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 Massena View Post
    The facts have been presented in the new report.

    However, this is alarming:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...cid=spartandhp
    That the NYT has bought into Gorebal Warming hook, line, and sinker.

    How about this gem from the article:
    In 2012, the Obama administration put forth a major regulation on planet-warming pollution from vehicle tailpipes, requiring automakers to nearly double the fuel economy of passenger vehicles to an average of about 54 miles per gallon by 2025.
    Well we know now how automakers responded: They stopped producing passenger cars and focused on SUV, light trucks, and cross-overs that weren't covered by the regulation. So, the Obama regulation, since rescinded, didn't cut emissions at all. It actually drove them up by forcing automakers out of a market. Buyers reacted by shifting to other types of vehicle that were less expensive all due to more government regulation.

    David G. Victor, quoted in the article is oblivious to this obvious reality.

    Then they talk about methane. Compared to naturally occurring methane, human produced is a miniscule fraction of the total. Again, a regulation that costs a lot and does little.

    I'd note not a peep about turning to nuclear which would quickly solve most of the CO2 problem. But, the environmental Left's position there is that it's evil and cannot be considered, let alone used.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

      That the NYT has bought into Gorebal Warming hook, line, and sinker.

      How about this gem from the article:


      Well we know now how automakers responded: They stopped producing passenger cars and focused on SUV, light trucks, and cross-overs that weren't covered by the regulation. So, the Obama regulation, since rescinded, didn't cut emissions at all. It actually drove them up by forcing automakers out of a market. Buyers reacted by shifting to other types of vehicle that were less expensive all due to more government regulation.

      David G. Victor, quoted in the article is oblivious to this obvious reality.

      Then they talk about methane. Compared to naturally occurring methane, human produced is a miniscule fraction of the total. Again, a regulation that costs a lot and does little.

      I'd note not a peep about turning to nuclear which would quickly solve most of the CO2 problem. But, the environmental Left's position there is that it's evil and cannot be considered, let alone used.
      Some added perspective ...
      Current levels of atmospheric methane (CH4) are about 1800ppb - that Parts Per Billion, dry air(not counting water vapor content). The ratio of methane to total "dry" air is 1/555,555 or about 0.0000i8%.

      This is less than a "drop in the bucket" and chasing after reductions here are another case of guv'mint workers gone crazy and running down a rabbit hole(Alice in Wonderland insanity).
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

        If you follow the science, why is it that you know so little about how it works? I think that YOU THINK, you follow the science but it is actually much in the same way as a religious zealot who believes everything the Ark Museum says is science. https://arkencounter.com/
        From the guy who lacks guts or integrity to provide any information about himself in his profile here, this is hilarious.

        The main premise of ACC/AGW is that the slight rise in Carbon Dioxide(CO2) levels in the atmosphere is what has driven "global warming"/"climate change" and the solution is to reduce human caused (anthropogenic) emissions. the issues here are;

        1) The attitude that "climate" is like the thermostat in one's home where it can be set to and remain at a certain and limited temperature range*.
        Meanwhile, historical and geological records show that "climate" is in constant flux and if not warming away from an Ice Age, it is cooling towards an Ice Age. One of first questions to ask and answer is which direction does one want to see "Climate" going?

        2) A next attitude is that warming climate is bad for the biosphere and planetary biomass. Overlooking that a cooling Climate could be just as bad if not more so. Geological records show that global climate averages have been higher at times in past 4 billion years of life on this planet and that CO2 levels have also been higher in the past but in no case have we seen a linkage where the Higher CO2 produced higher temperatures; often just the opposite where when one is higher than average the other is lower than average. Bottom-line is that there is claim we have a problem, but no proof of such, or if it's a bad problem or a serendipitous boon.

        3) Current levels of CO2 are 400ppm - Parts Per Million, dry (not counting water vapor) air. This works out to a ratio of 1/2500 for everything else in the atmosphere; nitrogen, oxygen, argon, misc. other elements, etc. Current CO2 level is about 0.04% of the atmosphere and basic chemistry and physics have failed to show how heat retained by one part CO2 has heated up the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere.

        4) Current examination of this slight rise of CO2 (barely over the threshold of 300ppm which is minimum optimal for Flora thriving) tends to focus on "human caused" emissions and neglect or down play the massive deforestation and Flora reductions that have also occurred. Insult to injury is that only solution proposed is to decrease human emissions, at extreme costs to economy and human lives (via reduced food production for one) while neglecting that replanting and increase flora biomass would be a more affordable and workable "solution". Again, assuming a "solution" is needed or possible versus learning how to adapt.

