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

    Facts don't change. That is why they are facts.

    When a totally right wing politician, well educated, and with an actual science degree, pointed out that AGW was an issue, it was the Left that initially complained. It was Margaret Thatcher that brought this subject to everyone's attention.

    Then we have politics. It is clear that Kellyanne Conways alternative facts are believed in certain quarters. Alternative Facts are not Facts.

    Margaret Thatcher was completely correct in this case.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      There is no science in your reply.

      Margaret Thatcher was a scientist. She revealed the problem of AGW. She was Right in both senses of the word.
      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

        There is no science in your reply.
        So? It wasn't meant to portray science. It portrays an idea that is valid.

        Margaret Thatcher was a scientist. She revealed the problem of AGW. She was Right in both senses of the word.
        Appeal to authority or popularity. So?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
          Facts don't change. That is why they are facts. ... <snip>
          True; but what is held (believed) to be fact can change, and - as history shows us - often does.

          There is also the representation of fact, wherein something can be claimed as fact but is not conclusively proven as such; yet is still believed as such ... at least, for a time; or by some.

          Of all the words in our language, "fact" is among the most misused IMHO.
          "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


          • The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth ... overwhelming scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headinginto a period of significant cooling
            (and they may have been right about that)


            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/...as-not-a-myth/




            Winter is Coming, Super Grand Solar Minimum

            A Super Grand Solar Minimum would have four magnetic fields out of phase. There was about 40-60 years of cold weather 350 years ago. This was a Maunder Minimum of lower solar activity. The historical cold weather had two magnetic fields out of phase. Zharkova is predicting a cooling effect that is 2.5 to 4 times larger than the Maunder minimum
            https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/1...r-minimum.html



            "Why is the Rum gone?"

            -Captain Jack

            Comment


            • As far as the Fourth Climate Assessment goes, it's more political hype than science. There are two parts to it. The first volume is the science. The second volume is the politics.

              The chair / head of the committee writing the second part is a professor named Donald Wuebble. He's out of the University of Chicago and has been a longtime member of the IPCC (the UN panel that can't get any of its predictions anywhere close to what actually has happened). He's a member of a number of Progressive and Left leaning environmental and science groups like the highly political Union of Concerned Scientists (the Doomsday Clock people who put human destruction closer to happening when a Republican president is elected, and less likely when a Democrat is elected... go figure...)

              Volume 2 doesn't rely mainly on Volume 1. Instead, it takes data from many Progressive environmental groups along with some data from the first volume.

              But, let's assume for a moment that the US government follows all the recommendations of this assessment. What would be the consequences? I could see American's electricity costs tripling to quadrupling. Gas would likely top out at over $5 a gallon. There would be serious inflation of the price of food and other basic goods due to the massive increase in fossil fuel prices. Battery cars would still be a fail and the auto industry would be left flailing about trying to find a way to meet the unrealistic goals set for mileage and emissions.

              In short, the economy would tank badly.

              Worse, would be if the goals were met and had little or no effect on the climate. Then what? I'd suggest at that point we make examples of the scientists who pushed the nation into that as a warning to future generations of scientists about what happens when you mix politics with science...

              Comment


              • The goal isn't to save the planet but to destroy the evil fossil fuel industry. Before global warming became a household term the same people were just as adamant in their desire to destroy industry. Global warming was just the convenient mechanism by which to pursue the objective.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • The development of clean energy over the 'fossil fuel' alternative over time is not a good thing? Clean air and clean water is the objective, not what you're alluding to.
                  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 Massena View Post
                    The development of clean energy over the 'fossil fuel' alternative over time is not a good thing? Clean air and clean water is the objective, not what you're alluding to.
                    Not if it's solar and wind. These are horribly inefficient, not reliable, and very expensive. That the environmental Left is totally opposed to nuclear is another indication that they're not serious about realistic solutions but rather politically correct ones.

                    As for clean air and water... How clean is clean enough? If your answer is "zero tolerance and we need to get rid of all pollution..." then I say you are a deluded idiot and fool.

                    I would, as two examples of this mentality in action, give you for air: The Obama administration's attempt to lower ozone pollution from 75 ppb to 70 ppb. The EPA claimed on "science" that they refused to show anyone that doing this would save 35,000 lives a year and equal an economic savings of $100 billion-- the exact claimed / predicted cost of this regulation. Well a 5 ppb reduction in something is equal to nothing in realistic terms. That the cost of doing that would be $100 billion + is insane. But they tried. It was rejected and the Trump administration dumped the regulation entirely.

                    With water during the Clinton administration, the EPA lowered allowable arsenic in drinking water from 25 ppb to 10 ppb. The only justification for this was with new equipment water companies could now measure 10 ppb accurately. It made ZERO difference in terms of water safety. But, the rule meant that about 1 in 3 Americans saw their water bill double to triple in cost.

                    Zero tolerance whether it is environmental or safety or anything else is usually a very bad thing. Sure, there are some things that need that high a standard, but they are few and far between. The people calling for this on the environmental Left are morons.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      Not if it's solar and wind. These are horribly inefficient, not reliable, and very expensive. That the environmental Left is totally opposed to nuclear is another indication that they're not serious about realistic solutions but rather politically correct ones.

                      As for clean air and water... How clean is clean enough? If your answer is "zero tolerance and we need to get rid of all pollution..." then I say you are a deluded idiot and fool.

