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 JustAGuy View Post
    Latest Government Report on Climate Change was made public yesterday afternoon while most Americans were distracted by holiday activities, sports, etc.

    Deniers will not like its findings.

    Fourth National Climate Assessment
    Same political spin we've heard for a few decades now.
    Nothing new.
    Nothing proven by standard scientific methods.

    If you buy it, be part of the "solution" and stop exhaling CO2.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

      Same political spin we've heard for a few decades now.
      Nothing new.
      Nothing proven by standard scientific methods.

      If you buy it, be part of the "solution" and stop exhaling CO2.
      Same question. What other types of science do you deny?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
        Evidently you do not understand the difference between weather and climate.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

          Just curious. What other fields of science do you deny?
          What are you going to ask me next? Do you still beat your wife? You do know that what you asked is a complex question fallacy.

          How am I denying science by questioning the results and theories of a field? Unlike you I have an open mind about climate change. I look at what's presented and by whom.

          For instance, the same people that put out that study likely would think that putting more solar on buildings in the Phoenix metro area would be a good idea. But, they would be blinded by their myopic dogma on climate change. More solar means greater urban heat island effect which in turn will raise the average temperature across the metro area and that will lead to more ozone pollution, not less, as the number of automobiles would remain constant or increase. Now, these same people would then say "Well, we'll force everyone to buy battery cars rather than gasoline ones. Except, that won't happen as most people don't want a battery powered car as it is impractical for their use. Hence why Tesla has never turned a profit. But, states like New York-- run by true believers in Gorebal Warming have dumped a billion dollars into the company to prop it up.

          If Arizona were to massively increase the use of solar it wouldn't solve the state's energy needs nor would it lower costs. Plus, massive solar arrays are neither all that environmentally friendly or cost effective.

          Take Solana, the largest solar plant in Arizona. Two years ago it got hit by a microburst thunderstorm. Microbursts have hurricane level winds associated with them. Half the plant was damaged, a quarter of it destroyed. It was producing a fraction of it's normal power for almost six months. The year before, it was fined $1.5 million for air quality violations. It's been cited since then several times for other environmental / pollution violations too.

          So, if man made CO2 isn't the cause of climate change, then were are going down a very expensive path to an energy poor future. Yet, you chastise me as the one that is closed minded. I'm not. It's true believers like AlGore the prophet of Gorebal Warming that are. They've made up their minds and won't listen to anyone or thing that conflicts with their religious view that manmade CO2 is the cause of climate change.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            What are you going to ask me next? Do you still beat your wife? You do know that what you asked is a complex question fallacy.
            How am I denying science by questioning the results and theories of a field? Unlike you I have an open mind about climate change. I look at what's presented and by whom.
            I try and keep an open mind too. In fact I am an inveterate skeptic. But I try not to keep my mind so open that my brain falls out.

            Your reply indicates a complete disregard for climate science while hiding behind the false pretense of "questioning the results and theories of a field."

            The very fact that you summon up a couple of straw arguments to knock down as some sort of wild proof of your position is the tell tell sign of a science denier.

            If you were truly questioning the scientific findings about climate change, you would do so with cogent, thoughtful, logical science based rebuttals instead of strawmen and and irrelevant rants.

            Fact is, you have swallowed the antiscience, climate change denial arguments spread by the right wing media and its supporters -- hook, line and sinker.

            Just for the record, your comments remind me of those made about the findings of geologists and other scientists by a very nice fellow I know who sincerely believes the earth is only 7,000 odd years old. He produces arguments very similar to yours while hiding behind a pretense of being a sensible, open-minded person.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              The question on the table isn't IF climate change is happening but WHY. The argument here is between those convinced it is anthropogenic, that is man-made, or if it is naturally occurring.

              My view is that the bulk of it is naturally occurring and that any contribution man is making to it is minor and not being caused in any large part by CO2 production.
              This corresponds very closely to my thoughts on the subject.
              Nobody with any passable knowledge of this planet and its history can deny that climate change is real. It's been happening for many millions, even billions, of years. It is a natural, on-going and inevitable process for the planet.
              As you say, the REAL question is, how much of the change we've seen over the last century has been caused by human activity and how much of it is natural?
              IMHO, the human contribution must have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution and almost certainly more so in the last half-century or so; due to a combination of factors including the accumulated effects of large-scale land-clearing and de-forestation as well as increasing CO2. Nevertheless, IMO it is not yet proven that this is THE major factor in global warming.

              However, I still think it prudent for us to manage our emissions, land management and related human activities in such a way as to minimize their environmental impacts. That would seem sensible to me.