        5) Currently human-caused/anthropogenic climate change(ACC)/global warming(AGW) is a hypothesis in search of enough evidence and proof to advance to theory, using standard scientific methods. However, for those whom are looking for a scare tactic to reduce scope of capitalism and increase government size and control over the population, ACC/AGW provides a usable scare tactic and propaganda to pursue this agenda.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Massena View Post

          What I am in support of is stopping or retarding climate change which may injure the environment beyond repair. And I support the government's report which is current and was put together by 300 scientists who work for the government. It is also the report of the Trump administration without Trump's support. He is not a scientist, and by his actions is not an intelligent person nor has he much common sense. The US should readopt the Paris Accords and work on the environment,

          This new report supercedes what has gone before and is current.

          Your silly ad hominem comments are noted and they coincide with your junk science comments.
          "junk science" is when one labels a compound essential to 99+% of life on this planet as "pollution". Especially when that "pollutant" is barely above the minimum optimal levels for those flora.

          "junk science" is raising alarm claiming a lower than geological record rise in average global temperatures "MAY INJURE" the environment (more correct term is biosphere), when geological records show such hasn't been the case in the past ...
          ... then combine that with ad-hock "maybe" solutions to an unproven problem which could do more actual harm than exists.

          I realize your lifetime career path as a government worker might bias you towards thinking that all government workers are perfect, infallible, and beyond error or personal agendas; but my real world experiences has shown that most of them couldn't make it in a workplace like the private sector where profitable productivity is needed, hence they have to goon guv'mint in one form or another. As I and others have mentioned here often, stop funding for pro-ACC/AGW and start funding to disprove it and many of your science experts will change their tune and positions.

          As for silly ad hominem comments, check your posts of the past two years. Ever since Trump got elected you have liberally denigrated those whom don't share your negativity towards DJT with a range of ad hominem insults. So far you are the clear leader in this department/regard on this forum
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • Juliana v. United States https://www.sightline.org/2018/11/01...h-oregon-case/

            wait until this hits the courts. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...wsuit-for-now/

            In 2015, the 21 young people, now aged 11 to 22, brought their lawsuit in the US District Court of Oregon, arguing that US energy policy over the decades has so drastically destabilized the climate that it violates the US Constitution. After three years, a new president, and countless legal filings, the plaintiffs are now in Eugene and ready to testify about how climate change already affects their lives and compromises their futures.

            i think that the young people will win. and here is why
            1) James Hansen, the former top NASA scientist who first brought climate change to the forefront 30 years ago, is also a plaintiff in the federal case.
            2) 98 % of all climate scientist see global warming as man made.
            3) the united states has done nothing it never ratified the kyoto accord.and back down from the paris agreement
            4) case are decided on merit and the deniers have little scientific merit to back up their claims that there is no such thing as global warming and that it is not man made. .


            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
            Last edited by bill shack; 27 Nov 18, 15:12.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
              Juliana v. United States https://www.sightline.org/2018/11/01...h-oregon-case/

              wait until this hits the courts. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...wsuit-for-now/

              In 2015, the 21 young people, now aged 11 to 22, brought their lawsuit in the US District Court of Oregon, arguing that US energy policy over the decades has so drastically destabilized the climate that it violates the US Constitution. After three years, a new president, and countless legal filings, the plaintiffs are now in Eugene and ready to testify about how climate change already affects their lives and compromises their futures.

              i think that the young people will win. and here is why
              1) James Hansen, the former top NASA scientist who first brought climate change to the forefront 30 years ago, is also a plaintiff in the federal case.
              I suspect the defense will hammer him into irrelevance because of his past proven manipulation of data like his involvement in the "Hockey Stick." Your case isn't bolstered by having an academic that's been proven to make up data.
              2) 98 % of all climate scientist see global warming as man made.
              So? We've been through this one too. There's plenty of conflicting evidence to that that can and likely will be brought up.
              3) the united states has done nothing it never ratified the kyoto accord.and back down from the paris agreement
              This is an irrelevant argument. It argues that Kyoto must be ratified. That is a political argument not a legal one. It is for Congress and the President to decide what treaties the US will get involved in, not the courts. This will be tossed out as an argument entirely.

              4) case are decided on merit and the deniers have little scientific metric to back up their claims.
              ​​​​​​​

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
              That's your opinion. I see things differently. For these kids / plaintiffs to prove their case, they have to do the impossible. That is prove future harm from present actions. That amounts to a logical fallacy except in extremis. How are they going to show that climate change will harm them as opposed to create different and new opportunities for them? What they are claiming is essentially an affirming the consequent argument.



              Their argument is climate change is harmful.
              Climate change is occurring.
              Therefore I am harmed.

