Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
    "Real" hazards such as volcanic eruption, earthquakes, forest fires, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc. with historic events as examples to verify their danger to humanity.

    Show me ONE (better yet, show me 100!) historic events where Global Warming killed thousands of people or generated other such strife.


    Good luck with that...
    The debate over global warming being anthropogenic distracts us from the real dangers of climate change. We should take advantage of the current hysteria to educate ourselves and others about those dangers.
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post


      Not necessarily Katrina in particular, or even hurricanes in the present day, BUT:
      Computer generated models, with a 95% failure rate, predict that...
      • Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely ...
      • There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase...

      "Likely" generally means 67% confidence. "Better than even" means >50%.
      0.05 × 0.67 = 0.034 = 3.4%
      0.05 × 0.50 = 0.025 = 2.5%

      The "Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" had more predictive skill than climate models.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
        The debate over global warming being anthropogenic distracts us from the real dangers of climate change. We should take advantage of the current hysteria to educate ourselves and others about those dangers.
        There would be no hysteria if the climate modelers had bothered to educate themselves about the range of natural climatic variability during the Holocene
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
          The debate over global warming being anthropogenic distracts us from the real dangers of climate change. We should take advantage of the current hysteria to educate ourselves and others about those dangers.
          This is what I call the "create a crisis" model of modifying human behavior. I use it at work frequently to generate policy changes and such that no one wants to address.

          The "crisis" doesn't have to be real, it just needs to be perceived as such.

          Every year cities in the USA are flooded (e.g. Katrina, NYC, etc.) by terrible "freak" storms but in spite of these being fairly predictable (if you live in the Mississippi drainage, expect a flood from time to time...) preventative measure are always haphazard at best. Instead, we pay for the damage after the fact even though it costs more than preventative measures.

          So even though we can't prevent the LOCAL climate to do horrendous damage, we somehow think we can prevent GLOBAL climate from doing horrendous damage? Absurd.

          A good general fights the battles he can win. If anything, trying to manipulate our global climate by any means could lead us to a disaster of our own creation. Don't mess with what you don't understand...
          Last edited by Pirate-Drakk; 30 Apr 15, 21:54.
          Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

          Comment


          • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            The debate over global warming being anthropogenic distracts us from the real dangers of climate change. We should take advantage of the current hysteria to educate ourselves and others about those dangers.
            It's actually worse than that. It also is being used to justify massive changes in social policy and pushing technologies not on their merits or a scientific and engineering basis but rather on emotion and desire founded in technical illiteracy.

            Things like: Solar, wind, battery cars, public transit, high urban density with small living spaces, and trains.

            At the same time, what will work is being rejected out of fear, hysteria, and scientific and technical illiteracy too:

            Natural gas / fracking, nuclear power, hydrogen fuel cells, a low density dispersed population using the power of computers and modern communications to get things done, and increased living space.

            Comment


            • When you prey upon general public ignorance of science and technology, wrap it in outright lies and mis-information, you get something like this;
              Study: Cutting carbon dioxide saves 3,500 US lives a year

              EXCERPT:
              The Obama Administration's hotly debated plan to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the nation's power plants will save about 3,500 lives a year by cutting back on other types of pollution as well, a new independent study concludes.
              A study from Harvard and Syracuse University calculates the decline in heart attacks and lung disease when soot and smog are reduced — an anticipated byproduct of the president's proposed power plant rule, which aims to fight global warming by limiting carbon dioxide emissions.
              Past studies have found that between 20,000 and 30,000 Americans die each year because of health problems from power plant air pollution, study authors and outside experts say. The study was published Monday in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature Climate Change.
              ....
              http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/top...ear/ar-BBj9YP1


              1) At about .04% of the total atmosphere, the "heat-trapping" effect of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) is on that scale.


              2) CO2 is NOT "soot and smog" which are mostly particulate matter already being addressed by other technologies not related to CO2 sequestration.


              3) One of the major methods of reducing "soot and smog" from power plants is

              Flue-gas desulfurization

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue_gas_desulfurization
              Which produces H2O and CO2 as a by-product and both are essential life ingredients, the CO2 for about 99.9% of Life/Flora on this planet.

              4) The economic costs of reducing something that doesn't need to be reduced is too staggering to make common sense economically or tech wise, let alone it is chasing something that is not an environmental hazard.


              5) Look into whom is set to make rip-off profits via this faulty science application that will negatively impact industry, commerce, and the economy with no positive gain for the environment.


              Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant nor an 'enemy of life' and the environment.
              Last edited by G David Bock; 04 May 15, 16:07.
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

              Comment


              • I'll bet the 3500 number was chosen because it magically makes the proposed regulations "cost neutral."

