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 Nick the Noodle View Post

    Wrong to date?

    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

    Scientist involved with just chapter 1:

    Coordinating Lead Authors: Myles Allen (UK), Opha Pauline Dube (Botswana), William Solecki (USA)

    Lead Authors: Fernando Aragón–Durand (Mexico), Wolfgang Cramer (France/Germany), Stephen Humphreys (UK/Ireland), Mikiko Kainuma (Japan), Jatin Kala (Australia), Natalie Mahowald (USA), Yacob Mulugetta (UK/Ethiopia), Rosa Perez (Philippines), Morgan Wairiu (Solomon Islands), Kirsten Zickfeld (Canada)

    Contributing Authors: Purnamita Dasgupta (India), Haile Eakin (USA), Bronwyn Hayward (New Zealand), Diana Liverman (USA/UK), Richard Millar (UK), Graciela Raga (Argentina), Aurélien Ribes (France), Mark Richardson (USA/UK), Maisa Rojas (Chile), Roland Séférian (France), Sonia Seneviratne (Switzerland), Christopher Smith (UK), Will Steffen (Australia), Peter Thorne (Ireland/UK)

    Review Editors: Ismail Elgizouli Idris (Sudan), Andreas Fischlin (Switzerland), Xuejie Gao (China)

    Chapter Scientist: Richard Millar (UK)
    That's called an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. I don't care if that list were ten times longer than it is. The IPCC has proven wrong on almost every prediction they've ever made. That's a historical fact. It doesn't matter if the people making them are supposedly the greatest minds on the planet or whatever. They were wrong. That makes their credibility at this point near to, if not, zero. I'll start paying attention to their reports when they are able to make accurate, verified predictions. So far, they can't do it so they have no credibility.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

      That's called an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. I don't care if that list were ten times longer than it is. The IPCC has proven wrong on almost every prediction they've ever made. That's a historical fact. It doesn't matter if the people making them are supposedly the greatest minds on the planet or whatever. They were wrong. That makes their credibility at this point near to, if not, zero. I'll start paying attention to their reports when they are able to make accurate, verified predictions. So far, they can't do it so they have no credibility.
      No they haven't, if you could be bothered to read outside those opinions that suit your politics.

      https://www.skepticalscience.com/con...-accurate.html
      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Comment


      • Another example of how crazy insane the pro-ACC/AGW mob are;

        How a Fortnite squad of scientists is hoping to defeat climate change
        ....
        The storm is closing in quickly as a ponytailed woman with the handle ClimateScientist glides into view on a multicolored umbrella. She lands and runs into a house. Wielding a comically large wrench, she begins to smash the house’s kitchen to pieces.

        As she does this, an older man — username SuperDad64 — provides narration over voice chat as he scavenges for supplies elsewhere on the map: “If the Democrats win, they will basically be able to stop, sort of, the climate policies of Trump.”

        Abruptly, a young boy interrupts. He’s focused on the game, specifically a llama nearby that contains useful supplies. “If any — um, don’t… don’t open the llama just yet!” he says. “I know a bug where if you use a shockwave grenade on it, you can double everything that’s inside it.” Another boyish voice agrees. SuperDad64, heading out into the storm to find the elusive llama, talks about congressional politics and midterms as he does so.
        ...
        Fortnite is the world’s most popular video game, with hundreds of millions of players worldwide. (In August, a record 78.3 million played the game.) The premise is a lot like the Japanese movie Battle Royale: 100 people land on an island, only one person or team can win, and victory is obtained by murdering everyone else. To make things more exciting, a toxic storm slowly begins to compress the map so that the players are forced into the same areas. As in The Hunger Games, special caches, including crates and llamas, are dropped to encourage players to go to the same areas. It is fast-paced, fantastical, and utterly ludicrous — and, perhaps, a great platform to talk about climate change.
        ...
        Chatting about climate change while trying to murder other players in the game isn’t easy. In an early match, Dessler wonders whether telling people that the world has become a degree warmer since the Industrial Revolution is the best way to win hearts and minds compared to, say, talking about how climate change might impact crimes rates or incomes. Drake, about to reply, is distracted: he’s attempting to unload a shotgun into someone’s face. Soon after, they’re scrambling for resources, and Dessler and one of his sons argue about the timing for jumping from the Battle Bus. Climate chat doesn’t resume for some time.
        ....
        https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/10/...ng-video-games

