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

  • wolfhnd
    replied
    I was trying to get information on planet wide "greening". NASA had contradictory information. I get the impression that any possible positive effect of increased co2 that slips through the editorial filter gets "corrected" pretty quickly.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Or got her "scientist" qualifications same place as Al Gore.

    One only needs to be a bona fide "scientist" if disputing the hypothesis of ACC/AGW it would seem.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Actress, Communist, traitor, why not 'climate scientist' too? Maybe she played one on TV or something...

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Jane Fonda claims she’s been a ‘climate scientist’ for decades

    ...
    Jane Fonda has worn many hats during her Hollywood career — model, actress, activist — but apparently she also considers herself a climate scientist.

    “I’ve been a climate scientist for decades and decades,” Ms. Fonda told ABC News in an interview shortly before she was arrested Friday during a protest at the Capitol in D.C.
    ...
    It was unclear what Ms. Fonda meant when she called herself a “climate scientist.” She attended Vassar College, where she studied subjects such as physiology, but did not graduate, according to a 2006 interview in the Harvard Crimson.

    Jane Fonda Says She’s Been ‘Climate Scientist For Decades’ https://t.co/G3vjmgUj0p
    — Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) October 13, 2019

    Jane Fonda, Climate Scientist, to the Rescue https://t.co/GI6z6rxHXE
    — Watts Up With That (@wattsupwiththat) October 14, 2019
    ...
    http://www.gopusa.com/jane-fonda-cla...t-for-decades/

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    The problem isn't that world temperature is rising, but rather the cause. The Gorebal Warming bunch started early on with the cry It's human made CO2! Then the modelling supportive climate scientists did didn't match actual results as time went on. In fact, the models got worse and worse at predicting climate change.

    The leading Gorebal Warming bunch, the IPCC, has been putting out alarmist papers and predictions for decades now. They've been almost entirely wrong each time. This time, that bunch is saying life (or civilization) as we know it will end in a decade if we don't enact a mostly heavily Socialist agenda of government led fixes.

    That doesn't impress me as reason to act. It's pretty damn obvious we don't know enough about planetary atmosphere and oceanic interactions and causes to determine with any real certainty what's causing the temperature to rise or if it will continue. Correlation doesn't equal causation necessarily.
    You need to actually read what the IPCC has actually predicted: https://www.climatecentral.org/news/...rsus-now-15340
    Generally, the IPCC has underestimated the impact of man on the climate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jutland
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    The problem isn't that world temperature is rising, but rather the cause. The Gorebal Warming bunch started early on with the cry It's human made CO2! Then the modelling supportive climate scientists did didn't match actual results as time went on. In fact, the models got worse and worse at predicting climate change.

    The leading Gorebal Warming bunch, the IPCC, has been putting out alarmist papers and predictions for decades now. They've been almost entirely wrong each time. This time, that bunch is saying life (or civilization) as we know it will end in a decade if we don't enact a mostly heavily Socialist agenda of government led fixes.

    That doesn't impress me as reason to act. It's pretty damn obvious we don't know enough about planetary atmosphere and oceanic interactions and causes to determine with any real certainty what's causing the temperature to rise or if it will continue. Correlation doesn't equal causation necessarily.
    Except they haven't and they didn't, the models have been refined and they have withstood scrutiny.

    It's all lining up with the data available: the sun's output, the relative tilt and position of the earth etc etc... Might not be perfect but the other crowd isn't really doing anything other than conspiracy theories and copy and pasting other people's work......

    Dozens and dozens of climate scientists, chemist's, physicists, volcanologists, geologists, etc etc all actively collecting data and producing papers by the hundreds and all coming to the same conclusion....

    OR

    Dr Tim Ball (inactive scientist) Patrick Moore (inactive scientist) James Delingpole (doesn't do science, actual quote), Watts up with that (college dropout),Climate Sctick (doesn't read papers), No Trick Zone (has been emailed dozens of times by papers authors explaining to him that he can't read), Wry Heat (science is too hard) and Mark Steyn (who also surprisingly enough is, also not a scientist)

    Let me think .......

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    The problem isn't that world temperature is rising, but rather the cause. The Gorebal Warming bunch started early on with the cry It's human made CO2! Then the modelling supportive climate scientists did didn't match actual results as time went on. In fact, the models got worse and worse at predicting climate change.

    The leading Gorebal Warming bunch, the IPCC, has been putting out alarmist papers and predictions for decades now. They've been almost entirely wrong each time. This time, that bunch is saying life (or civilization) as we know it will end in a decade if we don't enact a mostly heavily Socialist agenda of government led fixes.

