View Full Version : "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:22
Every member of this forum who has expressed some sort of skepticism on current accepted 'science' concerning man-made climate change has endured more ridicule than they would have if they had come out and told everyone that they molest children regularly. "Flat-Earth Science Deniers" and other terms have been used to describe those of us who believed that the science accepted by today's governments contradicted history and common sense. Our's was not just another opinion though, but a vile heresy that should never be uttered on these forums, and managed to open the flood-gates of bitter bile from those wise members of this forum who disagreed with us.
When I said that the science was not settled, I was told what a fool I was, and that ever respectable scientist accepted current theories and that the science was as settled as it could possibly get.
What do you think now darlings? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html)
Head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that 'the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux'
Ohh, my, oh my that sounds familiar.
Admit it, you don't know dog-poo. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)
Even our best scientist don't understand a tiny fraction of what causes changes in our climate or how to predict them. The best thing we got is history, and it shows swings more drastic than we have seen since the industrial revolution all throughout history.
Now let's see how many of you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you are wrong and to apologize for all the inappropriate crap you have said through out the years to the members who have disagreed with you on this subject.
gaelic cowboy
09-15-2013, 16:52
the Daily Mail is a rag my dear fellow dont shoot yer bolt just yet
Also the sea ice thing is merely whats called regression towards the mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean)
Fisherking
09-15-2013, 16:57
I wouldn’t hold my breath for that if I were you.
People don’t like to be wrong and for some admitting it is nearly impossible.
Then there are the True Believers who will not be swayed by any means. Facts or otherwise, because it is their belief that man is responsible.
gaelic cowboy
09-15-2013, 17:11
Extent of sea ice from 1980s to 2013 (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent_v2.htm)
plus the sea ice revisions (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/revision_v2.html)
There is a clear reduction in sea ice in that graph even in the revision.
The increse is merely just a larger amount than last year because last year was an extreme.
I am truly sorry Vuk. :shame:
i don't think anyone has done the following:
Every member of this forum who has expressed some sort of skepticism on current accepted 'science' concerning man-made climate change has endured more ridicule than they would have if they had come out and told everyone that they molest children regularly
This statement is more shaky than the consensus on climate change.
Fisherking
09-15-2013, 18:09
The major even was not that warming may be over. It is that the sea ice is not completely gone, as predicted.
On the other hand, glaciers do seem to be growing, particularly in the southern hemisphere.
Antarctic Ice is said to be the greatest ever recorded, but that is not a very long history.
It is a bit too soon for one side to be crowing too loudly.
It is not just the Daily Mail who is reporting on it.
Also, what is important is not that arctic sea ice is at a historical average, but that the powers of prediction of the man-made global warming community are exactly 0. They have no idea what they are doing, and their science is just BS. Why? Because they did not set out to understand the causes for climate change, but to prove a political doctrine used as justification for reducing the world's population and increasing the power of the political and economic elite.
gaelic cowboy
09-15-2013, 18:32
I gave you actual data whereas you gave us some journo who will write about sharktocupus tomorrow.
AntiDamascus
09-15-2013, 18:37
Actually David Rose seems to have a certain theme to his articles. You'd almost swear he's writing with some kind of bias.
I gave you actual data whereas you gave us some journo who will write about sharktocupus tomorrow.
And what does your data prove? That arctic sea ice was receding and is now coming back? What does that prove? It says nothing to address the fact that their predictions completely failed because they do not understand the underlying causes of the changes they are measuring. No one is arguing that climate change does not exist. It has and always will - even if humans cease to exist entirely. The point is that these people are claiming they know the causes for it and the way are the major factor contributing to it (mainly through our release of greenhouse gases). Considering that we continue to release more and more greenhouse gases, shouldn't the trends they are predicting be getting worse, not better? Also, if they really do understand the science of what causes this, and really can predict what will happen (as they claim they can. In fact, the arguments of leftist politicians and those who support their 'green' policies are based on these predictions), then why are they always so wrong? The fact is that either they do not truly understand the causes for these changes, or they are just being dishonest (or a mix of the both). For all we know, what happens below the earth's surface and on the sun has more to do with climate change than anything that happens on the surface of the earth.
Ooh ooh, are we doing book quotes today?
