Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,986
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Nixon was a Quaker.
-
Features
New report on climate change released today
- Thread starter southernhybrid
- Start date
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
That activists and the media over-hype the consequences of global warming has nothing to do with the quality of the science behind it. You have attacked the science behind man-made climate change. You can't hide that behind the media's, Al Gore's or another activist's excesses. Remember the rather specious arguments you made that CO2 is heavier than air or that it is incapable of causing warming because it is such a small part of the atmosphere and its specific heat is too low?
And more severe and stronger storms, the melting of the polar ice, the melting of the glaciers on Greenland and in the mountains of the world and the increase in the ice on Antarctic glaciers due to the greater snowfall produced by the warming of the seas around it are all explained by the science.
Yes, the activists and the media are guilty of over-hyping the science. Many have jumped on the bandwagon to push their pet projects like Green energy or high-speed trains. But attacking the science that lies under the hype is so transparently bogus that it helps them to push their agendas. Opposing the hype lets them dismiss the rational voices as one of you in our polarized political environment.
Time for my shower.
starwater
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,375
- Location
- Rocky Mountains
- Basic Beliefs
- Moving to the 4th Dimension
Thanks SimpleDon. Angelo has never understood what science is or what the scientific process is. he rather hide behind whataboutism, and finding obscure quotes that are easily disputed. He rather put his head in the sand and do nothing because "the earth has always changed so why should we" as any easy way out denial-ism.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
The last time the Globe Warmed
[YOUTUBE][YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLBoErAhz4&t=586s[/YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]
Nice quick discussion of today's warming and CO2 emissions compared to Earth's thermal maximum millions of years ago. We are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at five times the rate it was released that caused that thermal maximum.
A decent video.
[YOUTUBE][YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLBoErAhz4&t=586s[/YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]
Nice quick discussion of today's warming and CO2 emissions compared to Earth's thermal maximum millions of years ago. We are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at five times the rate it was released that caused that thermal maximum.
A decent video.
DBT
Contributor
You seem to have switched emphasis. Your original claim being; ''there once existed a scientific consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it!''
Posting shit over and over doesn't make it not shit. Note how your list of scientists includes almost nobody actually qualified to make a judgment about our climate.
I started to read one of his books. I didn't get very far, though--within a few pages he was talking about some sort of toxic contamination in fish. He then questioned how the data was arrived at--IIRC 9 fish had been tested. He said this meant that the reported number was 9 times as big as it should be.
Since the reported number was in parts per million(?) it doesn't matter how many fish were tested. This left me with the conclusion that he was either an idiot with no understanding of what he was talking about (and thus not worth reading), or it was a propaganda piece (and, again, not worth reading.)
fast
Contributor
I once tested the ocean for the presence of sharks. I took a glass and scooped up some water. Data observation #1: no shark present. But, this was a scientific test. I repeated the test many times. Different times, different areas, different bodies of water. Still, no shark, not even one. Still dismayed by my findings, as I’ve heard they exist, I had others perform the test. Always the same result.
A reasonable conclusion (I thought) was there were no sharks—in the oceans, the lakes, the ponds, the rivers, streams—or even in bathtubs! Tried there too!
Then some asshole came along and said my sample size was flawed. So, back to the drawing board I went. I needed to do more testing, more samples! I grabbed some spoons and went to every body of water I could find. Still, nothing! But, I refused to think it was a hoax. I truly believed there were sharks.
It wasn’t until I heard about this fellow looking to get a loan at what was being referenced as an unscrupulous place of business. With great caution, I scoped out the joint. I looked. I saw. Biggest loan shark I ever did see!
Now, tasked with uncovering the truth for climate change, I’m using my critical thinking skills and knowledge of the scientific process to see if this is real or a hoax. Stay tuned. Seeing as there’s a lot of interest in this, I will give you all a task that will help us all out so we can finally put this issue to rest. Right now, it’s a bit too hot out. I’m thinking it’s not a pressing issue—seeing as the discussion has become quite lengthy and time consuming.
A reasonable conclusion (I thought) was there were no sharks—in the oceans, the lakes, the ponds, the rivers, streams—or even in bathtubs! Tried there too!
Then some asshole came along and said my sample size was flawed. So, back to the drawing board I went. I needed to do more testing, more samples! I grabbed some spoons and went to every body of water I could find. Still, nothing! But, I refused to think it was a hoax. I truly believed there were sharks.