              Well, if the defense says Climate change is primarily, or nearly entirely natural, and there is no valid proof that it is necessarily harmful versus simply requiring that you adapt to the changes, then there is no clear harm being done to the plaintiffs by US energy policy. They aren't suing Mother Nature. They are claiming that the US government, and government alone, is the cause of their harm.
              Further, they cannot prove with any reasonable level of certainty what harm has been caused to them now, or in the future. Therefore, their case should be dismissed...


              Comment


              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                "junk science" is when one labels a compound essential to 99+% of life on this planet as "pollution". Especially when that "pollutant" is barely above the minimum optimal levels for those flora.

                "junk science" is raising alarm claiming a lower than geological record rise in average global temperatures "MAY INJURE" the environment (more correct term is biosphere), when geological records show such hasn't been the case in the past ...
                ... then combine that with ad-hock "maybe" solutions to an unproven problem which could do more actual harm than exists.

                I realize your lifetime career path as a government worker might bias you towards thinking that all government workers are perfect, infallible, and beyond error or personal agendas; but my real world experiences has shown that most of them couldn't make it in a workplace like the private sector where profitable productivity is needed, hence they have to goon guv'mint in one form or another. As I and others have mentioned here often, stop funding for pro-ACC/AGW and start funding to disprove it and many of your science experts will change their tune and positions.

                As for silly ad hominem comments, check your posts of the past two years. Ever since Trump got elected you have liberally denigrated those whom don't share your negativity towards DJT with a range of ad hominem insults. So far you are the clear leader in this department/regard on this forum
                The louder and more vulgar you become, and the more rank your accusations are, merely demonstrates the bankruptcy of your position.
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                  Juliana v. United States https://www.sightline.org/2018/11/01...h-oregon-case/

                  wait until this hits the courts. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...wsuit-for-now/

                  In 2015, the 21 young people, now aged 11 to 22, brought their lawsuit in the US District Court of Oregon, arguing that US energy policy over the decades has so drastically destabilized the climate that it violates the US Constitution. After three years, a new president, and countless legal filings, the plaintiffs are now in Eugene and ready to testify about how climate change already affects their lives and compromises their futures.

                  i think that the young people will win. and here is why
                  1) James Hansen, the former top NASA scientist who first brought climate change to the forefront 30 years ago, is also a plaintiff in the federal case.
                  2) 98 % of all climate scientist see global warming as man made.
                  3) the united states has done nothing it never ratified the kyoto accord.and back down from the paris agreement
                  4) case are decided on merit and the deniers have little scientific merit to back up their claims that there is no such thing as global warming and that it is not man made. .


                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
                  Since many are incapable of clicking back to the OP page, a copy-paste of post #2 here for context (BTW, #8 also related);
                  ....
                  The Political Environmentalism Thread

                  Since bureaucrats are incapable of doing anything useful, this should be no surprise...

                  New study translated: public servants are more likely to become eco-activists

                  For example, for NASA GISS administrator, James Hansen, aka patient zero, seen below being arrested at a climate protest ...

                  UGA research reveals public servants individually motivated to help environment

                  Athens, Ga. – New University of Georgia research shows that while on the job, public servants contribute not just to mandated sustainability but also to discretionary…

                  [...]

                  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/0...eco-activists/
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • So, Hansen in a legal sense, hurts the plaintiff's case by being previously convicted, previously having been found to lie on data and research, and by having what can only be seen as a vested and biased interest in the case.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Massena View Post

                      The louder and more vulgar you become, and the more rank your accusations are, merely demonstrates the bankruptcy of your position.
                      Lousy backpedal and CYA there, how about trying to step away from personal insults and do some science. Here are two stumbling blocks to your religion of ACC/AGW you could try explaining;
                      ...
                      3) Current levels of CO2 are 400ppm - Parts Per Million, dry (not counting water vapor) air. This works out to a ratio of 1/2500 for everything else in the atmosphere; nitrogen, oxygen, argon, misc. other elements, etc. Current CO2 level is about 0.04% of the atmosphere and basic chemistry and physics have failed to show how heat retained by one part CO2 has heated up the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere.
                      ....
                      "junk science" is when one labels a compound essential to 99+% of life on this planet as "pollution". Especially when that "pollutant" is barely above the minimum optimal levels for those flora.
                      .................................................. ..........................................

                      The bankrupt position is that of ACC/AGW which is why the science and data flounder and the socialist/statist clowns supporting it have to resort to political and economic coercion efforts to make their propaganda into law.
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • Have you read the new report or have you seen the main points from it?
                        We are not now that strength which in old days
                        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                          Juliana v. United States https://www.sightline.org/2018/11/01...h-oregon-case/

                          wait until this hits the courts. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...wsuit-for-now/

                          In 2015, the 21 young people, now aged 11 to 22, brought their lawsuit in the US District Court of Oregon, arguing that US energy policy over the decades has so drastically destabilized the climate that it violates the US Constitution. After three years, a new president, and countless legal filings, the plaintiffs are now in Eugene and ready to testify about how climate change already affects their lives and compromises their futures.

