Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

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

  • Originally posted by Karri View Post

    We are to believe a bunch of internet posters know for sure it isn't?
    I don't know for sure. I can see and read that there's good research, some of it by the same agencies and climate scientists that show other causes than CO2. I can see for myself that "the science isn't settled" to paraphrase the Gorebal Warming bunch. I can see and read the predictions and now see what was predicted 20 or 30 years ago to happen didn't happen, and didn't even come close to happening.

    Comment


    • 20 or 30 years ago to happen didn't happen,, look around, california worst fire season ever,
      2016 was the hottest year on record, setting a new high for the third year in a row, with scientists firmly putting the blame on human activities that drive climate change.
      THIRD YEAR IN A ROW
      https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ivity-to-blame

      I am very afraid by the time the climate change deniers wakes up it will be tooo late.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
        20 or 30 years ago to happen didn't happen,, look around, california worst fire season ever,
        2016 was the hottest year on record, setting a new high for the third year in a row, with scientists firmly putting the blame on human activities that drive climate change.
        THIRD YEAR IN A ROW
        https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ivity-to-blame

        I am very afraid by the time the climate change deniers wakes up it will be tooo late.
        "EVER" ??? !!!

        This is a History Forum; Try checking facts and reconsider your subjective hyperbole ....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

          "EVER" ??? !!!

          This is a History Forum; Try checking facts and reconsider your subjective hyperbole ....
          PART II:

          QUOTE:
          ...
          It’s summer in the Northwest, and as usual, that means an abundance of wildfires. Depending on who you ask, however, the driving force behind these wildfires can range from anything from the mismanagement of the forests to global warming.
          ....
          https://www.larslarson.com/listen-dr...ese-wildfires/

          Having lived here for over 60 years, my Local's take is the "Mismanagement" angle based on no reduction of underlying brush which adds flash fuel to wildland/forest Fires.

          Comment


          • Enough! Idiotic Enviro Policies Allowing 300,000 Acres To Burn is NOT Normal

            ....
            Original Air Dates: Sept 9 & 10, 2017 | Dr. Bob Zybach


            There are currently over 300,000 acres of Oregon forest fires—and the vast majority didn’t need to happen. This week, Dr. Zybach explodes the environmental myths that have led to these devastating fires.

            To find out the how and why the Oregon forest fires are out of control, we talk to Dr. Bob Zybach who not only did his dissertation on wildfires but has over 25 years of practical forest management as a reforester. He predicted out -of-control forest fires as far back as 30 years ago and discusses with us how the environmental policies and practices have no basis at all in science or even common sense. As proof, none of the Oregon forest fires currently burning are on land he replanted. Good, sound management works.
            ...
            http://ispyradio.com/oregon-forest-fires/

            Comment


            • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
              20 or 30 years ago to happen didn't happen,, look around, california worst fire season ever,
              2016 was the hottest year on record, setting a new high for the third year in a row, with scientists firmly putting the blame on human activities that drive climate change.
              THIRD YEAR IN A ROW
              https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ivity-to-blame

              I am very afraid by the time the climate change deniers wakes up it will be tooo late.
              How about a few steps back ??? !!!

              This "Climate Denier" isn't denying climate Flux/Change. As I've said repeatedly here, if the "Climate" isn't cooling towards an Ice Age it is warming away from an Ice Age and I prefer the latter. It would seem (given which "consensus science conclusion" you choose) that for about 9,000 - ~ - 13,000 years we on Earth have been warming OUT OF an Ice Age and hopefully (IMO) the trend continues.

              Issue ISN'T if the Climate is changing; it always is; and isn't like a thermostat we can set to a stagnate range;
              Issue is what is the key or major cause ....
              .... And if, or should, Humans try to intervene and/or adjust. ??? !!!

              This is a History Forum, and more precisely ...
              ... a Military History Forum.

              decades of "Military History" Study has taught me that it (Near) always boils down to ;;;

              Mass x(times) Energy = Impact (damage, destruction, death)

              My Fist(Mass) punches(Energy) you in face(Impact) ... produces black eye ...
              My Club(Mass) hits(Energy) your skull(Impact) ... and produces bone damage, fracture, maybe death ...
              My 'Gun' fires (Energy) a bullet (Mass) that hits you heart(Impact) and kills you ....

              See the chain here of "basic science" plus "basic math" equals "basic results" ????

