. In fact, some studies have detected small a deceleration (slowing). Here are some papers which have reported the lack of acceleration in rate of sea level rise (h/t to Alberto Boretti, Robert Dean & Doug Lord):

www.sealevel.info...

edit on 4-1-2018 by EvidenceNibbler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

This is why I stopped posting actual scientific papers here. Most people cannot read them, and most of those try to paint in things that aren't there. Of those who can, most will simply try to find an obscure point to disagree on to twist the conversation away from the conclusions.

A good example: some years back I posted a thread that disproved the ability of carbon dioxide to create the amount of heating that was being predicted, using simple equilibrium calculations. The conclusion, mathematically proven, was that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was simply not sufficient to cause the necessary heat energy to be retained.

The whole thing was thrown out by a few posters who insisted that the planar projection of a sphere was not a circle. Nothing about mistakes in assumptions, not a word about validity of principles, just an argument over a subject that every high-school kid should know. Over and over, I tried to explain simple 3D geometry, to no avail. It was literally like explaining quantum mechanics to an earthworm.

You're wasting your time; either he can't comprehend it, or he doesn't want to admit comprehending it. In either case, it's just as intelligent a debate as "There is a God!"; "No, there isn't!"; "Is so!"; "Is not!"; "Prove it!"; "You prove it!" ; "No, you prove it!"

Just useless lulz... attempts to beat the other guy in a debate no matter the cost, damn the truth, damn the evidence; he wants to WIN!

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

If you cannot debunk the paper


If you cannot explain the paper then it is taken that you don't understand it



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler


You're wasting your time; either he can't comprehend it, or he doesn't want to admit comprehending it.



Indeed. You would have thought he would take the time to understand the paper before posting it and inviting question



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy


If you cannot explain the paper then it is taken that you don't understand it

The paper, by definition, is self-explanatory if one is capable of understanding it. If one is not capable of understanding it, one cannot gain such understanding by someone changing the words. That leap would require comprehension and education.

That's what a scientific paper is: a full disclosure of research. Not a jigsaw puzzle where one might twist the pieces around to change how it looks, hammering them into place where they don't exactly fit like a spoiled child who doesn't understand the challenge.

The very fact that you continued for two pages to ask what the paper said is an indication that you either do not possess the ability to comprehend it, or you are purposely being obtuse. I make no conclusion as to which is true.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Now wait a minute redneck, the premise of this entire thread is that Trump had asked (stupidly) where is the global warming based on a weather event - and anyone who knows an iota about climatology versus meteorology knows that weather events and climate data rarely coincide - that being the vicious cold targeting the east coast and earlier the upper Midwest, West and the South. The OP then, in his first line asked an entire community of people (some of which have a modicum of intellect) "How can it be said any better?"... I'll friggin tell ya how, with evidence and scientific research...not some ignorant off-the-cuff remark backed up by some of his most atrocious followers simply because he made such a ridiculous claim.

If the OP wants to foster a shred of credibility, then let him prove he knows what the hell he is talking about first, before stating an opinion should NOW be conflated with factual data.


edit on 4-1-2018 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

While what you say is true enough, the question being asked was for him to explain something that he already explained by referring to the conclusion in the paper he linked to, specifically that there is no causal correlation between historical sea level changes and artificial carbon dioxide generation. While correlation may not imply causation, causation does imply correlation and that paper argues against any such correlation.

The OP has stated this many times, in different ways, and asked for a response that challenged the results of the paper. In every case he was asked to again repeat the same answer. Had mrthumpy challenged the source of the data, then that would be a debate. Had he challenged the conclusion based on assumptions, that would be a debate. Had he responded with anything other than a demand to answer a question that had already been answered, I would not have responded. But he didn't.

While it is incumbent upon the presenter to show, upon a challenge, that he understands the data presented, it is also incumbent upon the dissenter to offer a reason why the conclusions are not valid. As inconvenient a truth as it may be (yes, shameless reference to you-know-who), that sword cuts both ways.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't necessarily disagree with you there, however, the original premise is based upon an opinion, and not scientific research...a tweet, as erroneous as it is.

