Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

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

  • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    We should at least consider engineering the climate, I'm not suggesting we start some massive international campaign just consider the options.
    How?
    What direction?
    Why?
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
    Present Current Events are the Future's History

    Comment


    • From a "stash" on another thread;
      The Obama Administration’s War on Fossil Fuels
      Sen. James Inhofe | Monday Sep 14, 2015 12:15 PM
      EXCERPTS:

      President Obama and his administration are embroiled in an all-out war on fossil fuels. Under the guise of saving the planet from global warming, the administration has issued rampant regulations trying to further reduce CO2 emissions under the so-called Clean Power Plan. Not only have these regulations been shown as ineffective at actually impacting global temperatures or sea levels, it turns out that the rules will have serious economic impacts on all Americans, especially low-income and minority families.

      A study by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) found the president’s climate agenda would only reduce CO2 concentration by less than one-half of a percent; reduce the average global temperature by less than 2/100th of a degree; and reduce the rise of sea levels by 1/100th of an inch – or the thickness of three sheets of paper. These paltry numbers make the president’s agenda seem downright reckless in light of the $479 billion price tag that it comes with.

      It gets worse. Under the Clean Power Plan, electricity prices will steadily increase – by double digits in the majority of states, and over the course of the next decade, tens of thousands of Americans will lose access to well-paying jobs that will be shipped overseas to places like China with less stringent environmental standards.
      ...
      On June 23, I chaired a hearing in the EPW Committee focused on the impacts of the president’s proposed carbon regulations on electricity costs for American businesses, rural communities and families. During the hearing, we heard from the National Black Chamber of Commerce’s President, Harry Alford, who testified that the administration’s Clean Power Plan would increase Black poverty by 23 percent and Hispanic poverty by 26 percent. It would result in cumulative job losses of 7 million for Blacks and nearly 12 million for Hispanics in 2035 while decreasing Black and Hispanic median household income by $455 and $515, respectively, in 2035.

      Why is it that the cost is so great? The Obama administration’s final rule will force Americans to replace dependable, affordable fossil fuels with high-cost, unreliable alternatives. The so-called Clean Power Plan primarily relies on a federally mandated shift towards wind and solar which makes up less than five percent of our electricity grid, a percentage that has taken our nation decades to achieve. Yet the rule will demand Americans reduce its fossil fuel dependency until renewables are 28 percent of electricity production by 2030. This is unachievable without great economic pain.
      ....
      States should not be forced to comply with an illegal agency mandate that forces investment in high-cost, unreliable energy and attempts to stamp out low-cost, reliable fossil fuels. The president and his administration need to really listen to the concerns of the American people and realize that by perpetuating the war on fossil fuels, we are sacrificing our remaining economic security.
      ...
      http://humanevents.com/2015/09/14/th...tm_campaign=nl
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
      Present Current Events are the Future's History

      Comment


      • Likewise;
        To Help the Poor, We Should Increase Energy Supplies, Not Subsidies
        Brian McNicoll | Monday Sep 14, 2015 11:50 AM
        EXCERPT;

        My friend Myron Ebell, a true hero of the American environmental movement, had given a long interview on why he thinks global warming is less of a threat than some argue and why adapting to it, rather than fighting it, made the most sense.

        “What if you’re wrong?” the interviewer asked. “Then I eat a lot of crow, and we have some serious problems,” Ebell said. “But what if they’re wrong? What if we’re doing all these things that hurt our economy, that hurt the poor … and it’s all unnecessary?

        The second part of Ebell’s answer ended up on the cutting room floor, of course. But the perspective deserves further attention because momentum continues to build to do still more damage to the economy and the pocketbooks of the less fortunate in the name of stopping global warming.
        ....
        On top of that, Pope Francis has called for us to reduce the use of fossil fuels and said we need to “touch the hearts of those who look only for gain at the expense of the poor and the Earth.”

        But he might be surprised where that leads because a lot of those who are looking for gain at the expense of the poor and the Earth are taking advantage of global warming hysteria to do so.