        A first-person shooter game, where killing off the other players is a great venue to promote "saving the planet" and life in general ...

        Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
        Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

        Comment


        • Art fantasy imitates climate change fantasy... to paraphrase Oscar Wilde.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            Art fantasy imitates climate change fantasy... to paraphrase Oscar Wilde.
            Do you think Climate Change is a hoax? And why do you trust Big Oil telling you that?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

              Do you think Climate Change is a hoax? And why do you trust Big Oil telling you that?
              No, I think the climate changes and is changing. What I don't buy is that it is manmade CO2 as the primary cause. Nor do I think that anthropogenic CO2 is significantly changing natural climate change.

              I hold out as but one example of this: Contrails by aircraft. These are now considered to be as much as 30% or more a contributor to anthropogenic climate change. They also track far better than CO2. Contrails are a phenomena that first started to occur in the late 1930's and only during the 1940's were they becoming significant. Since then, they have been steadily increasing.
              Water vapor in the form of clouds is a exponentially better (more powerful) greenhouse gas than CO2. Given that today much of the northern hemisphere of the planet is subject to increased cloud cover by contrails it is likely a far greater contributor than CO2.

              So, I don't buy the existing popular / environmentalist / Progressive storyline that it is CO2 that is a primary cause of climate change. From that, I can dismiss their stupidity in calling for wind and solar, battery cars, or even additional reductions in CO2.

              I'll add that Al Gore is an idiot when it comes to this stuff. I also think that many of the top climate change scientists have been caught fudging their data sufficient times that I have no faith in their work or results.

              As to "...
              why do you trust Big Oil telling you that?" That is a complex question fallacy. How did you determine that "Big Oil" has anything to do with my position on climate change?

              My position on energy has been pretty consistent. I believe in N2N+H. That is Natural gas to Nuclear plus hydrogen. Natural gas is cheap, plentiful, and relatively clean. We use it as a bridge to move to nuclear-- be it Thorium / Uranium fission or eventually hydrogen fusion. That gives us cheap, clean, reliable, and massive energy. It eliminates the insanity of wind and solar-- and yes, both are insane. We scrap the idiocy of battery powered cars and go to hydrogen fuel cell ones like the Honda Clarity. That makes sense too.

              I'll toss this in since I did it for talking points to help defeat (hopefully next month) Proposition 127 a "clean energy bill" in Arizona.

              Ivanpah solar in the Mojave desert in California is the world's largest solar plant right now. It is nameplated to produce 400 MW of power. It takes up 4,000 acres. It cost $2.5 billion in 2016 dollars to build. It's annual production is 940 GW/h a year.

              Palo Verde Nuclear in Arizona is nameplated to produce 4,000 MW of power. It takes up 4,000 acres. It cost $11.5 billion in 2016 dollars to build. It's annual production is 32,300 GW/h a year.

              That makes Palo Verde 46 times more efficient than Ivanpah. It costs roughly 4.5 times more to produce a megawatt at Ivanpah than Palo Verde too. That's how horribly and permanently inefficient solar is. For an Ivanpah-like solar plant to match Palo Verde you have to build one that is 212.5 square miles (136,000 acres) in size. That's a plant roughly 15 miles on a side. That is insane.

              So, even if I fully bought into anthropogenic climate change, I'd still be absolutely against wind and solar as power sources. Any sane person would be. Natural gas is better, and nuclear is exponentially better by double digits.

