Are we sure global warming is bad?

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:39 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:20 am

Nobody can change the laws of nature.
True. Now connect the dots.

.................................................................................Ha,ha: as if.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11754
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:02 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:39 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:20 am

Nobody can change the laws of nature.
True. Now connect the dots.

.................................................................................Ha,ha: as if.
No one ever knows what you mean.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:10 pm

Well then: connect THOSE dots. Ha, ha.........but I dither in disdain.

Ahem: explain what you posted as to its relevance to the stimulus that provoked it.

........................................I know: still no help.

Lump it.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 12023
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by OlegTheBatty » Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:17 pm

MikeN wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:52 am
Oleg is correct. His proof was excellent.
My expectation was that landrew is the only one who wouldn't get it.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11754
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:25 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:17 pm
MikeN wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:52 am
Oleg is correct. His proof was excellent.
My expectation was that landrew is the only one who wouldn't get it.
Please explain to me how the forces of the greenhouse effect and the Melankovitch cycle don't antagonize each other.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 12023
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by OlegTheBatty » Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:33 pm

They have barbecues together. They drink beer together. QED.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11754
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:34 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:33 pm
They have barbecues together. They drink beer together. QED.
That's what I thought.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:20 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:25 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:17 pm
MikeN wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:52 am
Oleg is correct. His proof was excellent.
My expectation was that landrew is the only one who wouldn't get it.
Please explain to me how the forces of the greenhouse effect and the Melankovitch cycle don't antagonize each other.
Each has an input value with its corresponding effect. To be antagonistic or in concert is totally dependent on what values you assume.

You realhy are this dull..................?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 12023
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by OlegTheBatty » Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:57 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:20 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:25 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:17 pm
MikeN wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:52 am
Oleg is correct. His proof was excellent.
My expectation was that landrew is the only one who wouldn't get it.
Please explain to me how the forces of the greenhouse effect and the Melankovitch cycle don't antagonize each other.
Each has an input value with its corresponding effect. To be antagonistic or in concert is totally dependent on what values you assume.

You realhy are this dull..................?
:scratch: What does the bolded bit mean? Temperatures, insolation, orbital positions, solar output are all measured, not assumed.

OK. Milankovitch Cycles.

There is not one cycle, there are several cycles with different periods. Obliquity, precession, axial tilt, orbital eccentricity have several cycles, including the tilt of the orbit to the plane of the ecliptic. Each of the cycles viewed separately has its own period, and its own effect on insolation in total, and in a particular hemisphere during a particular season (important because the northern hemisphere is dominated by land which heats up more than the water dominated south).

Of course, they don't act separately. They add or subtract depending on where they are in their own cycles.

At present, orbital eccentricity is near minimum and decreasing, obliquity is at the midpoint and increasing (precession is near midpoint and about neutral). Together, they contribute to a small cooling influence which, referencing the Imbrie paper* I cited above, is not sufficient to trigger an ice age for another 50,000 years.

AGW has already overwhelmed the small cooling effect of Milankovitch cycles.

*The Imbrie study is still considered the gold standard, and will be until someone produces a better analysis. That someone will not be landrew.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11754
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:00 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:20 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:25 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:17 pm
MikeN wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:52 am
Oleg is correct. His proof was excellent.
My expectation was that landrew is the only one who wouldn't get it.
Please explain to me how the forces of the greenhouse effect and the Melankovitch cycle don't antagonize each other.
Each has an input value with its corresponding effect. To be antagonistic or in concert is totally dependent on what values you assume.

You realhy are this dull..................?
They can never be in concert. The greenhouse effect causes the earth to warm, while the Milankovitch causes the earth to cool, at least in the current part of the cycle. What's dull about that?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 12023
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by OlegTheBatty » Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:09 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:00 pm

They can never be in concert. The greenhouse effect causes the earth to warm, while the Milankovitch causes the earth to cool, at least in the current part of the cycle. What's dull about that?
What's dull about it is that the Milankovitch is in a part of its cooling phase that is too small to overcome 400+ PPM CO2. Saying they can never be in concert is silly.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11754
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:52 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:09 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:00 pm

They can never be in concert. The greenhouse effect causes the earth to warm, while the Milankovitch causes the earth to cool, at least in the current part of the cycle. What's dull about that?
What's dull about it is that the Milankovitch is in a part of its cooling phase that is too small to overcome 400+ PPM CO2. Saying they can never be in concert is silly.
Simple assertions don't stand as fact. Nobody knows whether the Milankovitch cycle will overtake global warming or not. That's the point you never seem to get.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 12023
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by OlegTheBatty » Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:15 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:52 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:09 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:00 pm

They can never be in concert. The greenhouse effect causes the earth to warm, while the Milankovitch causes the earth to cool, at least in the current part of the cycle. What's dull about that?
What's dull about it is that the Milankovitch is in a part of its cooling phase that is too small to overcome 400+ PPM CO2. Saying they can never be in concert is silly.
Simple assertions don't stand as fact. Nobody knows whether the Milankovitch cycle will overtake global warming or not. That's the point you never seem to get.
Nonsense. The planet is warming. Ergo, climate forcers of the warming kind are beating climate forcers of the cooling kind.

