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 bill shack View Post
    David , a couple of things
    1) the united states leads the world in climate changes deniers


    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...most-prevalent

    2) if you wish to see my other chart

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_opinion2.png
    I am happy to show all my sources if you do the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...ng_controversy
    These people cannot logically be climate change deniers. If folks are saying that climate change is NOT caused largely by human activity, then they are also acknowledging that climate change does exist. They are merely taking a particular opinion with regard to the main causative factors.

    "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

      I see climate change as mostly, almost entirely, a natural thing. Yes, the climate changes. CO2 produced by human activity is not driving it, nor is it a major cause. That is the difference. I've repeatedly pointed out that research now shows contrails to be a significant contributor. If that's the case, which science now says it is, the question on the table is What else have climate researchers not taken into account or have gotten wrong?

      I submit that it is those who say climate change is driven by anthropogenic CO2 and the debate is over, the science is settled, that are the ones that are wrong.
      You also thought the GDP per Capita of California was $14.00......

      Just sayin'....

      Comment


      • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

        Note first that the "never been above this line" of your chart is the minimum for optimal Flora/plant life on this planet, about 99+% of planetary biomass. As far as the Flora/plants are concerned, this level is barely enough to maybe start thriving on ...

        Your chart only goes back to about 400,000 years and homo sapiens as a species only goes back between 300,000 to 200,000 and most of that time was as hunter-gathers, wandering nomads; i.e. no civilization, no industry until the very right end extreme of your chart/graph; ... so what caused the rise and fall of CO2 before human activity could have ???

        Your chart/graph doesn't show temperatures along side the CO2 levels so it's next to useless data ...

        You also ignore the context of the full history of Earth's biosphere, as shown again on this chart displaying both temperature and CO2 ranges, going back about 4 billion years. The chart you present only goes back as far as between the 1.64 and 0.01 million years ago boundaries as shown on its extreme right edge;

        Your chart/graph also fails to prove that the main increase of CO2 levels is mostly human caused and/or that such is not benficial to the biosphere as a whole;

        Your chart has been thoughourly debunked. Climate deniers and their elitist media outlets use that chart but don't tell you the whole story. Let me help you learn the story. You do realize the only reason republicans deny climate change is because Big Oil runs the republican party? Why would you trust the word of Big Oil over scientists across the globe? Big Oil is the culprit of the problem, of course they're gonna LIE about themselves being responsible. Wake up!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg&t=3m39s
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&t

        Comment


        • The big oil explanation is as vacuous as when people were blaming the industrial revolution for destroying cottage industries without any consideration for economic development. The relationship between "big" oil and efficiency and thus standards of living are lost on the ideologically possessed. Who consumes oil, is it the rich alone that benefit from cheap and abundant energy? Like all conspiracy theories "big oil" is based on some factual information but those facts ignore many pertinent factors.

          If the left was actually concerned about monopolies they would be as antagonistic towards silicon valley as big oil. Proving that the antagonism is politically motivated by the will to power.

          The hostility towards big oil has another element rooted in the environmental movement's anti humanism. Oil production, distribution and consumption is only a problem because of the population growth that industrialization enabled. The same level of population relying on wood for energy would be far more damaging to the environment. Easter Island is an excellent example of how pre-industrial societies were perfectly capable of destroying the environment.

          The oil industry grew because of demand and followed the natural path towards consolidation as many other industries where size and efficiency are intertwined. Big tobacco is another example but so is Microsoft. The key thing to remember is that big whale oil didn't stop kerosene from replacing it. As competitive sources of energy are developed they will replace oil. The amount of tax payer dollars and other subsidies directed towards alternative energy indicates that the time has not arrived for that to happen.

          I recommend the following book. "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels"
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
            Your chart has been thoughourly debunked.
            In your delusion mind perhaps. I didn't see anything in you youtube links invalidating the data on that graph, only contesting the conclusions some have drawn from it. If your science knowledge was up to task as you think, you'd know that Earth's atmospheric content has changed significantly over the past 4+ billion years and so has the climate.

            BTW, not "my" chart,but comes from this site, which has some very interesting papers I'd recommend reading;
            http://www.biocab.org/

            Speaking of youtube, in future please consider presenting some text based references, I seldom have hours to waste nor patience to endure such biased video propaganda as you provided.

            Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
            Climate deniers and their elitist media outlets use that chart but don't tell you the whole story. Let me help you learn the story.
            You start off failing to make distinction between Natural cycles of climate change, going back billions of years, versus debatable case for amount of anthropogenic, human-caused climate change/global warming (ACC/AGW). Those youtube speak with forked tongue, at one point lamenting that only a portion of a graph might be presented, but then doing the same themselves to show the small portion that presents a distorted steep curve, which is less significant if presented in the longer time-span view.

            Once again, we so-called "deniers" aren't denying the historic Natural cycles, only the agenda driven mistaken conclusions based on a short term selection of data, stating it IS ALL driven by human activity, AND that CO2 levels alone are the main driving agency. We also contest that slight increase of CO2 bring ratio to rest of atmosphere(dry) up to 1/2500. For example, and I've mentioned this often, I've seen little factoring that during the so-called Industrial Revolution of the past couple of centuries, human activity in deforestation and reduction of planetary Flora biomass, which consumes carbon dioxide (CO2) is another part of CO2 increase.

            Your youtube links also distorts and misrepresent the Milankovitch Cycle aspect of the Ice Age/Glaciation events (it seemed to only focus on the most recent of Ice Age/Glaciation). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

            That youtube author also engaged the other common distortion tactic of the pro-ACC/AGW crowd in mentioning "tonnes" of CO2 or "meethane" going into the atmosphere without providing perspective of how little it is in comparrision to the larger billions of tons of everything else. Their visual cartoon showing short wave radiation coming in versus long wave radiation going out also distorts the ratio of CO2 and CH4(?) compared to the rest of the atmosphere composition.

            Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
            You do realize the only reason republicans deny climate change is because Big Oil runs the republican party?
            Again, another delusion you share with the rest of the pro-ACC/AGW crowd whom have no clear idea of what is happening or involved. For one thing, it's not only Republicans whom question or deny anthropogenic/human caused climate change (there you go again being non-precise in failing to distinguish between ACC/AGW and Natural), others of other political leanings do so as well. I've yet to see any sign of "Big Oil" running the GOP party locally here, and we have two major refineries in this county, but got no "Big Oil" funding of note for our candidates in the recent election. As usual, you've fallen for the lies and propaganda of the Western Civ hating Liberals and loonie-Left, common to the Democrats.

            Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
            Why would you trust the word of Big Oil over scientists across the globe? Big Oil is the culprit of the problem, of course they're gonna LIE about themselves being responsible.
            I don't trust either one. I do my own assessment and follow the data.
            I can tell you lack much knowledge about science and wouldn't be surprised if you'd mix ammonia with bleach to make a better cleaning solution.

            Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
            Wake up!
            I have komrade, which is why I don't blindly follow political drivel and driven agenda of Regressives the way you are.

            Both presented by a journalist with his own bias;
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_...ld_(journalist)

            If you and others of such delusional and destructionist ilk really believe in ACC/AGW than the solution is for all of you to stop exhaling carbon dioxide.

            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
              David , a couple of things
              1) the united states leads the world in climate changes deniers


              https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...most-prevalent

              2) if you wish to see my other chart

              https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_opinion2.png
              I am happy to show all my sources if you do the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...ng_controversy
              And who has the most to gain in promoting "man-made global warming?".
              ...while not doing a darn thing about it?

              China

              {}

              "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

              Comment


              • The whole language of climate change is ripe with obvious propaganda. There are virtually no deniers but many alarmists. The idea that anthropogenic sources of co2 will have a warning effect is over a hundred years old. Consider the obvious hostility the left will, by ideological indoctrination, have for any fundamental element of the economy they do not control. It should come as no surprise that they will jump on the alarmist bandwagon.

                You need only look at the Paris Accord to see the true motivation which is not a significant reduction in co2 but control of industry. The hypocrisy is transparent as little mention is made of Europe exporting it's pollution and slave labor to China. Building your economy on the misery of others is the new European imperialism. The first step should have been to raise foreign workers wages as Trump has done with Mexico creating an environment in which workers are no longer just concerned with survival but have the same luxury as Europeans to care about the environment.

                It is worth noting that the worst environmental disasters in the 20th century were not the product of "evil" corporations but government planners in the Soviet Union. Free non collectivist people will demand environmental health and achieve it by way of the courts not government regulation. The history of civilization is littered with examples of the ultimate chaos introduced by the bureaucratic state. That this may be counter intuitive is only evidence of the prejudice for someone else to solve people's problems whether it be a strong government or a strongman.

                The best solution to almost every problem we face is an expanding innovative economy. Democracy didn't make Athens the most desirable place to live in ancient Greece, free and vibrant trade did. A benevolent Confucian Empire didn't make China the most advanced civilization in 1200 ad free trade did. The Roman empire wasn't built by it's government but by free land owners and free traders. The worst places to live today in terms of environmental conditions are socialist countries in Africa, Asia and South America.