It wasn’t until I heard about this fellow looking to get a loan at what was being referenced as an unscrupulous place of business. With great caution, I scoped out the joint. I looked. I saw. Biggest loan shark I ever did see!
Now, tasked with uncovering the truth for climate change, I’m using my critical thinking skills and knowledge of the scientific process to see if this is real or a hoax. Stay tuned. Seeing as there’s a lot of interest in this, I will give you all a task that will help us all out so we can finally put this issue to rest. Right now, it’s a bit too hot out. I’m thinking it’s not a pressing issue—seeing as the discussion has become quite lengthy and time consuming.
Climate change caused by humans is a real thing. Even if it wasn't, pollution harming the environment is a real thing. Why not clamp down on emissions for the latter reason alone?
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!!
There is zero evidence of this. None. The chatter about "extreme weather" is absolute nonsense.
Yes, pollution should be reduced sensibly. We can all do a part in this.
Depends on what emissions you are referring to but sure, why not ?
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,742
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Sure. None at all. http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=evidence+for+anthropogenic+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
Nobody except you is talking about weather. Are you even aware that you are changing the subject? Or are you genuinely so ignorant of the subject that you don't know the difference between weather and climate?
fast
Contributor
Weather is to climate as a stock price is to a moving average. The actual occurances in nature we can measure are weather events. To use temperature as an example, it’s something we can measure. We can’t go outside and observe, measure, or feel an average (oh say, 10-year) temperature, but with a calculating tool, we can derive what the average is. The average in this case would be an instance of an aspect of our climate. The next day we can do another 10-year average and see how it has changed; that would be our climate change (it’s moving average).
It gets a lot more complicated, but that’s the gist.
It gets a lot more complicated, but that’s the gist.
angelo
Deleted
That's from 9 years ago. In the meantime Lomborg has become much more sceptical about the alarmism and the political solutions on the subject.
angelo
Deleted
Climate alarmists claim extreme weather patterns are caused by GW/CC/CD. So weather and climate are blood sisters!
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
Climate change skeptics seem to want the problem to be solved before they will acknowledge the problem. And they want this solution to not involve the government in any meaningful way because the government is evil, the libertarian mindset.
The climate change activists seem to believe the opposite. That evil capitalism is the problem and therefore can't solve the problem so it has to be done by the government, but the most obvious solution to the problem, nuclear power, can't be used.
This leads to the inevitable conclusion that while the right is afraid of science, the left is afraid of technology.
This is the polarized political arena that we are stuck with. But it is just in the US that this argument is so badly handled. Conservative political parties all over the world accept the science, not because it is politically expedient to do so but because the science is so conclusive. One of the very first politicians to accept the science and to sound the alarm in a speech to the UN, seventeen years before Al Gore made his movie, was Margaret Thatcher.
And the idea that capitalism can't solve this problem is absurd. This is what capitalism does the best, solve a problem in the most economical way possible. It is the way that so many of these types of problems have been solved over the years. The problem of air and water pollution causing disease and reducing lifespans, the problems with lead in paint and gasoline harming the intellectual development of our children, the problems with automobiles needlessly killing people in an accident, cigarette smoking causing lung cancer, the economic problem of a cartel setting the price of oil, CFCs harming the upper atmosphere, automobiles, appliances, homes, industrial plants, commercial buildings consuming too much energy, etc.
Science identifies the problem, the government sets a goal for solving it and capitalism takes over and solves it. But all three are needed. Without science, we don't know that we have a problem or we don't know what is causing the problem that we see. Without government action to ban, set limits or goals duly enforced the private sector can't act because it would be economic suicide for a single company to act on its own disadvantaging itself economically. Without science and the certainty of government action capitalism won't solve the problem.
The climate change activists seem to believe the opposite. That evil capitalism is the problem and therefore can't solve the problem so it has to be done by the government, but the most obvious solution to the problem, nuclear power, can't be used.
This leads to the inevitable conclusion that while the right is afraid of science, the left is afraid of technology.
This is the polarized political arena that we are stuck with. But it is just in the US that this argument is so badly handled. Conservative political parties all over the world accept the science, not because it is politically expedient to do so but because the science is so conclusive. One of the very first politicians to accept the science and to sound the alarm in a speech to the UN, seventeen years before Al Gore made his movie, was Margaret Thatcher.