              "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 JustAGuy View Post

                Is this the only field of science you deny or are there others?
                I don't deny AGW I just think that the alarmist tend to lie. Basically I think they are immoral opportunist motivated by politics as much as science.

                It looks like the models grossly exaggerate the warming, they keep coming up with explanations as to why their predictions were so far off. Maybe the explanations are valid maybe they are just covering their ass, I don't know and I'm pretty sure you don't either. Either way I don't really care because I think you can make a moral case for fossil fuels. The problem with self righteous, pearl clutching, do gooders, is the unintended consequences.

                The socialists are not the good guys they just think they are. George Orwell sorted that out a long time ago.

                Don't bother replying unless you have an original thought, most of what you have ever had to say is just the party line script that I could have type out for you ahead of time.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

                  Same question. What other types of science do you deny?
                  "Science" based upon consensus opinions, not data, facts, or reproducible research. That is what we are getting from ACC/AGW. As mentioned often in this thread, cut funding for pro-ACC/AGW "research" and you will see the consensus drop dramatically.

                  Meanwhile, we can expect you to be a part of the "solution" and stop exhaling CO2 when .... ???

                  For more details, See T.A. Gardner's post above.

                  BTW, why are you anti-Life on this Planet?
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

                    Evidently you do not understand the difference between weather and climate.
                    Neither do you or most of the pro-ACC/AGW gorebots.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

                      Evidently you do not understand the difference between weather and climate.
                      That's the problem. I do understand weather and climate. I an very much aware that the weather of the past 20+ years of crying wolf does not even come close to matching the predictions for the climate.

                      What you fail to understand is that This is all being done for political purpose to bankrupt everyone in the US. China, India, Pakistan are doing nothing to reduce their exploding CO2 production. https://thediplomat.com/2017/03/repo...air-pollution/

                      So, go ahead, pay for the expensive experiment of spraying chemicals into the upper atmosphere where the Tin Hat people claim the Government is poisoning us. https://www.csicop.org/specialarticl...isoning_planes

                      Eliminate all energy production by the use of fossil fuels, bio fuels, anything that can produce CO2. Live in the commune of the Sustainable Society where there is no heat, air conditioning, refrigeration, and food preparation by cooking. https://www.amazon.com/Agenda-21-Gle.../dp/1476716692

                      Make extinct all ruminants, animals such as cows, goats, deer, etc... that are cud chewers. https://scienceline.org/2007/03/env_knight_ipcccows/

                      Start a campaign to poison off all termites and other insects that digest plant matter to generate large amounts of CO2. https://www.iceagenow.info/termites-...ving-combined/

                      Make all humans wear a mask that collects the CO2 they exhale and special diapers that collects their emissions. https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&ke...sl_oxel01i0t_b

                      That way, several hundreds years from now, as CO2 levels have dropped way down, people can worry about food production as all plant life worldwide, gets stunted due to the lack of CO2 needed for photosynthesis, not to mention causing another ice age. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/...oo-little-co2/
                      “Breaking News,”

                      “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

                        I try and keep an open mind too. In fact I am an inveterate skeptic. But I try not to keep my mind so open that my brain falls out.

                        Your reply indicates a complete disregard for climate science while hiding behind the false pretense of "questioning the results and theories of a field."

                        The very fact that you summon up a couple of straw arguments to knock down as some sort of wild proof of your position is the tell tell sign of a science denier.

                        If you were truly questioning the scientific findings about climate change, you would do so with cogent, thoughtful, logical science based rebuttals instead of strawmen and and irrelevant rants.

                        Fact is, you have swallowed the antiscience, climate change denial arguments spread by the right wing media and its supporters -- hook, line and sinker.

                        Just for the record, your comments remind me of those made about the findings of geologists and other scientists by a very nice fellow I know who sincerely believes the earth is only 7,000 odd years old. He produces arguments very similar to yours while hiding behind a pretense of being a sensible, open-minded person.
                        Let me start with the one alternative I like to use to demonstrate that there are viable and real alternate explanations to CO2:

                        NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.
                        https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/200...s_climate.html

                        https://earthdata.nasa.gov/user-reso...l-of-contrails

                        There is more and more reliable data being found that contrails play a significant part in anthropogenic climate change. The fix is simple: Have aircraft fly paths and at heights that don't cause contrails to form. That is a quick and cost effective solution that could be implemented almost immediately. We can then observe the results of that in a relatively short time too.