                The historical evidence suggests that we can adapt to climate change and what we should be most afraid of is the bureaucratic state.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • Speaking of alarmist. Here's an article that does just that. It talks about "storm surge" and makes a weak future prediction about sea level rise.

                  But the shipyard now faces its greatest existential threat: rising seas and extreme weather driven by climate change.

                  In the past 10 years, Norfolk Naval Shipyard has suffered nine major floods that have damaged equipment used to repair ships, and the flooding is worsening, according to the Navy. In 2016, rain from Hurricane Matthew left 2 feet of water in one building, requiring nearly $1.2 million in repairs.
                  No here, we have an alarmist lead in, then a paragraph about storm surge that has nothing to do with climate change but rather to do with where storms hit and their intensity.

                  Then it conflates reasons for local sea levels rising in relation to the land.

                  Sea level in Norfolk has risen 1.5 feet in the past century, twice the global average, in part because the coastline is sinking.
                  So, which is it? Land sinking or sea level rising that's the problem here? The article doesn't say. Sounds to me like land subsidence is the problem.

                  Then there's this:

                  Climate change is already making storms more frequent, and a few decades from now, when seas will be 1 to 2 feet higher...
                  First, the more frequent storm issue has been thoroughly debunked. Then comes the prediction, that has proven wrong in the past-- repeatedly.

                  https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...cid=spartanntp

                  It isn't that climate change isn't an issue, it's that alarmist pieces of crap articles like this one make it out to be an urgent problem that requires expensive and immediate solution. That's an attempt to sway readers to believe that spending trillions on reducing CO2 emissions is necessary, rather than a reasoned argument.

                  Comment


                  • EXCERPT:
                    .... If you are green to gardening you might not know that carbon dioxide, the gas we all exhale, is critical to plant growth and development. Photosynthesis, the process through which plants use light to create food, requires carbon dioxide. CO2 concentration in ambient air ranges from 300-500 parts per million (ppm), with a global atmospheric average of about 400 ppm. If you are growing in a greenhouse or indoors, the CO2 levels will be reduced as the plants use it up during photosynthesis. Increasing the CO2 levels in these environments is essential for good results. Additionally, there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!

                    Commercial greenhouses are aware of this and commonly use CO2 generators to maximize production. One thing to keep in mind while designing a CO2 system is that yields will only increase if CO2 is your ‘limiting factor’ (for more on ‘limiting factors’ and ‘Leibig’s Barrel’, see our previous post here). This means that if all your other variables are not optimal (light, fertilizer, temp/humidity, pH, etc.) you will not achieve the benefits of increased CO2 levels.

                    Now that we know the benefit of adding CO2 to your indoor growing environment, one thing to note is that CO2 enrichment will not be as effective if your grow area is not sealed since it will be exhausted before the plants can use it. Ideally, air should not be exchanged in an out of your grow room. If you have an air-cooled reflector, the air drawn through the fan to cool the bulb must enter and exit the grow area without coming in contact with the air in the grow room. Sealing your grow space allows plants to more completely use the CO2 that you enrich the environment with.

                    Another thing to note is that during the night cycle plants actually give off CO2. This causes a gradual increase during the night, until the lights come on and the plants resume absorbing CO2; you can save CO2 by waiting an hour or so into your daylight cycle to cut your CO2 device on.

                    Lastly, CO2 is notably heavier than air, so it is essential that your CO2 be dispensed from above your plant canopy. Oscillating fans in the grow space, particularly around the CO2 dispensed, will help distribute the CO2 around the area. Commercial greenhouse growing hydroponic tomatoes with CO2 enriched air. ....
                    https://fifthseasongardening.com/reg...carbon-dioxide
                    .................................................. .............................................

                    Interestingly, the photo shows the tomato plants growing in straw bales, which is how we grow ours, only it's outdoors in the garden area. Don't have a greenhouse ... yet.

                    Of course, the subject of CO2 levels and plant/flora benefit is a bit divided, here's a search page result list for those wanting to look further;
                    https://www.google.com/search?q=opti...firefox-b-1-ab

                    See also;
                    http://www.co2science.org/subject/v/...eryhighco2.php
                    AND:
                    ...
                    Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm (Figure 1). As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.
                    ....
                    http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/...cts/00-077.htm
                    ..................................................
                    As mentioned before, an AVERAGE minimum optimal for plant/flora growth is about 300ppm. Obviously this varies a bit per plant type, but implications are that in past times where CO2 was below 300ppm plant-life/flora on this plant were struggling to survive and short of full thrive. Considering that about 99+% of biomass on this planet is Flora/plants and we animals(and humans), @1%ers need those plants, CO2 at level of 400ppm is barely getting into the threshold of what would be best for most of the life on this planet. Slight increase in warmth and sunlight will also be beneficial.