              I want what works. And the crappola coming from the Progressive environmentalists is just that. Crappola that doesn't work. Their claimed cause is BS and their solution is pure unadulterated $h!+.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

                Do you think Climate Change is a hoax?
                NATURAL; or Anthropogenic (Human caused) ???
                Where does millennial old natural cycles give way to human influenced ones ... ???

                Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                And why do you trust Big Oil telling you that?
                Why do you trust Big Industrialized/Commercialized Enviro-Nazi Lobby-Groups ... ????

                Seems there are two partisan and near radical factions in play and contest here ....
                Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

                Comment


                • Now you are calling us nazi ?

                  Comment


                  • IPCC "scientist" and Gorebal Warming "expert" says solution to Gorebal Warming is wealth redistribution!

                    A scientist who predicted a grim 'Hothouse Earth' says the world’s billionaires need to give up their money to save us
                    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...cid=spartandhp

                    Yea, more Socialism will save the world from Gorebal Warming...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                      Now you are calling us nazi ?
                      Well if the shoes fits ....

                      We consistently hear from the advocates of the hypothetical human-caused ACC/AGW that;
                      "....the science is settled."
                      "no need for further discussion."
                      "Must implement economic and political solutions to an alleged nature science (non)problem."

                      That all sounds a lot like ham-fisted politics to me so the appellation of "enviro-nazis", coined by others and around for some years now, would fit since the methods of the pro-ACC/AGW persons are very much similar to what we saw from the NSDAP.

                      As pointed out repeatedly,
                      1) ... there has been no laboratory tests done that confirm the claimed extent of CO2 effect upon atmospheric heat levels...
                      2) ... There is a huge discount of the effect of interior heat rising from the Earth's core, and the heat received from the Sun, which is absorbed by land and water masses
                      3) ... With dihydrous oxide (H2O) level in atmosphere of at least 10% or more than of CO2 (0.04%), water vapor is at least 250 times the amount and effect of CO2, yet no one is offering economic and political solutions for this "science problem" ~ part of the equation.

                      Bottom line is that the socialist - fascist -statist non-science, non-sense political looters are again using fear and hyperbole to advance an ineffective political agenda.
                      Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                      Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

                      Comment


                      • If climate did not change, man would not exist : climate changes, but there is no prooof that the earth is warming up, it is as much possible that the earth is becoming colder .

                        Comment


                        • For sake of balance, something showing folly of the pro-ACC/AGW crowd;
                          How to Demand Action on Climate Change

                          Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                          Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=G David Bock;n5069653]



                            1) ... there has been no laboratory tests done that confirm the claimed extent of CO2 effect upon atmospheric heat levels...

                            10,543 viewsFeb 27, 2015, 06:00amSurprise! CO2 Directly Linked To Global Warming

                            James ConcaJames ConcaContributori
                            EnergyI write about nuclear, energy and the environment

                            For the first time since the climate debate began, a team of researchers led by the U.S. DOE Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory directly measured the contribution of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) to heating of the Earth (Nature).

                            Comment




                            • And, I bet that the extra CO2 will have near ZERO effect on the planet's temperature, whereas contrails have an obvious and real daily effect.

                              The problem with implementing this is that the fix is nearly free, easy to implement, and could be done in a matter of months at most. If it works, then the Gorebal Warming crowd are out of their jobs, and those using Gorebal Warming to advance a Progressive-Leftist agenda will have to cast about for another alarmist cause to use. Thus, contrails gets ignored for the serious threat they are.

                              Comment


                              • T A Garder, I do not know if that is true? I remember after 911 when all the planes were grounded for a couple of days environmental scientists noticed that the sunlight was 10% stronger that before when all the planes were flying. these scientists said that the upper atmosphere with contrails acted as a filter reducing the strength of the sunlight by 10 % , Check it out yourself, http://www.cracked.com/article_20009...ged-world.html

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X