"Linguistic history is basically the darkest of the dark arts, the only means to conjure up the ghosts of vanished centuries. With linguistic history we reach furthest back into the mystery: humankind" - Cola Minis 1952: 107 [Euphorion 46]
gaelic cowboy
09-15-2013, 19:00
And what does your data prove? That arctic sea ice was receding and is now coming back? What does that prove? It says nothing to address the fact that their predictions completely failed because they do not understand the underlying causes of the changes they are measuring. No one is arguing that climate change does not exist. It has and always will - even if humans cease to exist entirely. The point is that these people are claiming they know the causes for it and the way are the major factor contributing to it (mainly through our release of greenhouse gases). Considering that we continue to release more and more greenhouse gases, shouldn't the trends they are predicting be getting worse, not better? Also, if they really do understand the science of what causes this, and really can predict what will happen (as they claim they can. In fact, the arguments of leftist politicians and those who support their 'green' policies are based on these predictions), then why are they always so wrong? The fact is that either they do not truly understand the causes for these changes, or they are just being dishonest (or a mix of the both). For all we know, what happens below the earth's surface and on the sun has more to do with climate change than anything that happens on the surface of the earth.
No it does not say Arctic ice is coming back in fact it proves the opposite.
all your proving is that you dont know how to read the graph I gave you.
You have taken one yr and built a thread around it Vuk when in fact we need 7 more yrs of data before we even have an average for this decade.
The reality is there will always be statistical outliers in any graph but the overall trend is always the same.
Not really. It shows a medium term trend of decreased ice (It really shows no long term trends as the earliest data is from the 1980's), but the newest data (2013) shows significantly more ice than the data set before it. Only time can tell if this will develop into a trend or not, but at least in the short term it shows a significant increase in arctic ice.
A fairly significant year which was not predicted by their computer models though. The change between 2012 and 2013 the greatest one year change shown in the graph you posted. That is significant. We have yet to see if it will remain significant in the long term.
Don't think that maybe my point that the science is not settled and these people do not understand climate change like they pretend to is fairly accurate when they predicted that there would be zero arctic ice in 2013 and we have seen this dramatic increase in arctic ice this year?
I'd say their predictions are pretty lousy and their computer models (built on their understanding of climate change) are broken. Makes you wonder how much they really know about climate change.
gaelic cowboy
09-15-2013, 19:12
Not really. It shows a medium term trend of decreased ice (It really shows no long term trends as the earliest data is from the 1980's), but the newest data (2013) shows significantly more ice than the data set before it. Only time can tell if this will develop into a trend or not, but at least in the short term it shows a significant increase in arctic ice.
Even the the 2013 increase is below the previous decades average all we can say for sure is that 2012 etc were extremes.
Even the the 2013 increase is below the previous decades average all we can say for sure is that 2012 etc were extremes.
Decade's average, but not yearly average. The change from 2012 to 2013 was a far more drastic change than any other one year change shown on the graph.
gaelic cowboy
09-15-2013, 19:44
Decade's average, but not yearly average. The change from 2012 to 2013 was a far more drastic change than any other one year change shown on the graph.
Your trying to debunk 30yrs of data with a 1 yr increase with only have 3 measurements.
Also there are only 2 increase/decreases entered the differences between 2011-2012 and between 2012 -2013
Taking those three years together then the average is less than 2013 for the decade so far.
Even with this years increase you have proven nothing, however I wont be claiming this will be the average for the decade until more data is entered
a completely inoffensive name
09-15-2013, 22:57
SO here we have a Vuk thread:
A. About climate change denial
B. With a bible quote as the title
C. Linking to the DailyMail
I will just close this tab and continue watching the SC2 finals at Dreamhack: Bucharest.
HoreTore
09-16-2013, 00:10
a political doctrine used as justification for reducing the world's population and increasing the power of the political and economic elite.
I was following you until this point.
Now you're in crazy-land.
Do I need to comment on the insanity of the statement, or should we just let it pass?
HopAlongBunny
09-16-2013, 01:25
Train coming
It's a long way off
But it is coming
Tell me when it gets here...
Bye :p
Papewaio
09-16-2013, 03:12
One year by itself is weather. Climate is decades and centuries of data.
It is like saying summer is always bleak because of a single rainy afternoon. One data point does not a scientific argument make.
Your trying to debunk 30yrs of data with a 1 yr increase with only have 3 measurements.
Also there are only 2 increase/decreases entered the differences between 2011-2012 and between 2012 -2013
Taking those three years together then the average is less than 2013 for the decade so far.
Even with this years increase you have proven nothing, however I wont be claiming this will be the average for the decade until more data is entered
That is not my point at all. I am not denying that arctic ice has been receding for the last few decades. I am just saying that these climate change scientists obviously do not know what they are talking about considering that they predicted we would have zero arctic ice this year and instead we have far more than last year and very far from 0.
I was following you until this point.
Now you're in crazy-land.
Do I need to comment on the insanity of the statement, or should we just let it pass?
That is really the whole point: population control. It is why they invented the man-made global warming myth. It was created by a bunch of eugenicists whose previous methods of population control had failed.
One year by itself is weather. Climate is decades and centuries of data.
It is like saying summer is always bleak because of a single rainy afternoon. One data point does not a scientific argument make.