Milankovitch influences are cyclical over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousand of years. They change very slowly by human standards. Sure, in 100,000 years, Milankovitch cycles may overtake warming forcers, depending on how much of the latter there are.

I don't think we can wait 100,000 years to 'make sure we're doing the right thing'.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:35 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:52 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:09 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:00 pm

They can never be in concert. The greenhouse effect causes the earth to warm, while the Milankovitch causes the earth to cool, at least in the current part of the cycle. What's dull about that?
What's dull about it is that the Milankovitch is in a part of its cooling phase that is too small to overcome 400+ PPM CO2. Saying they can never be in concert is silly.
Simple assertions don't stand as fact. Nobody knows whether the Milankovitch cycle will overtake global warming or not. That's the point you never seem to get.
Claiming an absence of evidence is still a claim.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:43 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:57 pm
What does the bolded bit mean? Temperatures, insolation, orbital positions, solar output are all measured, not assumed.
More closely I mean "at what point of the MCycle are you assuming. M Cycle as those who can understand what they read, or remember it accurately from when they did read it acts to warm or cool the Earth because of its elliptical path.

Everyone with a chart knows the input and effect of M Cycles. Its only a mystery to lamedude, arguing from ignorance.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11754
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:26 pm

Lausten wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:35 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:52 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:09 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:00 pm

They can never be in concert. The greenhouse effect causes the earth to warm, while the Milankovitch causes the earth to cool, at least in the current part of the cycle. What's dull about that?
What's dull about it is that the Milankovitch is in a part of its cooling phase that is too small to overcome 400+ PPM CO2. Saying they can never be in concert is silly.
Simple assertions don't stand as fact. Nobody knows whether the Milankovitch cycle will overtake global warming or not. That's the point you never seem to get.
Claiming an absence of evidence is still a claim.
No, it's a fallacy. Absence of evidence is no basis for a claim.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:19 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:26 pm
No, it's a fallacy. Absence of evidence is no basis for a claim.
Stop confusing/conflating the regueur of formal logical proof with common sense and functionality. aka quite often: pragmatism.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11754
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:24 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:19 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:26 pm
No, it's a fallacy. Absence of evidence is no basis for a claim.
Stop confusing/conflating the regueur of formal logical proof with common sense and functionality. aka quite often: pragmatism.
Nonsense.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13364
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:37 pm

Sadly, landrew is not on the right path in this argument. The empirical data of that past few centuries clearly shows strong warming. The Milankovich cycle would generate slow cooling. So it is clear that greenhouse gas driven global warming is the dominant factor.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11754
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:37 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:37 pm
Sadly, landrew is not on the right path in this argument. The empirical data of that past few centuries clearly shows strong warming. The Milankovich cycle would generate slow cooling. So it is clear that greenhouse gas driven global warming is the dominant factor.
You are using your lack of research and understanding to construct a straw man argument. The earth is due for another ice age, based on the Milankovitch cycle which has caused the ice ages of the past. Some scientists have asserted that the greenhouse effect has canceled the onset of the next ice age but there's no scientific basis for anything other than a guess.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13364
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:48 am

Landrew

If the Milankovich cycle were to generate another glaciation period, it would need to be very drastic. Previously, a global average cooling of a few degrees took thousands of years. Right now, the warming rate is many times that. There is only a very low probability that the cooling might equal or exceed the warming.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11754
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:56 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:48 am
Landrew

If the Milankovich cycle were to generate another glaciation period, it would need to be very drastic. Previously, a global average cooling of a few degrees took thousands of years. Right now, the warming rate is many times that. There is only a very low probability that the cooling might equal or exceed the warming.
There's no degree of possible certainty in those declarations. The assumption is that since the earth is currently warming, the Milankovitch cycle is being overwhelmed. The assumption is faulty because we have no idea how quickly the onset of an ice age will occur. I am friends with scientists who have shown me unfossilized magnolia leaves retrieved out of glacial ice near the North Pole, which suggests that the ice age may have may occurred very quickly.

I make no claims one way or the other, but it's certain that no one else can make such claims based on science.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13364
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:33 am

That may be so, landrew, but most authorities believe the cooling took much longer. There is also no question that, over the last several hundred years, the world has been warming. So for that time, warming is stronger than cooling. It seems very, very unlikely that cooling could overwhelm the warming any time soon.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:27 am

Gee: I met this guy who said: "Whatever the frick stupid thing I insert here."

