Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmentalism

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post

    They’ve never been right I don’t go to a doctor who constantly says that I’m going to die soon unless I do what they say and I never do die when I don’t listen to them I sure as hell ain't going to believe people whose apocalyptic scenarios about climate change that don’t come true either they’ve been at it for over 100 years and they still aren’t right with their predictions and never will be

    446DCDC3-F877-44B5-A391-4A6276E92843.jpeg
    It's interesting that instead of looking at actual scientific evidence, this post uses a cartoon as a basis for a scientific conclusion.

    Here is some research that disputes the claims made above:

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...global-warming
    https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confir
    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...global-warming

    If there are issues with the claims made in these scientific documents, I'd be interested to read what they are in an actual supported document.

    Cartoons and memes don't count.

    Comment


    • If people have a problem with the substance of Memes many are worth more then the paper that it was wrote on predicting devastating results made by the scientists who told us what will happen and have constantly failed

      Comment


      • Here’s another summary of failed predictions being made

        85BBEF59-D770-403F-A7CB-B22A8A90A120.jpeg

        Comment


        • When the Sun isn't shining and the wind not blowing they are stopped ... DUH!
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
          “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
          Present Current Events are the Future's History

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

            Maybe. But the point I was making is that it's more than a little disingenuous to try to evaluate energy options only on the basis of efficiency. This is the climate change thread, after all.
            And one main concern is if the "climate change" is due to usual Natural causes in play the past 4 1/2 BILLION years of climate changes or if human activities have any significant part in current "small blip in the numbers".

            Efficiency matters in terms of environmental impact on resources taken out of Earth to make "renewables" along with build, operate, and eventual disposal costs.

            Of course if one is one of the socialists living off other people's productivity and wealth, costs and efficiencies may not directly matter.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
            Present Current Events are the Future's History

            Comment


            • Geological_Timescale.jpg
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
              Present Current Events are the Future's History

              Comment


              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                It would be nice to have irradiance, magnetic fluctuation and cosmic radiation added to that graph.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • Quite a few to choose from here, if you want to look and post (I've got to get ready for an engagement this evening);
                  https://www.google.com/search?q=char...VVostzTKs2j_TM
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                  “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                  Present Current Events are the Future's History

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                    Ok, based on my understanding of climate science, your very first sentence here is not true. Where did you hear this?

                    Edit: Not sure why I'm asking this, as none of the answers provided are going to change anything.
                    From one of several pro-ACC/AGW sources;
                    ....
                    Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.
                    ...
                    https://skepticalscience.com/climate...termediate.htm

                    You may need to up your game on "understanding of climate science", especially the politics involved.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                    Present Current Events are the Future's History

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                      And one main concern is if the "climate change" is due to usual Natural causes in play the past 4 1/2 BILLION years of climate changes or if human activities have any significant part in current "small blip in the numbers".

                      Efficiency matters in terms of environmental impact on resources taken out of Earth to make "renewables" along with build, operate, and eventual disposal costs.

                      Of course if one is one of the socialists living off other people's productivity and wealth, costs and efficiencies may not directly matter.
                      So the science climate change is "a political struggle"??

                      Oh dear- and all this time I thought that we were debating- science. Silly me.......
                      The caloric theory of heat transfer works well enough in many areas as a rule of thumb - but is rather outdated- like a cartoon sequence being posted that we have two dozen times before...
                      Last edited by marktwain; 15 Feb 20, 17:52.
                      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                        From one of several pro-ACC/AGW sources;
                        ....
                        Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.
                        ...
                        https://skepticalscience.com/climate...termediate.htm

                        You may need to up your game on "understanding of climate science", especially the politics involved.
                        Oh no, that site is excellent. However, you are not interpreting it correctly.

                        You said:
                        "The primary foundation(hypothesis) of anthropogenic climate change/global warming(ACC/AGW) is that the carbon dioxide (CO2) retains enough heat to pass onto and heat up the rest of the atmosphere."

                        This is not correct. Furthermore, the quote you provided does not support your statement or make it any more correct.

                        But please, keep going with your superior climate science game.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                          Nice graph. Perceptive readers will note that human history is pretty much the last section on the left (right, doh), and industrial human history is the last pixel on the graph.

                          Ah, the power of logarithmic graph scales.

                          Edit: Idiot left handed poster mixes up left and right.
                          Last edited by DingBat; 17 Feb 20, 00:22.

                          Comment


                          • The question is still why are the models consider scientifically valid when they constantly have to add correctives variables. We have been told over and over again that the science is settled but the evidence is that it is not.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                              Oh no, that site is excellent. However, you are not interpreting it correctly.

                              You said:
                              "The primary foundation(hypothesis) of anthropogenic climate change/global warming(ACC/AGW) is that the carbon dioxide (CO2) retains enough heat to pass onto and heat up the rest of the atmosphere."

                              This is not correct. Furthermore, the quote you provided does not support your statement or make it any more correct.

                              But please, keep going with your superior climate science game.
                              What Karl really meant was that 'every science class struggle is a graph and cartoon political struggle"

                              But in the 1880's, he had to use terminology that the proletariat could grasp....

                              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                                The question is still why are the models consider scientifically valid when they constantly have to add correctives variables. We have been told over and over again that the science is settled but the evidence is that it is not.
                                Because the models were correct, a model that over estimates temp rises from the 80's wasn't wrong, it just didn't factor in legislation that limited CFC's.... because scientists can't tell the future they can only make predictions based on the information at hand.

                                Models are refined to make them more accurate but they haven't been proven wrong by anybody yet.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X