              The whole issue of ACC/AGW depends upon an understanding of the basic science and math involved to provide and "informed voter"/Citizen making decisions on these issues.

              Comment


              • So using the above post(s), one glaring discrepancy I see is that we have no clear measure/gauge on the amouts of energy(heat) received on Earth from the Sun over the past 200-6,000 years ( of Human Civilization~Industry);
                .... Nor have we any accurate measure/gauge of the amount of energy(~Heat) trying to 'exit' from the Earth's Interior since then (200- 6,000 years past).

                Lacking the net total OF "Exterior Heat" plus "Interior Heat" loaded unto the planet's Surface, seeking to "escape" into Space; measures of atmospheric content and ratios is rather minor when no gauge of exiting energy levels exists. How can one HONESTLY claim atmospheric obstruction when amount of REAL energy excess ~ spill-off isn't truly known. ???

                If Incoming Energy(Heat) is unknown, and Exiting (from Interior) Heat is unknown, then total Surface Heat remains unmeasured and how much of this is trying to make it out thru the atmosphere would be hard to gauge measure if the energy level itself is an unknown. Which makes impact of atmospheric components an also unknown since we have no reliable energy inputs to measure it's transfer rates against.

                I'm hoping (falsely ???) that these basic science and math concepts aren't lost upon the citizens/voters/taxpayers reading here whom have to decide on these matters; either of their own or through their voted 'legislative' representatives.

                Comment


                • The wonks have been at work on this for a couple of decades. They adopted the most defensive way for drawing conclusions they could come up with. Consensus by all involved meaning erring on the side of caution and only reporting a lowest-common-denominator conclusion. Stil, they did come up with the result that man is having and impact, and it's rather serious.

                  They've been vilified up the vazzoo with corporate interest buying enough voices to cast aspersions on the effort of working out what's happening to sow serious doubt at least with some groups, in some crucial countries.

                  It's now rather starting to look like adopting a method for agreeing on a conclusion based on erring on the side of caution and only reporting a lowest-common-denominator scenario, was wildly optimistic. It's all looking to happen faster and more dramatically. Which, considering how watered down the scenarios were, seems rather predictable in retrospect.

                  Comment


                  • Mr bock are you threatening me ?
                    My Fist(Mass) punches(Energy) you in face(Impact) ... produces black eye ...
                    My Club(Mass) hits(Energy) your skull(Impact) ... and produces bone damage, fracture, maybe death ...
                    My 'Gun' fires (Energy) a bullet (Mass) that hits you heart(Impact) and kills you .

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                      Mr bock are you threatening me ?
                      My Fist(Mass) punches(Energy) you in face(Impact) ... produces black eye ...
                      My Club(Mass) hits(Energy) your skull(Impact) ... and produces bone damage, fracture, maybe death ...
                      My 'Gun' fires (Energy) a bullet (Mass) that hits you heart(Impact) and kills you .
                      Mr. shack, are you serious or do you not understand metaphor.
                      Substitute "Person A" for "My" and "Person B" for "you" and try to pick up on the generic use of the pronouns.
                      Re-read and re-consider statements prior to and after the ones you just quoted.

                      My whole and main point is that violence - conflict - war boils down to application of basic physics(science) and One would hope that students of military history were able to grasp this.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                        The wonks have been at work on this for a couple of decades. They adopted the most defensive way for drawing conclusions they could come up with. Consensus by all involved meaning erring on the side of caution and only reporting a lowest-common-denominator conclusion. Stil, they did come up with the result that man is having and impact, and it's rather serious.
                        SOME of the "wonks" have, but done so with a predetermined agenda of results/conclusions and included incomplete and often falsified or altered data. This has been documented often in this thread and many other similar ones on this subject and on this Board.

                        They have used a rather offensive stance and method, have failed to apply caution, and have mislabeled what they think is a lowest-common denominator. Again, consensus of personal opinions is faulty science, see the earlier post of how such a method produced the Earth centric concept of the Cosmos that persisted for centuries. Humans have an impact, but in many cases it is overstated and this applies especially in claim of slight increase in CO2 levels being a main driver of climate change, "warming". The possible "serious" is that some adaptation to a natural cycle/process may be needed, but large scale geo-engineering is not, and could do more damage. Exception being replacing lost and declined flora of the past couple of centuries which would decrease CO2 levels over time.

                        For the most part, ACC/AGW is hubris.

