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

  • Take your choice ...
    charts showing temperature versus carbon dioxide
    https://www.google.com/search?q=char...ih=910#imgrc=_
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

      That would be persons like you whom want to change our society, economy and industry to "zero carbon emissions" which would result in starvation and die-offs in the third world nations, then eventually here.

      If you believe, act accordingly and I've shown you and others what that path would be. (BTW, there was partial in there but given the sort of push back I'm seeing, that path looks even more valid. Note that I'm suggesting voluntary while many of the fanatic true-believers in the hoax of ACC/AGW have been more fascist in how to deal with their idea of "skeptics and deniers". )
      Well= this just illustrates the level you regress to, whenever you feel that your 'notions' are not being blindly worshipped.
      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

      Comment


      • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
        Take your choice ...
        charts showing temperature versus carbon dioxide
        https://www.google.com/search?q=char...ih=910#imgrc=_
        A very silly response.

        What you have failed to do is to post what is scientifically accurate, just a collection of charts.

        What you need to do is prove NASA is wrong concerning climate change, the link I posted.
        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

          A very silly response.

          What you have failed to do is to post what is scientifically accurate, just a collection of charts.

          What you need to do is prove NASA is wrong concerning climate change, the link I posted.
          If you look through them you'll see that the selection swings both ways, so one could pick either~or.

          I may get to your "demand" later, but for umpteenth time note that my perspective is the issue of main cause and whether the change we see is natural or human-caused/anthropogenic?

          An additional would be if the warming is "bad", considering record of over a million years shows we could be on verge of another Ice Age.
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

            Well= this just illustrates the level you regress to, whenever you feel that your 'notions' are not being blindly worshipped.
            Check a look in the mirror on that "blindly worshipped" crap.
            Meanwhile, did I toss out name calling (Dr. K) ???
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

              Check a look in the mirror on that "blindly worshipped" crap.
              Meanwhile, did I toss out name calling (Dr. K) ???
              \ahhh- something we can agree on .

              YOU CERTAINLY haven't tossed out name calling!!
              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                I suspect this thread will grow so big it will cause global temperature to rise by several degrees all by itself
                OHH MAN, you are indeed "the Prophet of Ghent"!
                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                Comment


                • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                  If you look through them you'll see that the selection swings both ways, so one could pick either~or.

                  I may get to your "demand" later, but for umpteenth time note that my perspective is the issue of main cause and whether the change we see is natural or human-caused/anthropogenic?

                  An additional would be if the warming is "bad", considering record of over a million years shows we could be on verge of another Ice Age.
                  No. Quantity does not equal quality. You have to prove NASA wrong.
                  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

                    No. Quantity does not equal quality. You have to prove NASA wrong.
                    Unfortunately, a large share of the graphs are from 'Watts up with that', a site that is infamous for fake climate nooze- and who's research arm Friends of Science, was called out by the NOAA for their Water vapour in the atmosphere is falling voodoo.
                    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                      If you look through them you'll see that the selection swings both ways, so one could pick either~or.

                      I may get to your "demand" later, but for umpteenth time note that my perspective is the issue of main cause and whether the change we see is natural or human-caused/anthropogenic?

                      An additional would be if the warming is "bad", considering record of over a million years shows we could be on verge of another Ice Age.
                      The Kelly Anne Conway response . There are not facts and alternative facts. Many of the charts use cherry picked data or simply wrong.

                      I'm going to stick with NASA's data, until someone proves otherwise: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

                      10 Myths on climate change: https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/10-my...climate-change
                      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                      Comment


                      • How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic:
                        http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths:
                        https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
                        Thanks for the links! They're so helpful in providing ammunition to stomp on Gorebal Warming believers...

                        I like the second one in particular:

                        #19 on their list:
                        Earth in the Balance is awful. I've read it. It's largely a mishmash of pseudo-science and nonsense presented by a scientific illiterate.

                        or,

                        #32
                        Their response is an irrelevant appeal rather than addressing the question.

                        #98 is just plain flat wrong. All you have to do is check the price of a kilowatt-hour by nation or state against their use of "renewables" (aka solar and wind) to see that heavy use of solar and wind drive the price of electricity up not down. The cheapest way to provide electricity in abundance while limiting CO2 is nuclear backed by natural gas, but Leftist environmentalism has made both pariahs through spreading propaganda and falsehoods.

                        Comment


                        • I provided a clue to the AGW crew here as to how to argue against the disproportionate co2 concentration concept but they didn't pickup on it. Which illustrates the problem with this topic in that the subject matter requires extreme technical ability and knowledge to make a coherent argument.

                          That is why all the data, methodologies, and models need to be made public despite the spurious claims of the establishment researchers to intellectual property rights. The current state of affairs is one in which one side has all the toys.
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                            Thanks for the links! They're so helpful in providing ammunition to stomp on Gorebal Warming believers...

                            I like the second one in particular:

                            #19 on their list:


                            Earth in the Balance is awful. I've read it. It's largely a mishmash of pseudo-science and nonsense presented by a scientific illiterate.

                            or,

                            #32


                            Their response is an irrelevant appeal rather than addressing the question.

                            #98 is just plain flat wrong. All you have to do is check the price of a kilowatt-hour by nation or state against their use of "renewables" (aka solar and wind) to see that heavy use of solar and wind drive the price of electricity up not down. The cheapest way to provide electricity in abundance while limiting CO2 is nuclear backed by natural gas, but Leftist environmentalism has made both pariahs through spreading propaganda and falsehoods.

                            [/URL]
                            As soon as you use derogatory terms like Gorebot, you've lost the intellectual argument.

                            Further, renewables will be more expensive in the short term, due to R&D costs. Unless you want to live in the past, or perhaps move to Delhi, uncontrolled use of polluting chemicals is to be avoided.

                            https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/04/i...hnk/index.html
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                              I provided a clue to the AGW crew here as to how to argue against the disproportionate co2 concentration concept but they didn't pickup on it. Which illustrates the problem with this topic in that the subject matter requires extreme technical ability and knowledge to make a coherent argument.

                              That is why all the data, methodologies, and models need to be made public despite the spurious claims of the establishment researchers to intellectual property rights. The current state of affairs is one in which one side has all the toys.
                              You mean side has all the Facts, which includes NASA.
                              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                              Comment


                              • Deforestation is overrated as environmental threat, study finds

                                Our estimate is about a fifth of what was found in previous work showing that deforestation has contributed 484 billion tons of carbon - a third of all manmade emissions - since 1900," said Brent Sohngen, a professor of environmental and resource economics at Ohio State, in a statement.
                                https://news.osu.edu/lost-trees-huge...t-study-finds/


                                And people wonder why everyone doesn't trust the consensus.
                                We hunt the hunters

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X