The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

[Nick the Noodle]

AGW is obvious, so what. Nobody with any common sense believes it is the end of the world. It isn't like it wasn't obvious to anyone with half a brain a hundred years ago. The question is how bias are you going to be if it effects your career, income or political objectives if you turn it into a crisis.

It isn't the end of the world. As George Carlin said in his awesome vid here, the Planets Fine, We're Damned*

*(or a word to that effect).

Part of the same speech:

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

We’re going away. Pack your ****, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed.

The trick is for us not to commit racial suicide through stupidity.

For those who think George Carlin is an AGW denier:

“People are selfish,” he said. “These people with the fires and the floods and everything, they overbuild and they put nature to the test, and they get what’s coming to them, that’s what I say.”
Joy Behar replied, “That’s a little harsh, George.”
But the 70-year-old comic continued: “People think nature is outside of them. They don’t take into [themselves] the idea that nature is a part of them.” Pointing to his chest, he said, “Nature is in here, and if you’re in tune with it, like the Indians – the balance of life, the harmony of nature – if you understand that, you don’t overbuild, you don’t do all this moron stuff.”

https://energysmart.wordpress.com/20...arming-denier/

I'm with Thatcher and Reagan and Carlin with this one .

[T. A. Gardner]

If you look at the graphs, line ascends left to right hence AGW.

What I suspect you don't like is that a topic initially brought to the worlds attention by the right, has been hijacked by the left.

Remember it was Reagan and Thatcher who initially raised this issue, hardly left wingers.


http://www.abc.net.au/environment/ar...09/3732680.htm


Ronald Reagan here.

And you miss my point entirely. So what if the temperature is rising slightly? What's the cause?

The reason the cause is vitally important is to avoid another CFC debacle. Why should the world spend trillions of dollars to reduce CO2, more trillions wasted on solar and wind, if anthropogenic CO2 isn't the primary or even a significant cause?
The Progressive Left has a virtually 100% track record of being wrong on everything. They're the ones pushing the CO2 reduction, solar, wind, and the rest of Gorebal Warming the hardest. I don't buy for a New York second that they're right.

So, unless you've got something made in reinforced concrete that shows anthropogenic CO2 is a primary cause of this slight warming, you've got nothing in my view. I will continue to oppose the Environmental Left's calls for solar and wind, their cries to end using nuclear, and all the rest of their unfounded clap trap. I for one don't want my electric bill to quadruple. I don't want the world's economy to go into decline. They get their way and it most certainly will.

[G David Bock]

One interesting insight on this issue is what it shows about mindsets. The libtards that are pro-ACC/AGW talk about reducing emissions which means decline of industry, commerce, economy, lifestyles, etc.

The realists will be more objective at looking at the situation and evidenc e for and against and then might come up with creative solutions such as this;
QUOTE:
...
If you aren’t familiar with the project, let me bring you up to speed. Houweling’s operations have been referred to as “The Future of Farming” before and this project only strengthens that reputation. Just about 75 miles south of Salt Lake City, we are building a greenhouse next to an existing natural gas power plant. Why is this significant? Well two of the most important inputs for year-round growing are heat and CO2. Both of these happen to be waste products off the stacks of the power plant. By building next to the plant and thanks to the Kubo built and Houweling’s patented Ultra Clima greenhouse system, we are able to take the wasted heat and CO2 from the power plant and divert them directly into the greenhouse. This combined with supplemental lighting will deliver fresh, tasty tomatoes 365 days a year!
...
http://www.houwelings.com/blog/utah-...project-update
The above is nearly two year old article and some of the FRP piping to channel the flue from power plant to greenhouses was made by my now former employer.
Here's a more current article;
http://www.ibuildamerica.com/industr...to-greenhouse/

Leftie-loonies see a problem as another means for repression of the people and shortchange human future.
Objectivist conservatives see problems as opportunites for new directions and positive growth of wealth and the human condition.

[Nick the Noodle]

And you miss my point entirely. So what if the temperature is rising slightly? What's the cause?