                        Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                        They've been vilified up the vazzoo with corporate interest buying enough voices to cast aspersions on the effort of working out what's happening to sow serious doubt at least with some groups, in some crucial countries.
                        Sorry, but no "corporate interests" has bought or paid for this voice. The "science" and systems have not been replicated in laboratory conditions nor validated objectively. The "financial interests" driving this flim-flam of propaganda are hustlers looking for funding and profit from the extreme "correctives" they advocate.

                        I've yet to see any "true believer" living a lifestyle that is consistent with ideas and solutions for ACC/AGW. As phonies peddling pseudoscience with social correction agendas they should be villified.

                        Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                        It's now rather starting to look like adopting a method for agreeing on a conclusion based on erring on the side of caution and only reporting a lowest-common-denominator scenario, was wildly optimistic. It's all looking to happen faster and more dramatically. Which, considering how watered down the scenarios were, seems rather predictable in retrospect.
                        There has been no caution nor watering down, just the opposite; shrill hyperbole is more like it. And key element, increase of CO2 as cause has not been proven, nor that human emissions are the major cause of higher levels. Human deforestation and defloration are more likely causes from human part of the situation; but this is icing on situation driven more by natural processes and cycles.

                        Comment


                        • I was wondering what the U S military thought about global warming, and guess what .Dozens of military and defense experts advised the president-elect that global warming should transcend politics. they see this as a threat why don"t you?
                          https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...curity-threat/

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                            There has been no caution nor watering down, just the opposite; shrill hyperbole is more like it. And key element, increase of CO2 as cause has not been proven, nor that human emissions are the major cause of higher levels. Human deforestation and defloration are more likely causes from human part of the situation; but this is icing on situation driven more by natural processes and cycles.
                            No, that's the spin. The whole process of grafting a consensus opinion of the research community for the IPCC was to go for lowest-common-denominator unanimity. But that still was too stark, so was endlessly vilified.

                            What it actually did was massively underestimate risks and possible speeds of change. If you think it looked bad and scare-mongering before then you're likely in for a wild ride from now on.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                              I was wondering what the U S military thought about global warming, and guess what .Dozens of military and defense experts advised the president-elect that global warming should transcend politics. they see this as a threat why don"t you?
                              https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...curity-threat/
                              Yes, and what they were forced to do under the Obama administration about it was beyond asininely stupid.

                              They were tasked with trying to be more "green" using biofuels that cost $25 to $50 a gallon. In typical casting about for a Progressive Left environmental solution, the cost of the answer wasn't considered part of the problem.

                              As for climate change being a "security threat," that's only in the same delusional minds that came up with forcing biofuel on the military. The military saw it as a threat because the President (Obama being a scientific illiterate) saw it as a threat. The military followed orders.

                              I take Scientific American. Generally, I ignore their articles on climate change as they have become far too political and far too short on science. That in a way is sad.

                              When science and reason come back into the climate change discussion, I'll listen. Two examples of what I mean here are, the aforementioned jet aircraft contrails. We now know they contribute to a near continuous and massive increase in cloud cover across the northern hemisphere in particular and as most of the warming is in the northern hemisphere... Anyway, the fix is simple, but I don't see the environmental / climate change crowd calling for action that would be cheap, quick, and effective.
                              The second is the environmentalist lunatic fear and aversion to nuclear power. It is obviously the solution to using fossil fuels. Solar and wind will never work and be grossly expensive, not to mention on the scale it would have to grow to horribly environmentally unfriendly. Paving over huge parts of states to get power from solar and wind is simply not an effective solution. Yet, nuclear, that would produce cheap abundant power on a tiny footprint is completely out of the picture due in large part to environmentalist whipped up hysteria by vacuous numbskulls who know nothing about it.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                                I was wondering what the U S military thought about global warming, and guess what .Dozens of military and defense experts advised the president-elect that global warming should transcend politics. they see this as a threat why don"t you?
                                https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...curity-threat/
                                Once again, you fail on the precision scale.
                                I'll acknowledge that NATURAL climate change may be a concern, but we humans have limited affect on it. It's ACC/AGw that I and many others dispute.

                                As for the DoD situation, two factors;
                                1) Promotion from about O6(full colonel) upward is increasingly more "political" than Merit. So "get with the program", a.k.a. the "politics de jour".
                                2) Must of the funding, and lobbying, is geared towards the pro-ACC/AGW agenda with rather little for the con position. Your link reflects a "political awareness" of whom is buttering the bread.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X