        And it is hysteria. We’re going on 20 years of no actual global warming. The polar ice caps were to have been gone by now, but the South Pole has more ice than ever. In fact, some are now warning that decreased solar activity could make excessive cold – rather than heat – our more pressing challenge.

        The more frequent and severe storms we were warned of haven’t occurred either. In fact, we’re in the longest period without anything more than a Category 1 hurricane making landfall in the United States since before the Civil War. We’re having fewer tornadoes and of less severity, fewer serious thunderstorms and of less severity, and less severe weather overall by virtually any measure.
        ...
        http://humanevents.com/2015/09/14/to...tm_campaign=nl
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
        Present Current Events are the Future's History

        Comment


        • This is nothing more than big-business propaganda appealing to the lowest common denominator: There's an NRA-sponsored ad asking "Are you tough like Chuck (Norris)? Trigger the vote!" and an entire subpage titled "Guns & Patriots" (yee-haw!)
          Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
            This is nothing more than big-business propaganda appealing to the lowest common denominator: There's an NRA-sponsored ad asking "Are you tough like Chuck (Norris)? Trigger the vote!" and an entire subpage titled "Guns & Patriots" (yee-haw!)
            For someone whom considers Mother Jones and other blatant lefty rags credible, sounds like a flip side of your "yee-haw".

            How about let readers look it over and decide for themselves instead of the usual lefty marxist censorship of ideas and materials you seem to suggest.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
            Present Current Events are the Future's History

            Comment


            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
              For someone whom considers Mother Jones and other blatant lefty rags credible, sounds like a flip side of your "yee-haw".

              How about let readers look it over and decide for themselves instead of the usual lefty marxist censorship of ideas and materials you seem to suggest.
              Mother Jones? My mother's name isn't Jones!

              I've never once posted from that site. "Humanevents" doesn't just scream 'propaganda,' it screams bad propaganda: it makes no attempt to even disguise itself! It's actually pretty insulting to the intelligence of its readers to be honest.

              Also, find me a post of mine in which I advocate for "marxist censorship..."
              (For what it's worth Marx actually considered censorship to be a restriction placed on the working class by the "bourgeois elites.")
              Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                Mother Jones? My mother's name isn't Jones!

                I've never once posted from that site. "Humanevents" doesn't just scream 'propaganda,' it screams bad propaganda: it makes no attempt to even disguise itself! It's actually pretty insulting to the intelligence of its readers to be honest.

                Also, find me a post of mine in which I advocate for "marxist censorship..."
                (For what it's worth Marx actually considered censorship to be a restriction placed on the working class by the "bourgeois elites.")
                Human Events is a Conservative site, if you consider that bad propaganda then it establishes you as left of center and a likely "Mother Jones" sort. Sorry, I don't follow your posts that close and haven't time to track down and document the ACC/AGW propaganda ones you use.

                The underlines in my excerpts/quotes, which are blue ink in the linked articles, lead to the source materials used in the articles. Clicking on the author's names give a list of their recent ones for this site.

                While source can be a factor, proper G2 is to examine the material and assess it on content, rather than just origin.

                Bitching about source quality is one of the traits displayed more often by liberal~leftist mindsets than by conservative ones, so your whine about HE rather than the substance of the links pegs you. Usually source whine is a veiled and implied variation on censorship.

                FWIW, I consider both authors and what they present more valid than I do you, as you are little more than a username with only the content of your posts to give any clue on whom and what you are. At least Inhofe and McNicoll have bona-fides of public record. Your profile/"about me" on this board is rather sparse which doesn't enhance your own credibility.
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                Present Current Events are the Future's History

                Comment


                • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                  We should at least consider engineering the climate, I'm not suggesting we start some massive international campaign just consider the options.
                  Not just, NO! He'll NO!!!

                  We absolutely can cool the average temperature though geoengineering... However we cannot control it... Bad idea... Very bad idea.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                    Sorry, I don't follow your posts that close...
                    Then you're in no position to pass judgement on my character.