The fallacy of: Made Up People saying Made Up Things.'
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

MikeN
Regular Poster
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:36 am

Oleg, I'm not sure if bobbo got it either. I still think bobbo's own explanation wins out too, but I haven't followed Milankovitch much.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:10 am

Resolve: "bobbo may not have gotten it" with "bobbo's explanation wins".

Dictionary Skills (close corollary Google It): you don't follow M Cycle. You either read what it is or you don't. Its too easy not to understand. Its part of the variables affecting the Input Value of Global Temperature.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:57 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:26 pm
Lausten wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:35 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:52 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:09 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:00 pm

They can never be in concert. The greenhouse effect causes the earth to warm, while the Milankovitch causes the earth to cool, at least in the current part of the cycle. What's dull about that?
What's dull about it is that the Milankovitch is in a part of its cooling phase that is too small to overcome 400+ PPM CO2. Saying they can never be in concert is silly.
Simple assertions don't stand as fact. Nobody knows whether the Milankovitch cycle will overtake global warming or not. That's the point you never seem to get.
Claiming an absence of evidence is still a claim.
No, it's a fallacy. Absence of evidence is no basis for a claim.
You are the one who is claiming there is an absence of evidence landrew. You've been beating this "we can't know" drum for 3 pages now. I didn't say it was a good basis for an argument, I just said it's a claim. You are claiming we don't have enough evidence to determine the interaction of the two cycles.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11754
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:59 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:33 am
That may be so, landrew, but most authorities believe the cooling took much longer. There is also no question that, over the last several hundred years, the world has been warming. So for that time, warming is stronger than cooling. It seems very, very unlikely that cooling could overwhelm the warming any time soon.
I'm aware of what "many people believe," but that was never the point. I made no claims other than the simple fact that there's no scientific basis to rule out the possibility that the Milankovitch cycle may eventually cancel out the warming from the greenhouse effect.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:04 pm

Define eventually.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11754
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:07 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:04 pm
Define eventually.
Define obfuscate.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:23 pm

Generally: not answering relevant direct questions...........and thinking its clever.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:31 pm

I think the MCycle will win and prevail over AGW after the current human caused warming event takes its course wiping out human domination/direction of climate change on Earth causing climate conditions to default to 100% natural inputs and responses. IIRC, we are just entering a cooling part of the Mcycle so that leaves many thousands of years for MCycle to WIN, thereby returning to some level of glaciation.

You know: eventually.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11754
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:32 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:31 pm
I think the MCycle will win and prevail over AGW after the current human caused warming event takes its course wiping out human domination/direction of climate change on Earth causing climate conditions to default to 100% natural inputs and responses. IIRC, we are just entering a cooling part of the Mcycle so that leaves many thousands of years for MCycle to WIN, thereby returning to some level of glaciation.

You know: eventually.
You think, I think, everybody thinks, but nobody knows for sure.
That's the point.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:25 pm

What the point of making an observation that has no application?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11754
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:29 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:25 pm
What the point of making an observation that has no application?
Just for fun.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:38 pm

Well...........there's your obfuscation..............if not a defense mechanism.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

MikeN
Regular Poster
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:58 pm

>Resolve: "bobbo may not have gotten it" with "bobbo's explanation wins".

I suspected your explanation does not match 'it'. More evidence that you didn't get 'it'. It's of no consequence, an inside joke at this point. Carry on arguing Milankovitch.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:57 am

Nope, makes no sense.......consistent with YOU changing horses midstream. While I can imagine subjects being discussed with certain issues not recognized and a correct determination made with that absence, it is rare and easily pointed out. Your declination to do so indicates my first guess. btw: I LOVE seeing things I miss, why not help a bloke out? Second thing I LOVE: admitting I'm wrong. "...♫.......What is it?........"
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

MikeN
Regular Poster
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:01 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:57 am
btw: I LOVE seeing things I miss, why not help a bloke out? Second thing I LOVE: admitting I'm wrong. "...♫.......What is it?........"
That would require cluing landrew in. Note I said bobbo's explanation wins TOO. Go back to the beginning and read carefully, particularly your highlights.
Notice I refer to Oleg's proof.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19769
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:17 pm

Ok Mike: "Too" applies in two meanings. One, that is contextually correct is that bobbo missed some issue but still came up with a good conclusion. Two: is what you are now claiming that lamedude has to be included. That is BS. "If" lamedude's post is part of this quagmire, then you simply wrote inaccurately. Simple to do with juggling ideas. Simple to explain "exactly" how it happened.

..........unless you function like lamedude and never admit to anything other than your own superiority.

"...♫.......What is it?........" (Old Hip-Hop song, not my taste but it has the key question)
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?