And the idea that capitalism can't solve this problem is absurd. This is what capitalism does the best, solve a problem in the most economical way possible. It is the way that so many of these types of problems have been solved over the years. The problem of air and water pollution causing disease and reducing lifespans, the problems with lead in paint and gasoline harming the intellectual development of our children, the problems with automobiles needlessly killing people in an accident, cigarette smoking causing lung cancer, the economic problem of a cartel setting the price of oil, CFCs harming the upper atmosphere, automobiles, appliances, homes, industrial plants, commercial buildings consuming too much energy, etc.
Science identifies the problem, the government sets a goal for solving it and capitalism takes over and solves it. But all three are needed. Without science, we don't know that we have a problem or we don't know what is causing the problem that we see. Without government action to ban, set limits or goals duly enforced the private sector can't act because it would be economic suicide for a single company to act on its own disadvantaging itself economically. Without science and the certainty of government action capitalism won't solve the problem.
angelo
Deleted
Yet people living in the Western World's lifespans keep on increasing! Crops are feeding the ever increasing world's population despite the doom and gloom of doomsayers!
https://www.noaa.gov/news/june-2019-was-hottest-on-record-for-globe
Is this just weather or climate?
Is this just weather or climate?
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
Yes, exactly. The doomsayers are wrong that capitalism can't solve the problems that we face with climate change. Capitalism was the driving force behind the true® green revolution, that produced an average of four times the yield in grain production over a hundred years, that allowed us to feed our growing population. I was in China just after it started opening itself up to the rest of the world and I was told many times by the Chinese that what convinced them to open themselves to the world was the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines that increased the yields of the rice plant from 1.23 metric tons per hectare in 1961 to 3.59 metric tons per hectare in 2009. They were one of the first to gene splice to add Vitamin A to aid people's eyesight in Asia and Africa.
The doomsayers are wrong that solving the problem will bankrupt the economy, put us back in the dark ages that result from exorbitant electric power bills due to carbon pricing, dubbed the carbon tax by the naysayers, or cap and trade, a scheme to let Wall Street and the bankers claim a portion of the flow of money, undeservedly in my opinion. The primary way of reducing carbon emissions is energy conservation, which pays back in the future and carbon pricing offers an incentive to do it and provides a way to finance the improvements by selling the carbon credits.
The doomsayers are wrong that nuclear power is too dangerous to use to reduce coal burning, nuclear power is the safest way to generate power, coal-fired electrical generation puts more radiation into the atmosphere every year than all of the nuclear power plants have released in their history by orders of magnitude. The doomsayers have prevented the development of gen 4 nuclear power reactors that are intrinsically safe, that can burn their own waste and the waste accumulated by all of the fission reactors that have operated.
The doomsayers portray climate change as a left-wing plot against technology and industry and against capitalism itself. It isn't, the threat of climate change is real and it has to be dealt with. It has been admitted as a problem by Margaret Thatcher and Newt Gingrich in 2008, at least, his record since is spotty. Conservatives like Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio hide behind fretted ignorance, "I am not a scientist," seeking a free pass between sounding like an idiot and angering the self-confessed idiots in the Republican base of support.
Please read Conservatives and Climate Change in the journal National Affairs dated Summer 2015. National Affairs is considered to be a conservative journal, albeit, of the rarest kind, a responsible conservative journal that doesn't toe the party line. This is what I have been trying to get across to you here. Please read it and tell me if you find it in any way persuasive.
angelo
Deleted
Records are made to be broken. There's nothing new under the sun. If GW/CC/CD wasn't so politicised and was a real scientific problem, then like polio, TB and many other challenges and threats to humanity, science as it has done so for centuries will solve it without the destruction of our way of life. When renewable energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels in the future, the capitalist market will turn to it out of necessity and economic sense. Another way is mass birth control in the poorest nations in the world. Today there are over 200 million women in these countries unable to choose the number, timing and spacing of their children. Al these unplanned children will require resources like power grids, food supplies and non existing jobs in order to support more and more people. Instead of wasting US trillions on trying to keep the planet 0.5C cooler by 2100, shouldn't we solve this problem first?
Elixir
Made in America
You are SO full of shit. Buy yourself an elementary education, dude.
Life Expectancy Continues to Decline
You can't even get simple undisputed facts right - why should anyone believe your parroted right wing climate change denial?