                      I would, as two examples of this mentality in action, give you for air: The Obama administration's attempt to lower ozone pollution from 75 ppb to 70 ppb. The EPA claimed on "science" that they refused to show anyone that doing this would save 35,000 lives a year and equal an economic savings of $100 billion-- the exact claimed / predicted cost of this regulation. Well a 5 ppb reduction in something is equal to nothing in realistic terms. That the cost of doing that would be $100 billion + is insane. But they tried. It was rejected and the Trump administration dumped the regulation entirely.

                      With water during the Clinton administration, the EPA lowered allowable arsenic in drinking water from 25 ppb to 10 ppb. The only justification for this was with new equipment water companies could now measure 10 ppb accurately. It made ZERO difference in terms of water safety. But, the rule meant that about 1 in 3 Americans saw their water bill double to triple in cost.

                      Zero tolerance whether it is environmental or safety or anything else is usually a very bad thing. Sure, there are some things that need that high a standard, but they are few and far between. The people calling for this on the environmental Left are morons.
                      Not all of them are morons, as in they don't know what they are doing. There is a strange coalition of people involved. The first are the financial wizards who profit from chaos, the Marxists who want the fossil fuel industry (and by extension western civilization) to collapse, the hipsters and primativists who want to return to subsistence communal life, the intellectual "elites" who want to control the "deplorables", the greens who are Marxists in disguise, the bureaucrats who see an opportunity to extend their influence, corporatist who see opportunities to exploit regulations, a scientific community that sucks at the government tit, so on and so forth.

                      Almost everyone of the fore mentioned groups think they are immune from the consequences of their own policies. That is only moronic if the system actually collapses or if as is now happening in France the productive classes revolt. As George Orwell said the socialists (environmentalist) don't love the poor (humanity) they just hate the rich (corporations). At a deeper psychological level it's more about the desire to be superior but that is a long story.
                      We hunt the hunters

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                        Not if it's solar and wind. These are horribly inefficient, not reliable, and very expensive. That the environmental Left is totally opposed to nuclear is another indication that they're not serious about realistic solutions but rather politically correct ones.

                        As for clean air and water... How clean is clean enough? If your answer is "zero tolerance and we need to get rid of all pollution..." then I say you are a deluded idiot and fool.
                        Solar and wind power are relatively new and that is why there are problems with it. If we keep at it, both can be improved greatly. I'm a proponent of nuclear power, especially if the US Navy does it.

                        I didn't say 'zero tolerance' and your characterization of what I might or might not believe in is stupidity on a reckless scale. If you wish to see an idiot, then look in the mirror.

                        Your malevolent assumptions do not contribute to anything but your own ego.

                        What the present EPA is doing, at Trump's order, is to set conservation back which is not acceptable.

                        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


                        • No one from Britain who remembers professor David Viner? Senior research scientist of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia ? The man who said that our children would not see snow .
                          The article in The Independent from March 20 2000 started with the title :Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past .
                          Why should we believe these charlatans ?
                          And the Club of Rome who said that there would be no more oil in 2000 .

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Massena View Post

                            Solar and wind power are relatively new and that is why there are problems with it. If we keep at it, both can be improved greatly. I'm a proponent of nuclear power, especially if the US Navy does it.
                            Wind has been a power source for centuries, just not for electrical power production.





                            The principle of solar photovoltaic was discovered by William Adams in 1876. It's been around for 150 years plus. It isn't going to get any more efficient either. There is a physical and chemical limit to PV. That is, it can't produce more voltage per cell than the dissimilar elements it's made from which limits it to about 2 VDC per cell, just like batteries.

                            Neither is reliable in the larger sense either as we can't predict with any certainty the weather. That makes both unreliable for base load generation as Germany, Italy, Spain, and Australia are all finding out to their economic kick in the teeth.

                            While you may agree that nuclear should be included, the environmental Left, and Progressives as a whole, don't. They're very much anti-nuclear as Germany shows having shut down their nuclear plants only to find they've had to build 25 new "clean coal" plants to replace them. That's how deranged the Left is on energy policy.

                            I didn't say 'zero tolerance' and your characterization of what I might or might not believe in is stupidity on a reckless scale. If you wish to see an idiot, then look in the mirror.
                            Didn't say you did. I only asked. But, that said, there are plenty particularly on the Left that embrace zero tolerance policies on all sorts of PC stuff.

                            What the present EPA is doing, at Trump's order, is to set conservation back which is not acceptable.
                            Whereas I see what Trump is doing is reigning in a government agency gone berserk. Why does the EPA have (well had as Trump took their "toys" away) this?





                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post

                              True; but what is held (believed) to be fact can change, and - as history shows us - often does.

                              There is also the representation of fact, wherein something can be claimed as fact but is not conclusively proven as such; yet is still believed as such ... at least, for a time; or by some.

                              Of all the words in our language, "fact" is among the most misused IMHO.
                              I admire the fact that you have posted here, but facts are facts. Not even Kellyanne Conway's husband appears to support her 'Alternative Facts'.

                              DT's lies appear to backfired in the long term. AGW is now proven, and those stating otherwise are either deluded or perhaps very stupid. This does not mean DT won't be reelected, he is a brilliant politician, but the Republicans will probably regret him as much as the Dems regret Jimmy C.
                              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                              Comment


                              • Scientist really don't like the word fact they prefer theory. The reasons are complicated and most people don't care to bother with the fine distinctions. A theory is confirmed by predictions and so far the predictions have been way off. You have keep in mind that the AGW theory is not that increased c02 will warm the planet but that the warming will be devastating. The theory is totally dependent on positive feed back and that is the part of the theory most in question.
                                We hunt the hunters

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X