The reason the cause is vitally important is to avoid another CFC debacle. Why should the world spend trillions of dollars to reduce CO2, more trillions wasted on solar and wind, if anthropogenic CO2 isn't the primary or even a significant cause?
The Progressive Left has a virtually 100% track record of being wrong on everything. They're the ones pushing the CO2 reduction, solar, wind, and the rest of Gorebal Warming the hardest. I don't buy for a New York second that they're right.

So, unless you've got something made in reinforced concrete that shows anthropogenic CO2 is a primary cause of this slight warming, you've got nothing in my view. I will continue to oppose the Environmental Left's calls for solar and wind, their cries to end using nuclear, and all the rest of their unfounded clap trap. I for one don't want my electric bill to quadruple. I don't want the world's economy to go into decline. They get their way and it most certainly will.

[T. A. Gardner]

They conveniently left of H20, among other gasses in the atmosphere... Remember the earlier discussion of contrails and the NOAA, among others, saying it likely does have a significant effect?

[The Doctor]

They conveniently left of H20, among other gasses in the atmosphere... Remember the earlier discussion of contrails and the NOAA, among others, saying it likely does have a significant effect?

Water vapor is responsible for 60-95% of the greenhouse effect. It's kind of a big one to leave out of an absorption spectrum, particularly since it overlaps most of CO2's bandwidth. .

[G David Bock]

Water vapor is responsible for 60-95% of the greenhouse effect. It's kind of a big one to leave out of an absorption spectrum, particularly since it overlaps most of CO2's bandwidthsbandwidths...

The BIG "Duh!" overlooked by classic Greentards/Libtards on the ACC/AGW agenda. Many too coward to go running bare-arse, birthday suit into the wilds and live off grubs and gleanings this firgid time of year. Can't begin to walk the walk of the talk they try to talk. Friggin' bloody hypocrites and phonies the lot of them ...

[G David Bock]

^ Yeah, I mean you 'noodle pot nitwit' Nick!

[Nick the Noodle]

^ Yeah, I mean you 'noodle pot nitwit' Nick!

I have warned people that I will penalise people who use the word Retard, or a variant of it, on many occasions.

It is not a criminal offense to use Retard, or a derivative, in a general sense, to describe real and relevant scientists who don't agree with certain energy corporation views. Harsh language merely reveals the users lack of intellect to pursue a more rational rebuttal of an issue.

However, you do know that calling a specific person a Retard when they actually have a mental issue is a criminal offense. It doesn't matter whether the insult is made public or private. You might want to think about that. Further, if you do so, don't leave evidence. Its sloppy.

The BIG "Duh!" overlooked by classic Greentards/Libtards on the ACC/AGW agenda. Many too coward to go running bare-arse, birthday suit into the wilds and live off grubs and gleanings this firgid time of year. Can't begin to walk the walk of the talk they try to talk. Friggin' bloody hypocrites and phonies the lot of them ...

And why do you get more water vapour? A warmer climate perhaps?

[The Doctor]

I have warned people that I will penalise people who use the word Retard, or a variant of it, on many occasions.

It is not a criminal offense to use Retard, or a derivative, in a general sense, to describe real and relevant scientists who don't agree with certain energy corporation views. Harsh language merely reveals the users lack of intellect to pursue a more rational rebuttal of an issue.

However, you do know that calling a specific person a Retard when they actually have a mental issue is a criminal offense. It doesn't matter whether the insult is made public or private. You might want to think about that. Further, if you do so, don't leave evidence. Its sloppy.


And why do you get more water vapour? A warmer climate perhaps?

Good fracking grief!

[Nick the Noodle]

Good fracking grief!
.
.
<snip>
.
.

Couldn't help yourself . Atmospheric water vapour has been dropping, and water vapour is the single most powerful feedback in the climate system.

Yet temperature is still rising? Must be another reason.

[G David Bock]

I have warned people that I will penalise people who use the word Retard, or a variant of it, on many occasions.