You already know how I feel about anthropogenic based warming, and the real volume I believe it to be (which isn't nearly enough to be as relevant as is claimed), yet throwing up a paper that someone else has researched doesn't prove a thing with respect to the opinion as an original premise.


I feel that if we're going to have an actual discussion on the matter, then showing one has at least a basic aptitude for what they are claiming should almost be requisite, otherwise toss this baby in the
bin hahaha (if only there was one)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

All warming is global and all cooling is regional.

Record high temperatures are indicative of a warming planet and record low temperatures mean shut-up you Koch funded bigot.

Co2 has never had any provable impact on global temperatures.

The Vostok core show that even at its highest, CO2 was totally unable to maintain the peak temperatures that cause the rise in CO2.

President Trump is a heretic and riles particular hatred from the dogmatic reactionaries.

The climate obsessed really can’t imagine that the denialist scum are still permitted to speak, and here is a President making fun of them Imagine the outrage…..well witness the outrage of those small banal minds as they contort themselves to explain how warming equals colder, how data doesn’t count, how models count over all. And how a weather event is only climate when THEY say so.

As Eisenhower put it, when you’re President, “no one can tell you when to sit down”.

I expect Mr. Trump goes out of his way to throw politically incorrect fish to the trained seals of the Twitteratti, just to enjoy the completely predictable squawks of outrage.
edit on 4-1-2018 by EvidenceNibbler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

The tweet, as all tweets, is indeed an opinion. but it is one that I, to some degree you, and many more people agree with in general. Not that the record cold wave is indicative of a lack of Global Warming, but rather that Global warming is a farce in the first place.

I wish I had a dollar (or better yet, a degree of temperature) for every time I have made a statement about suing Al Gore for breach of contract in a cold snap. That does not mean I am going to the courthouse and file a complaint tomorrow. While the public response to such a charge would be hilarious, the reality is that I could not prove my case and would simply be throwing away hefty legal fees to try and do so. In other words, it is a

JOKE


It is a joke because it is so outlandish, so unbelievable, so outside the realm of reality that it makes people laugh. That's what a joke is. Trump's tweet is so outlandish, so unbelievable, so outside the realm of reality that it is, as well, a joke.

But even a joke can have serious undertones, just like my joke about suing Al Gore has the undertone that he lied when he first became the (un)official spokesman for Global Warming. Trump's undertone is that Global Warming is a farce, just as I and so many others believe. The outlandish reasoning stated is a bit of humor.

I know and accept that we have become accustomed to the deadly serious, overly dramatic tone of politics as usual, and I also accept that Trump is not what we as a society expect from our Head Executive. But then again, maybe we should expect it. The President, no matter how powerful his position, no matter how weighty his decisions, is at the core as human as everyone else. Why should it matter that he has a sense of humor, and the ability to weave it into 140-character comments on current events? We all do it. Why should it be OK for us but not OK for our leader?

I wanted someone more human, someone that would be able to crack a smile and make a joke from time to time. Lord knows, it has been so long since making a joke was not tinged with concern that part of it could be taken as politically incorrect by someone who overheard it. Laughter is a good thing; continual seriousness is a soul-killer. I want a leader with a soul, and if that means some of his jokes fall flat, well, at least I know he's human.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Donald Trump telling some jokes...


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump roasted his rival Hillary Clinton during the Alfred E. Smith charity dinner. Trump joked about the "nasty woman" comment he made during the debate, Clinton's experience, Wikileaks and emails. Trump was booed and heckled by the audience during his speech.




posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

You are very good at baiting people.

Some would say you are a Master Baiter.

Sorry, as THeRedneck so eloquently pointed out, it's best not to play your game.

This isn't the mudpit, this is for honest debate, not childish games.

I've already had one post here removed for not respecting the rules, I'll just ignore you now.


Honest debate? I've been trying to get you to discuss the paper you posted as evidence but you're either unwilling or unable




top topics



 
74
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join