    That doesn't impress me as reason to act. It's pretty damn obvious we don't know enough about planetary atmosphere and oceanic interactions and causes to determine with any real certainty what's causing the temperature to rise or if it will continue. Correlation doesn't equal causation necessarily.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Source for above was here: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    1309_globaltemps_agency_comparison_2018.gif.pagespeed.ce.108e5NH4sX.gif

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Hansen is another one like Mann that has resorted to the courts to shut up opponents and force their views on Gorebal Warming down everyone's throats. One aspect of their lawsuits that is pretty consistent is that they foot drag big time. Mann's suit against Ball went on, and nowhere for over a decade. His one in the DC courts against Mark Steyn of National Review (with similar charges to those against Ball), has been going on for over seven (7) years.

    https://reason.com/2018/02/11/whatev...l-manns-defam/

    Hansen is a plaintiff in the Juilana v. US case representing (no, I'm not making this up) "Future generations." Now, I don't know how someone who isn't even conceived in the womb can be a plaintiff to a lawsuit, but apparently they can. Interestingly, that sort of contradicts the abortion rights crowd doesn't it...

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    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/
    Oh,, doc. good standard demand identifying a publication that you write the articles for....

    as per your Calgary buddies''''

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    The way I see it is we have a very long, long, way to go before we're close to using up this planet. Oil is renewable as it is made primarily by diatoms and plankton in the oceans that die, sink to the bottom, decompose into methane, and are eventually covered by enough sediment to be, by pressure and heat, turned into more oil. We can make oil from algae too synthetically for example.

    Metals won't get used up anytime soon are almost always recyclable. Radioactives are a different story. Those decay and we don't get them back.

    The world's pollution situation, on the whole, is much better today than a century ago before we did anything about it. It took mankind several millennia, just considering recorded history, for use to even get to an internal combustion engine although Hero did invent a simple steam engine something like 2,000 years ago...

    My biggest concern is that idiots, the politically-, and self-motivated (eg., greedy) are the biggest movers and shakers of Gorebal Warming. It's clear in their so-called solutions that they have no interest in what works but rather what's politically correct, feels or sounds good to them, or what they can most profit from personally. That means I should definitely be opposed to their positions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Schmart
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
    My late father was rather put out by watching the massive land forest clearances in Canada in the early 1970's. a 'perfect storm of large powerful equipment, high crop prices, and the 'plant road ditch to road ditch' mentality.
    we are still fixing that damage, rather abashed that it was a man made disaster....
    I remember the big debates in BC in the 90s to move away from clear-cutting forestry policies (while the Atlantic provinces were fighting about over-fishing) that were finally seen as clearly unsustainable.

    And that's the word that often comes back to me: Unsustainable. I don't fundamentally care about 'global warming' or 'climate change' (however those terms are defined, or by whom), but the fact of the matter is that we live in a closed system with finite resources. The pollution and garbage that we pump into our rivers, air, and oceans, stays inside that closed system. Eventually it'll catch up with us. In limited instances it has. I do think much has been done to reduce air pollution and dumping toxins into rivers in most of the develloped world. But, that has come about by adopting many 'hippy environmentalist' policies, more efficient cars, less polluting factories, etc. Nothing wrong with any of that.

    There is a line though and there is more to it than simply two extremist choices: environmentalist hippy paradise vs complete environmental plundering for short-term eceonomic gain. You can have smart, efficient, sustainable, profitable industry. But some things are limited. Eventually, there will be no more aluminium or iron-ore to mine. Eventually there will be no more oil to pump out of the ground. I don't think that shifting and evolving to more sustainable energy systems is any more different that what the world went through when it converted from the horse and buggy to steam and then to the internal combustion engine. People complain about the cost and inefficiency of current clean energy or electric vehicles etc, but that was exactly what the internal combustion engine was like 100+ years ago. It's only been 60 or 70 years since the common working class family could afford a car. And yet the internal combustion engine has been around for over 150 years. It took time for that technology to develop and become cost-effective.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    That of course was deemed unacceptable, so measures were taken, both here and north of the border to remedy the situation and to prevent similar mishaps in future.

    Preciously little effort went into debating the cause of it, or the fact if it was truly "unprecedented" or maybe the fault of the Democrats, since no one really cares.

    That worked, and we would like to do the same for our offspring our ancestors did for us, that is, leave them land to live on
    They didn't blame- the Democrats?

    I don't know about you Flemish folks, Snowy. In 1953, I would have been Blaming Barak Obama, for sure...

    The poor Walcheren. War weakened dikes and war weary people. I'd forgotten the 1953 storm.

    My late father was rather put out by watching the massive land forest clearances in Canada in the early 1970's. a 'perfect storm of large powerful equipment, high crop prices, and the 'plant road ditch to road ditch' mentality.
    we are still fixing that damage, rather abashed that it was a man made disaster....

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    That of course was deemed unacceptable, so measures were taken, both here and north of the border to remedy the situation and to prevent similar mishaps in future.

    Preciously little effort went into debating the cause of it, or the fact if it was truly "unprecedented" or maybe the fault of the Democrats, since no one really cares.

    That worked, and we would like to do the same for our offspring our ancestors did for us, that is, leave them land to live on
    Last edited by Snowygerry; 26 Sep 19, 04:03.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X