It is not a criminal offense to use Retard, or a derivative, in a general sense, to describe real and relevant scientists who don't agree with certain energy corporation views. Harsh language merely reveals the users lack of intellect to pursue a more rational rebuttal of an issue.

However, you do know that calling a specific person a Retard when they actually have a mental issue is a criminal offense. It doesn't matter whether the insult is made public or private. You might want to think about that. Further, if you do so, don't leave evidence. Its sloppy.


And why do you get more water vapour? A warmer climate perhaps?

Going to send the UK Bobbies over here to charge me? I fully aware of the social and cultural decline of your nation regarding crimes against people's feelings, wife is an Anglophile so we watch a few of your current TV series.

Since I did not specifically call you a "retard" that must be another expression of your "mental issue" and may explain your loopy logic about ACC/AGW. Do you realize your urban lifestyle means you have a huge concrete and carbon footprint and are more a part of the problem than any solution?

Give all the red pips you want, just shows how petty and juvenile you are. FWIW, those last four letters are short for "That Are Really Dumb".

[Nick the Noodle]

Going to send the UK Bobbies over here to charge me? I fully aware of the social and cultural decline of your nation regarding crimes against people's feelings, wife is an Anglophile so we watch a few of your current TV series.

Since I did not specifically call you a "retard" that must be another expression of your "mental issue" and may explain your loopy logic about ACC/AGW. Do you realize your urban lifestyle means you have a huge concrete and carbon footprint and are more a part of the problem than any solution?

Give all the red pips you want, just shows how petty and juvenile you are. :

You did commit a criminal act. If I were so inclined I could sue you. The difference between one certain individual and yourself is that he uses Retard as a sweeping statement, while you used it specifically towards someone with a specific issue.

BTW, it is name calling that is the actual petty and juvenile act, and I have made numerous warnings that I will sanction those using the word Retard in any form. The above statement I've highlighted in bold really isn't helping your situation.

FWIW, those last four letters are short for "That Are Really Dumb".:rolleyes

I presume you mean last four words I presume from here?

And why do you get more water vapour? A warmer climate perhaps?

Anyway, that sentence was not for your benefit, but a pitfall for another, who jumped right in, both feet first .

That post here proves that if water vapour is in decline, and it is, another mechanism/element must be creating the continual increase in warming.

This is alarming, because water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, and with its decline, temperatures should drop as well. They are not.

[G David Bock]

You did commit a criminal act. If I were so inclined I could sue you. The difference between one certain individual and yourself is that he uses Retard as a sweeping statement, while you used it specifically towards someone with a specific issue.

BTW, it is name calling that is the actual petty and juvenile act, and I have made numerous warnings that I will sanction those using the word Retard in any form. The above statement I've highlighted in bold really isn't helping your situation.
I presume you mean last four words I presume from here?
Anyway, that sentence was not for your benefit, but a pitfall for another, who jumped right in, both feet first .

That post here proves that if water vapour is in decline, and it is, another mechanism/element must be creating the continual increase in warming.

This is alarming, because water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, and with its decline, temperatures should drop as well. They are not.

I'll address your other thin-skinned blatherings later, but factors such Earth axial tilt ( it wobbles some), Earth's elipitical orbit and position relative to the Sun (a cycle of eliptics), Solar energy output, and I'm betting some factors we haven't guaged(know) or entered into computations are more key than CO2 emissions (which are barely enough to sustain about 99+% of life on this planet).

Not only do you fail to show a grasp of the above, but by regularly spouting the GreenTARD anti-Capitalist "party line" you show how much you hate Life on this planet and want to chock it off. That is why you and anyother Pro-ACC/AGW Greentard Life Hater/Killers gets my CONTEMPT!

[wolfhnd]

It's not like they are moving to Siberia, oh wait a minute when the revolution comes they get a free vacation to Siberia.

Dreamers dream and does do, the contempt that liberals have for the people that make their lives possible, you know the deplorables, tells us every thing we need to know about AGW politics.