                    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                    Usually source whine is a veiled and implied variation on censorship.
                    Or an observation that if you have to resort to using such websites, you really don't have much of an argument.
                    Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                    Comment


                    • If the current El Nino does not end the pause significantly the theory that the missing warming, reflected in the pause of global warming, was absorbed by the oceans should pretty well discredit the current models.

                      What is the evidence on this issue?
                      We hunt the hunters

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                        If the current El Nino does not end the pause significantly the theory that the missing warming, reflected in the pause of global warming, was absorbed by the oceans should pretty well discredit the current models.
                        Not necessarily... Nor is the reverse necessarily true. There are too many other factors and the processes are not instantaneous.

                        A very strong El Niño should yield some appearance of a resumption of warming.



                        Originally posted by wolfhnd
                        What is the evidence on this issue?
                        It depends which dataset you look at.



                        Sea surface temperatures clearly show an appearance of resumed warming. A strong El Niño should do this irrespective of any other factors.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          Not just, NO! He'll NO!!!

                          We absolutely can cool the average temperature though geoengineering... However we cannot control it... Bad idea... Very bad idea.
                          Who said anything about cooling?

                          I absolutely reject the idea that geoengineering should not be explored. Which is totally different than implemented.
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            Who said anything about cooling?

                            I absolutely reject the idea that geoengineering should not be explored. Which is totally different than implemented.
                            Intentional human efforts to modify global natural processes are always a bad idea. They are doubly bad when the intentional effort is done to correct an unintentional anthropogenic effect.

                            The problem with even exploring geoengineering, is that it will be implemented by politicians and bureaucrats... Who are even less competent than John Hammond...

                            Last edited by The Doctor; 16 Sep 15, 08:32.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                              Intentional human efforts to modify global natural processes are always a bad idea. They are doubly bad when the intentional effort is done to correct an unintentional anthropogenic effect.

                              The problem with even exploring geoengineering, is that it will be implemented by politicians and bureaucrats... Who are even less competent than John Hammond...
                              I think that it is critical that we move past the idea that nature is benevolent. Human civilization has evolved in a period of climate stability and moderation that is unlikely to continue. Not exploring geoengineering is like refusing to get your kids vaccinated, it may be good for yours but not so much for the human race.

                              Due to population growth and human impacts we have three choices. We can live in a weed patch, a sterile formal garden or more diverse and evolving garden. It is philosophically critical that people understand the difference between the hopeless message of non intervention and the promise of sound eco management.
                              We hunt the hunters

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                                I think that it is critical that we move past the idea that nature is benevolent.
                                As supposedly intelligent beings, we should never have even imagined that nature was "benevolent." Nature is raw power. It is violent. It can only create through destruction.

                                Human civilization has evolved in a period of climate stability and moderation that is unlikely to continue.
                                The Holocene has been no more stable or moderate than any other Late Quaternary interglacial stage.

                                Not exploring geoengineering is like refusing to get your kids vaccinated, it may be good for yours but not so much for the human race.
                                It's not even remotely like that. Vaccines can be extensively tested through empirical experimentation and the effectiveness can be statistically verified. Vaccines do not alter or control nature. They provide protection for humans against the power of nature.

                                Geoengineering is an effort to control nature. It cannot be empirically tested on Earth prior to implementation. Efforts to control weather and climate change are as dangerous efforts to control plate tectonics would be.

                                Originally posted by wolfhnd
                                Due to population growth and human impacts we have three choices. We can live in a weed patch, a sterile formal garden or more diverse and evolving garden. It is philosophically critical that people understand the difference between the hopeless message of non intervention and the promise of sound eco management.
                                Geoengineering is not ecological management. Levees and dams are examples of ecological management.

                                Humans cannot exist without impacting the environment. Humans can locally modify environment to suite our needs. Rather than a adapting to environmental changes, humans have the capacity to adapt the local environment to our needs.
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X