Is Climate Change Possible Redux

[Daylight63]

Oh course there's evidence for it that's why the DOJ is suing VA. Stop being an idiot

So why don't you support spending millions upon millions of dollars to fix climate change which has a LOT more evidence for it?

I'm trying to understand if the MAGA movement has the ability to hold a self-consistent set of beliefs.

 

[Yakuda]

I'm not advocating any specific changes. You can believe that climate change is real and not believe in taking ridiculous, and most likely irrelevant, changes.

Youre advocating that we do something but you have no clue if or how much it will help. Sorry but that's not a very well thought out approach

 

[Yakuda]

So why don't you support spending millions upon millions of dollars to fix climate change which has a LOT more evidence for it?

I'm trying to understand if the MAGA movement has the ability to hold a self-consistent set of beliefs.

What evidence? You just said you have no clue what effect any of the changes will have.

I know you leftist morons don't.

 

[Daylight63]

Youre advocating that we do something but you have no clue if or how much it will help. Sorry but that's not a very well thought out approach

It will help. We know this. The ability to put a hard % number on it doesn't mean it can't be addressed and shouldn't be.

Voter ID fraud has less evidence for it and you are willing to expend millions of tax payer dollars to fix it.

I guess I'm not seeing the difference in the big picture.

It also seems to be internally inconsistent on the MAGA side.

 

[Daylight63]

What evidence?

There's about a couple billion pages of data that support the concept. It's pretty easy to find and I simply don't have the 60 years of writing necessary to summarize it for you here.

I would recommend reading some basic literature on earth, atmospheric and oceanic sciences. It will lay it out pretty well for you.

You just said you have no clue what effect any of the changes will have.

So? That doesn't matter. Something can be real and we don't necessarily know if we are able to fix it. If my car breaks down I couldn't fix the thing, but I know I can't drive it.

I know you leftist morons don't.

I understand the point of JPP is to simply insult each other. If you can't actually address the point I can't really help you much more.

 

[ZenMode]

Sorry I engaged you. I didn't realize you weren't a serious poster on this subject.

Youre advocating that we do something but you have no clue if or how much it will help. Sorry but that's not a very well thought out approach

What have I advocated?

 

[Yakuda]

It will help. We know this. The ability to put a hard % number on it doesn't mean it can't be addressed and shouldn't be.

Voter ID fraud has less evidence for it and you are willing to expend millions of tax payer dollars to fix it.

I guess I'm not seeing the difference in the big picture.

It also seems to be internally inconsistent on the MAGA side.

Well to "address"something without knowing what effect it might have seems irresponsible.

I will try only once more to explain this to you. If no one is required to prove who they are when they vote then you have a system that is easily abused and without detection. Why would any rational person argue against voters proving their identity unless they wanted to cheat.

 

[Yakuda]

What have I advocated?

Go back and look who that question was directed at.

 

[ZenMode]

There is no such thing as any long term weather, anywhere. I notice that you made a long post that specifically AVOIDS a simple, straightforward and unambiguous definition of the global climate ... that doesn't violate physics, math or logic right out of the starting gate. Please go ahead and do that, and once you express this unambiguous definition, tell me what the global climate is, e.g. "freezing hot", "humidly arid", "foggy clear", etc ... What is the global climate?


Nope. The climate is whatever the climate is at this very moment. If I go Phoenix, Arizona in the middle of July, and for some freak reason, I catch the first few days of an Arctic cold wave, the climate is Arctic freeze.

So, no, your premise of "long term" anything is totally bunk and is not a component of any climate.


No geographic location has any control over, nor is bound by, anyone's expectations. The climate of a place you and I might be visiting won't somehow be confused as to what to be just because you and I have differing expectations.

A climate is completely independent of any and all expectations.


You have not defined any characteristics of "climate". Make sure to list every single one in your definition of the global climate.


"We" don't see anything. What I see is that your problem seems to be conflating an environment with a climate. You should learn what those two separate words mean.


Aaaaah, so any change whatsoever is Climate Change. Got it. When everything is Climate Change then nothing is Climate Change.

Your argument is dismissed.


Sure it is. You just don't know in what way.


You are introducing a "system" that you have not defined. I have no idea about what you are talking.


Nope. Learn what heat is.



... because nobody knows what it is to any usable accuracy.


That's what warmizombies do, because on the one hand, they have to claim that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature is increasing, but they can't admit to not knowing the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to any usable accuracy because then they would be rightfully asked "Well then how do you know it's increasing?"

So, they fabricate temperature charts that they label as "anomalies" and pretend that the data points are offsets of some "norm/baseline" ... that they don't know! It just as absurd.


You can't show the change of something you can't measure. Your gullibility has been leveraged and yoiu have been duped.


There is no science "Climate Science" any more than there is a science "Christian Science." They are both WACKY religions and their congregations are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent.