                The EPA does this regularly now. On their regulation to reduce ozone pollution from 75 ppb to 70 ppb at a cost exceeding $1 billion a year, they chose 35,000 deaths due to "asthma" as the number that magically made that proposal cost neutral.

                Comment


                • 25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

                  http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25...tipping-point/


                  Nothing like moving the goal posts and/or adjusting your "data" to try and make your predictions accurate ...
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                  “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                    Nothing like moving the goal posts and/or adjusting your "data" to try and make your predictions accurate ...
                    If you don't understand the science, you can't make predictions.

                    Likewise, the proof of any theory is that it can predict the future. AGW? Fail!
                    Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                    Comment


                    • Nearly 10% of the electricity in Michigan is now generated by the wind, if, it is blowing. The proposal is already out there to increase that to 20%.

                      Currently, Smart Meters are being installed state wide to replace the analog ones. They can be used to read hourly usage by homeowners which means that rates for power usage could be based upon the date and time of the power is used to impose economic hardship during high demand conditions, such as a heat or cold wave. In addition, older coal powered plants are scheduled to be shut down with no replacements thank you Obama's EPA. That could soon result in rolling blackouts either on the regional level, or individual blackouts through those Smart Meters.

                      The State Grid is already so unreliable in many areas that homeowners and businesses that can afford to do so are getting natural gas fired generators for backup power.

                      Unreliable and expensive electricity only serves to accelerate the flood of jobs and manufacturing to overseas location. And, if we ever get an extended blackout in the rotting Progressive Paradises of the major cities, watch out. The current problem with riots being incited when some Hoodrat gets killed by the police will be nothing compared to what will take place as a result of a blackout lasting weeks or months.
                      “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


                      • Now it's the Flooding in Texas. Due to climate change don't you know...

                        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7444062.html

                        And, now from the leader is wrong predictions and information on Climate Change, the IPCC...

                        In its latest report, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that heavy precipitation events in North America and Europe appear to have been growing more frequent and more severe. Furthermore, the panel said, it's "very likely" that these precipitation events will get worse and surface air temperatures will continue to rise in the coming century.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          Now it's the Flooding in Texas. Due to climate change don't you know...

                          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7444062.html

                          And, now from the leader is wrong predictions and information on Climate Change, the IPCC...
                          Note to IPCC... El Niño is climate, not climate change...
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

                            EXCERPT:
                            New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.
                            The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)

                            ....
                            http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-w...te-change-june
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                              FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

                              EXCERPT:
                              New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.
                              The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)

                              ....
                              http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-w...te-change-june

                              Why is a politically inspired piece of journalism being discussed in a science forum?

                              Given that the science behind the climate is not yet fully understood, this post should be in where ever the politics section is these days, or perhaps a journalism forum.

                              Neither the clip nor retort is science, except for the latter to state the future is not what it was.

                              Since this is a political thread, it's worth mentioning that neither the political left nor right have a clue about the science behind the climate.

                              I will continue to point out that the vast majority of scientists known to express an opinion, plus every relevant scientific body, does not rule out man made climate change. The vast majority of those scientific bodies endorse man made climate change.

                              Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists changed their view from anti to neutral on the topic. That was 8 years ago, and they haven't changed their point of view. If any industrial body has reason to dismiss man made climate change, it would be a body representing fossil fuel. They haven't.

                              Perhaps the Doc's graphs did not meet the criteria of the AAPG as real science ?
                              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

                                Why is a politically inspired piece of journalism being discussed in a science forum?

                                Given that the science behind the climate is not yet fully understood, this post should be in where ever the politics section is these days, or perhaps a journalism forum.

                                Neither the clip nor retort is science, except for the latter to state the future is not what it was.

                                Since this is a political thread, it's worth mentioning that neither the political left nor right have a clue about the science behind the climate.

                                I will continue to point out that the vast majority of scientists known to express an opinion, plus every relevant scientific body, does not rule out man made climate change. The vast majority of those scientific bodies endorse man made climate change.

                                Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists changed their view from anti to neutral on the topic. That was 8 years ago, and they haven't changed their point of view. If any industrial body has reason to dismiss man made climate change, it would be a body representing fossil fuel. They haven't.

                                Perhaps the Doc's graphs did not meet the criteria of the AAPG as real science ?
                                Nick,

                                You repeatedly violate your own standards here by;
                                1) Engaging in science by consensus, rather than science by data.
                                2) ACC/AGW proponents/supporters advocate a political agenda, based upon their unproven science claims.

                                The article I linked above was proof of faulty science used to generate social hysteria to encourage un-needed political actions/changes to industrial and economic practices.

                                (BTW, history of science shows it has been nearly 90% politics since way back. Ask Galileo )
                                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                                “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X