                        That's one. There are others. The point of that is that it demolishes, on its own merits the idea that CO2 is the sole driving cause of climate change. This is what I'm getting at. The anthropogenic CO2 as a sole cause argument is clearly flawed. It has become dogma of the environmental Left because it supports other parts of their political dogma like public transit, "renewable energy" (aka wind and solar), battery cars, and the abolition of fossil fuels.

                        Climate change "science" is and has been rife with scandals. These are usually downplayed by believers, but one should show skepticism when you find repeated "fudging" of the data and methodology.

                        http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/

                        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...eneration.html

                        https://www.theguardian.com/environm...science-emails

                        https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ndal_data.html

                        It doesn't help that the face of Gorebal Warming is AlGore either. The man is an idiot. His movies on this subject are puerile crap. I read his book too. It's utter nonsense.

                        What I don't buy is the environmental Left's argument that manmade CO2 is the sole cause.

                        Just for an additional toss in... If this is so vital to mankind's survival, why aren't these people pushing for more nuclear power, the one energy source that can reliably supply the power we need and do it without CO2 emissions?

                        Comment


                        • To all the deniers.......https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/

                          This is conclusive regarding the causes of climate change.

                          "Fourth National
                          Climate Assessment
                          Volume II
                          Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation
                          in the United States

                          OVERVIEW, pp. 8-9

                          Causes of Change

                          Global climate is also influenced by natural factors that determine how much of the sun’s energy enters and leaves Earth’s atmosphere and by natural climate cycles that affect temperatures and weather patterns in the short term, especially regionally (see Ch. 2: Climate, Box 2.1). However, the unambiguous long-term warming trend in global average temperature over the last century cannot be explained by natural factors alone. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence. Without human activities, the influence of natural factors alone would actually have had a slight cooling effect on global climate over the last 50 years (Ch. 2: Climate, KM 1, Figure 2.1). "
                          Last edited by JustAGuy; 26 Nov 18, 10:17.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post
                            Too all the deniers.......https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/

                            This is conclusive regarding the causes of climate change.

                            From Fourth National
                            Climate Assessment
                            Volume II
                            Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation
                            in the United States

                            OVERVIEW, pp. 8-9

                            Causes of Change

                            Global climate is also influenced by natural factors that determine how much of the sun’s energy enters and leaves Earth’s atmosphere
                            and by natural climate cycles that affect temperatures and weather patterns in the short term, especially regionally (see Ch. 2:
                            Climate, Box 2.1). However, the unambiguous long-term warming trend in global average temperature over the last century cannot be
                            explained by natural factors alone. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed
                            warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence.

                            Without human activities, the influence of natural factors alone would actually have had a slight cooling effect on global climate over the
                            last 50 years (Ch. 2: Climate, KM 1, Figure 2.1).
                            Then explain the NASA and other scientific data related to contrails. So, I'm not buying the above for a New York second. To argue that something as complex as a planetary atmosphere and environmental system can be definitively and singularly effected by minute increases in CO2 alone is nothing short of absurd. There is ZERO way they can make a credible claim that their explanation is accurate.



                            I smell wet dogma everywhere on that report.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              Then explain the NASA and other scientific data related to contrails. So, I'm not buying the above for a New York second. To argue that something as complex as a planetary atmosphere and environmental system can be definitively and singularly effected by minute increases in CO2 alone is nothing short of absurd. There is ZERO way they can make a credible claim that their explanation is accurate.



                              I smell wet dogma everywhere on that report.
                              From Appendix 5, Frequently Asked Questions

                              "Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere and plays an
                              important role in Earth’s climate, significantly increasing Earth’s temperature. However, unlike
                              other GHGs, water vapor can condense and precipitate, so water vapor has a short life span in
                              the atmosphere. Air temperature, and not emissions, controls the amount of water vapor in the
                              lower atmosphere. For this reason, water vapor is considered a feedback agent and not a driver
                              of climate change."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

                                From Appendix 5, Frequently Asked Questions

                                "Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere and plays an
                                important role in Earth’s climate, significantly increasing Earth’s temperature. However, unlike
                                other GHGs, water vapor can condense and precipitate, so water vapor has a short life span in
                                the atmosphere. Air temperature, and not emissions, controls the amount of water vapor in the
                                lower atmosphere. For this reason, water vapor is considered a feedback agent and not a driver
                                of climate change."
                                Komrade,
                                Before spreading more fake science, try reading the past 40+ pages of posts so you are more informed on the flow of discussion here, would save reinventing the wheel, as they say.

                                Note that water vapor is cyclic, as some precipitates others are evaporating. Major drivers of climate change appear to be the Milankovitch Cycle and varied Solar output.

                                History of past 4 billion years also suggests other factors than recent human activity;
                                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X