                          i think that the young people will win. and here is why
                          1) James Hansen, the former top NASA scientist who first brought climate change to the forefront 30 years ago, is also a plaintiff in the federal case.
                          2) 98 % of all climate scientist see global warming as man made.
                          3) the united states has done nothing it never ratified the kyoto accord.and back down from the paris agreement
                          4) case are decided on merit and the deniers have little scientific merit to back up their claims that there is no such thing as global warming and that it is not man made. .


                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
                          My neighbor's tree is leaning towards my property and might fall on my house one day, therefore I will sue in court for future and potential damages of $100,000.00; just in case.

                          Sorry B.S.; maybe in some dictatorship their case could work, but here the wonder is that it hasn't been tossed out yet. In USA you can only charge or sue for actual damages, not potential, maybe, some day, might happen ....
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                            From the guy who lacks guts or integrity to provide any information about himself in his profile here, this is hilarious.

                            The main premise of ACC/AGW is that the slight rise in Carbon Dioxide(CO2) levels in the atmosphere is what has driven "global warming"/"climate change" and the solution is to reduce human caused (anthropogenic) emissions. the issues here are;

                            1) The attitude that "climate" is like the thermostat in one's home where it can be set to and remain at a certain and limited temperature range*.
                            Meanwhile, historical and geological records show that "climate" is in constant flux and if not warming away from an Ice Age, it is cooling towards an Ice Age. One of first questions to ask and answer is which direction does one want to see "Climate" going?

                            2) A next attitude is that warming climate is bad for the biosphere and planetary biomass. Overlooking that a cooling Climate could be just as bad if not more so. Geological records show that global climate averages have been higher at times in past 4 billion years of life on this planet and that CO2 levels have also been higher in the past but in no case have we seen a linkage where the Higher CO2 produced higher temperatures; often just the opposite where when one is higher than average the other is lower than average. Bottom-line is that there is claim we have a problem, but no proof of such, or if it's a bad problem or a serendipitous boon.

                            3) Current levels of CO2 are 400ppm - Parts Per Million, dry (not counting water vapor) air. This works out to a ratio of 1/2500 for everything else in the atmosphere; nitrogen, oxygen, argon, misc. other elements, etc. Current CO2 level is about 0.04% of the atmosphere and basic chemistry and physics have failed to show how heat retained by one part CO2 has heated up the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere.

                            4) Current examination of this slight rise of CO2 (barely over the threshold of 300ppm which is minimum optimal for Flora thriving) tends to focus on "human caused" emissions and neglect or down play the massive deforestation and Flora reductions that have also occurred. Insult to injury is that only solution proposed is to decrease human emissions, at extreme costs to economy and human lives (via reduced food production for one) while neglecting that replanting and increase flora biomass would be a more affordable and workable "solution". Again, assuming a "solution" is needed or possible versus learning how to adapt.

                            5) Currently human-caused/anthropogenic climate change(ACC)/global warming(AGW) is a hypothesis in search of enough evidence and proof to advance to theory, using standard scientific methods. However, for those whom are looking for a scare tactic to reduce scope of capitalism and increase government size and control over the population, ACC/AGW provides a usable scare tactic and propaganda to pursue this agenda.
                            Woof, Woof !

                            Comment


                            • Comment


                              • Another blast from the past (of about four years ago), copy-paste of post #8 here;
                                .............
                                11 Dec 14, 16:21


                                Almost too funny to post. Just days after NOAA concluded that California's recent prolonged drought was not caused by climate change, Gorebots are now blaming climate change for ending the drought...
                                The Winter storm hitting California today, claimed to be driven by “changing climate”.
                                FYI FOR JOURNALISTS

                                Northern California Super Storm Linked to Changing Climate


                                To: Journalists
                                From: Climate Nexus
                                Date: December 11, 2014
                                Re: The Climate Context of California’s Atmospheric River Storm

                                With the drought-causing high-pressure zone dubbed the “Ridiculously Resilient Ridge” pushed aside for now, a powerful storm associated with what are called “atmospheric rivers” is currently drenching the California Bay Area.

                                [...]

                                Atmospheric river storms are responsible for 30-50 percent of all the precipitation in California and are also responsible for over 80 percent of major flooding events. Climate research indicates that the impacts of these storms are expected to escalate dramatically if carbon emissions continue along the business-as-usual path, and that atmospheric rivers may already be impacted by current warming...

                                [...]
                                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/1...nging-climate/


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

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X