                    Bottom-line is that those raving we should engage in geo-engineering to correct a system like "Climate", the factors and processes we don't fully understand yet, are not only advocating to fix something that might not be "broke", but something we don't know enough on how it works to where our "fix" might cause more damage.

                    AND ... that "fix" of reducing CO2 levels is harmful to most of the life on this planet so it seems we could say that the advocates for ACC/AGW and rush into CO2 reductions have an anti-life agenda. The pro-ACC/AGW people are the real danger to this planet and life on it.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • david brock
                      You still have not said a word about 82 % to 98 % of of climate scientist see significant role of human beings in global warming ? and yet all the warning sign are around you ie california fires . How do you explain that. go ahead and this time i want not just your rating but sources , i show you mine now you show me yours .

                      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_opinion2.png

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                        david brock
                        You still have not said a word about 82 % to 98 % of of climate scientist see significant role of human beings in global warming ? and yet all the warning sign are around you ie california fires . How do you explain that. go ahead and this time i want not just your rating but sources , i show you mine now you show me yours .

                        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_opinion2.png
                        "Bill"
                        You can't even spell my name correctly, nor write in eighth grade passing English grammar so why should I give you validation?

                        Apparently you did not read nor comprehend the substance of my above posts nor notice the numerous sources I've provided links to.

                        While there may be a SLIGHT human role in Climate Change and that change could be warming trend, I'd prefer warming away from another Ice Age over cooling towards an Ice Age.

                        See the thread here at ACG on the California wildfires and note I present information showing that it is due to many other factors, least of which is climate change (obvious to any whom know nature and history of California prior to the Industrial Age).

                        Finally, as I've mentioned before, Science is not based upon consensus, but data. I've yet to see data proving that the temporary heat retention of CO2 is causing the other 99.9996% of the (dry) atmosphere to heat up.

                        If science were based upon consensus of so-called "experts" we'd still believe that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth.
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                          david brock
                          You still have not said a word about 82 % to 98 % of of climate scientist see significant role of human beings in global warming ? and yet all the warning sign are around you ie california fires . How do you explain that. go ahead and this time i want not just your rating but sources , i show you mine now you show me yours .

                          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_opinion2.png
                          One problem with that is, even if the agreement is that high among climate scientists, you have to follow the money. If the majority of funding is for climate research that agrees that CO2 and anthropogenic causes are the reason, then these guys are going to be inclined to make their research match that outcome.
                          After all, the first rule of consulting is "You need more consulting." The second rule is "You don't upset your source(s) of funding."

                          So, if you were an academic that lives by getting funding for climate research and that funding was dependent on finding CO2 and anthropogenic causes, I'd think you'd try damn hard to find those are the reasons for climate change.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                            One problem with that is, even if the agreement is that high among climate scientists, you have to follow the money. If the majority of funding is for climate research that agrees that CO2 and anthropogenic causes are the reason, then these guys are going to be inclined to make their research match that outcome.
                            After all, the first rule of consulting is "You need more consulting." The second rule is "You don't upset your source(s) of funding."

                            So, if you were an academic that lives by getting funding for climate research and that funding was dependent on finding CO2 and anthropogenic causes, I'd think you'd try damn hard to find those are the reasons for climate change.
                            EXACTLY!

                            This is far more applicable than the claims that "Big Oil" is paying all of we "deniers" to do so.
                            I'm still waiting for "that check is in the mail".
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                              EXACTLY!

                              This is far more applicable than the claims that "Big Oil" is paying all of we "deniers" to do so.
                              I'm still waiting for "that check is in the mail".
                              It's not like big oil has a bigger propaganda budget than the bureaucrats that profit from AGW who seem to have an almost unlimited budget for public "education" and the platform to instruct us from.
                              We hunt the hunters

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                                EXACTLY!

                                This is far more applicable than the claims that "Big Oil" is paying all of we "deniers" to do so.
                                I'm still waiting for "that check is in the mail".
                                Well, in the spirit of full disclosure, I do get checks from Conoco for royalties from a couple of oil wells in Texas I have an interest in by inheritance.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X