I'll let you drone on, but you need to pinpoint exactly where temperature increases, because that implies there is suddenly more energy than there was previously. You need to account for that increase in energy.


Up to this point, we are still talking about the exact same quantity of energy, which means that the average global equilibrium temperature is the same; the energy is simply redistributed.


False. All matter absorbs infrared.



What is the purpose of creating a class "greenhouse gas"? Does it have some magical superpower to create energy out of nothing?



In fact it is exactly equal. The earth is in equilibrium.



Nope. Your argument is discarded until you fix this error.

By the way, how long are you claiming this silly "delay" lasts? Does greenhouse gas supposedly have a timer?


This is stupid. Good luck finding an actual scientist who won't laugh at this.


What do you mean by "warming"? The word is used to mean many things, and you seemingly refuse to define your terms. That should be your first clue that you have a religion on your hands.

What do you mean by the "surface"? Are you talking about the bottom of the atmosphere? Are you talking about the top of the ocean? Neither of those are the "surface" in black body science.


You haven't detailed any impact and more importantly, you haven't pinpointed when and where the temperature supposedly increases.


There are no Climate scientists. There are only Climate preachers.


Basically everything you have written thus far is totally wrong, to the point of being absurd.


What was the "before" speed of the release of the energy and what was the "after" speed?


I do. But the speed of light through any medium is the speed of light through that medium. You are claiming that greenhouse gas somehow slows light escaping into space, i.e. whereas it was previously escaping at the speed of light through the earth's atmosphere, it is supposedly slowed ... to something below the speed of light through the earth's atmosphere. How much are you claiming the light is "slowed"?


I'm glad to see that you at least understand some elements of refraction, but you have fallen far short of adequately supporting your religious doctrine.

@Daylight63 He doesn't want to discuss/debate honestly. He doesn't know anything. His game is that he repeats things that aren't true as though they are true and when you question him on it, he'll avoid the question indefinitely. He won't ever define climate, but no matter how you define it, it's wrong. He parses entire thoughts into individual sentences or fragments, responds to those, because it allows him to avoid the larger point.... which he can't address honestly because it would force him to face things that his far-right politics don't want to believe.

 

[Daylight63]

@Daylight63 He doesn't want to discuss/debate honestly. He doesn't know anything. His game is that he repeats things that aren't true as though they are true and when you question him on it, he'll avoid the question indefinitely. He won't ever define climate, but no matter how you define it, it's wrong. He parses entire thoughts into individual sentences or fragments, responds to those, because it allows him to avoid the larger point.... which he can't address honestly because it would force him to face things that his far-right politics don't want to believe.

Thanks for the heads up. It seems to track.

Guess it takes all kinds and not everyone is entertained by the same thing.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. The climate is whatever the climate is at this very moment. If I go Phoenix, Arizona in the middle of July, and for some freak reason, I catch the first few days of an Arctic cold wave, the climate is Arctic freeze.

Tell me you don't know the difference between weather and climate without telling me you don't know the difference between weather and climate.

Cli·mate
/ˈklīmət/
noun
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

Weath·er
/ˈweT͟Hər/
noun
the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc

Ok, now you throw out something really retarded to invalidate widely recognized and accepted definitions of those two words.

 

[Daylight63]

Well to "address"something without knowing what effect it might have seems irresponsible.

So does fixing a problem for which there is scant evidence. But here we are.

I will try only once more to explain this to you. If no one is required to prove who they are when they vote then you have a system that is easily abused and without detection.

If only it were that simple. Voter ID on the face of it sounds like a no-brainer. I'll agree with that 100%. But the reality is a bit more nuanced. Getting an ID is not something everyone can do easily. Some people lack all their paperwork, others don't have any means to get to the DMV which may be a couple counties over, still others can't get time off the 3 or 4 jobs they have to work to get to the DMV. And all of that stuff costs money.

On the government's side it means providing MANY more places to get such an ID (something that has NOT been happening as various DMV's are being closed, mostly across the South) and ensuring that the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT WE SHARE is protected and easily available to ALL Americans regardless of their situation.

So we KNOW with 100% certainty there will be Americans who can't vote. Not because they aren't Americans but because they are poor and disadvantaged.

I'm ALL FOR helping them get an ID. I'd be more than happy with Voter ID. But I also realize it will cost millions upon millions of dollars to do it.

So if you want to fix a problem that barely is even detectable but ignore one that is screaming in our faces, that's clearly a difference between us.

 

[Yakuda]

So does fixing a problem for which there is scant evidence. But here we are.



If only it were that simple. Voter ID on the face of it sounds like a no-brainer. I'll agree with that 100%. But the reality is a bit more nuanced. Getting an ID is not something everyone can do easily. Some people lack all their paperwork, others don't have any means to get to the DMV which may be a couple counties over, still others can't get time off the 3 or 4 jobs they have to work to get to the DMV. And all of that stuff costs money.

On the government's side it means providing MANY more places to get such an ID (something that has NOT been happening as various DMV's are being closed, mostly across the South) and ensuring that the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT WE SHARE is protected and easily available to ALL Americans regardless of their situation.

So we KNOW with 100% certainty there will be Americans who can't vote. Not because they aren't Americans but because they are poor and disadvantaged.

I'm ALL FOR helping them get an ID. I'd be more than happy with Voter ID. But I also realize it will cost millions upon millions of dollars to do it.

So if you want to fix a problem that barely is even detectable but ignore one that is screaming in our faces, that's clearly a difference between us.

You're assuming anything you suggest would actually fix the problem even though you have no clue what effect anything you suggest would have on the problem.

All I'm suggesting is we make people prove who they are with an ID when they vote just like they have to do when they withdraw money for a bank.

No wonder you're leftist

 

[ZenMode]

Well to "address"something without knowing what effect it might have seems irresponsible.

I will try only once more to explain this to you. If no one is required to prove who they are when they vote then you have a system that is easily abused and without detection. Why would any rational person argue against voters proving their identity unless they wanted to cheat.

There's a difference between saying voter ID is a good idea, which it is, and saying that a system is easily abused without it or is currently being abused to a degree that matters. In order to abuse a system, i.e. vote in somebody else's name, you'd have to know that they aren't going to vote. If you vote in somebody else's name, and then they go to vote in their name, it will show they already voted. If this were happening on any meaningful scale, we would know about it.

There's also the fact that voter fraud is serious and very, very few people are willing to risk punishment for a small number of votes that there's a 99.9% chance won't change anything.

 

[Daylight63]

You're assuming anything you suggest would actually fix the problem even though you have no clue what effect

Gotta stop you there before you go further in mischaracterizing what I said. I said I don't know how much of a change we can effect. That will depend on how much we do and what we do.

All I'm suggesting is we make people prove who they are with an ID when they vote just like they have to do when they withdraw money for a bank.

HOpefully you've read my post about the issues involved with ensuring all Americans can get easy access to an ID.

No wonder you're leftist

Because I'm asking you to explain why your position is internally consistent? You may be right. We do tend to like to ask those questions.

 

[Yakuda]

There's a difference between saying voter ID is a good idea, which it is, and saying that a system is easily abused without it or is currently being abused to a degree that matters. In order to abuse a system, i.e. vote in somebody else's name, you'd have to know that they aren't going to vote. If you vote in somebody else's name, and then they go to vote in their name, it will show they already voted. If this were happening on any meaningful scale, we would know about it.

There's also the fact that voter fraud is serious and very, very few people are willing to risk punishment for a small number of votes.

So how much voter fraud is acceptable to you? Besides that what's the problem with expecting people to prove who they are when they vote just like they have to do to when they withdraw money from the bank?

 

[ZenMode]

So how much voter fraud is acceptable to you? Besides that what's the problem with expecting people to prove who they are when they vote just like they have to do to when they withdraw money from the bank?

None is acceptable. Again, I have no issue with requiring ID. My state requires it, but a lack of requiring ID to vote doesn't mean there's mass voter fraud happening or will ever happen.

 

[Yakuda]

Gotta stop you there before you go further in mischaracterizing what I said. I said I don't know how much of a change we can effect. That will depend on how much we do and what we do.


HOpefully you've read my post about the issues involved with ensuring all Americans can get easy access to an ID.



Because I'm asking you to explain why your position is internally consistent? You may be right. We do tend to like to ask those questions.

Right but you want to try things even though you have no idea if what you suggest will help or at all. That's not good.practice in fact it's asinine.

Ive heard this idiotic claim that people can't get IDs. You're an imbecile if you think that's a major problem.

No because you say shit and then from try to walk away from it. It's simple prove who you are when you vote just like you do whenever you withdraw money from the bank. Very consistent. Maybe that's why you seem to be struggling.

 

[Yakuda]

None is acceptable. Again, I have no issue with requiring ID. My state requires it, but a lack of requiring ID to vote doesn't mean there's mass voter fraud happening or will ever happen.

First I never claimed theere was fraud or that if there was it was massive. You need to stop responding to the voices in your head. Right now 23 states you can vote without a photo ID.

 

[Daylight63]

Right but you want to try things even though you have no idea if what you suggest will help or at all.

Why are you constantly misrepresenting what I said?

That's not good.practice in fact it's asinine.

It would be if that is what I said.

Ive heard this idiotic claim that people can't get IDs. You're an imbecile if you think that's a major problem.

I am interested in your point-by-point rebuttal. Oh wait, you didn't give one.

No because you say shit and then from try to walk away from it. It's simple prove who you are when you vote just like you do whenever you withdraw money from the bank. Very consistent. Maybe that's why you seem to be struggling.

Sorry, thought you were serious for a moment. Just more of the same ol' trashtalk bullshit that is JPP.

Sigh.