That is not my point at all. My point is that it is 2013 and there is arctic ice (a significant amount in fact). The 'experts' told us there would be none by now. That doesn't shake your faith in them at all?
IMHO global warming is extremely dangerous. Whether or not it's "natural" or man-made doesn't really matter, because it's gonna hurt us either way. I'm not talking about NYC or New Orleans getting a bit soggy, or even some Polynesian pip-squeak states disappearing altogether. The real disaster will strike when it shifts the rainfall patterns and the Corn Belt becomes a desert. Now that is something that scares the bejeezus out of me, because the Corn Belt feeds probably a couple of billion people.
So, instead of worrying about who started it (which ultimately doesn't matter) we should be focusing on how to stop it, or better yet -- how to exert control over the global climate.
AntiDamascus
09-16-2013, 15:50
That is really the whole point: population control. It is why they invented the man-made global warming myth. It was created by a bunch of eugenicists whose previous methods of population control had failed.
This fascinates me. Who is supposed to be controlled? What area or group of people are they trying to keep small and how does the global warming "myth" accomplish that?
HoreTore
09-16-2013, 16:14
That is really the whole point: population control. It is why they invented the man-made global warming myth. It was created by a bunch of eugenicists whose previous methods of population control had failed.
lolwut?
The only ones who "advocate population control" are individuals deciding not to have kids/only have one kid for reasons of population control. Reducing handouts to families to discourage births have been attempted, but they usually fail instantly seeing as taking money from the majority of people in a society usually isn't an easy thing to do in a democracy.
ReluctantSamurai
09-16-2013, 16:22
Actually, the REAL question here is why anyone would be interested in a publication that sports such topics as:
...a hungry kid looking for a meal from his mother
...a pregnant reality show star
...the "toned legs in tiny shorts" of a popular actress
...the daily shopping routine of a married Hollywood couple
and my favorite:
...a popular zit-faced adolescent has this quote about school---"School is the Tool to Brainwash the Youth"
Perhaps that's the problem with those IPCC researchers....they got far too much schooling:book2:
Daily Mail bashing is fun for the whole family, but Vuk is correct, it is being reported on other sites:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html
Even if the WSJ leans right, Murdoch hasn't turned it into the Sun just yet.
Ironside
09-16-2013, 17:51
That is not my point at all. I am not denying that arctic ice has been receding for the last few decades. I am just saying that these climate change scientists obviously do not know what they are talking about considering that they predicted we would have zero arctic ice this year and instead we have far more than last year and very far from 0.
You're quoting a very biased and from what I can see unprofesional journalist (he's third person complaining about vitrol he's gotten for the older article (and the one with less of a point as well, I've never seen that before).
The ice sheet one is quite bad. It's taking one scientist (who has a interview here) (http://bze.org.au/media/radio/dr-wieslaw-maslowski-predicted-2013-ice-free-summer-arctic-five-years-ago-now-he-says-ma) who basically said that the ice can be gone as early as in 5 years. That's not a "The ice will be gone 2013"-statement, it's a "it can be gone by that point, but it will take longer". One of his big points are that they had previously underestimated the thinning of the ice. That thinning means that a warm year could suddenly create a massive shrinking, that would take years to recover properly (since a one year ice is still too thin).
And for you, 1 scientist making a guess based on his predictions, means the entire scientific cummunity making a combined statement that they claim are 100% accurate...
And for the increase this year. If you look here (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/), you can see that it's mostly because 2012 had much, much less ice than the trendsline and that 2013 is slighly above the decreasing trendline. As in, the ice is behaving pretty much as expected.
That is really the whole point: population control. It is why they invented the man-made global warming myth. It was created by a bunch of eugenicists whose previous methods of population control had failed.
... That really doesn't make sense. The west is self regulating and the most efficient method for the rest is to increase living standards. That's been obvious for decades by now and is seen to be still working.
That is not my point at all. My point is that it is 2013 and there is arctic ice (a significant amount in fact). The 'experts' told us there would be none by now. That doesn't shake your faith in them at all?
No. Now that the models are generally predicting that the warming trend should be larger than it is, that is actually valid.
Montmorency
09-16-2013, 18:22
Daily Mail bashing is fun for the whole family, but Vuk is correct, it is being reported on other sites:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...485712464.html
Even if the WSJ leans right, Murdoch hasn't turned it into the Sun just yet.
Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.
If this interpretation is correct, it's hardly reason to pop any corks.
Yet Vuk's reaction seems to be analogous to this:
Doctor: Good news! The latest tests have pushed back the cancer prognosis by a few years.
Patient: You hear that? Cancer's a myth! Time to smoke a pack to celebrate!
If this interpretation is correct, it's hardly reason to pop any corks.
Yet Vuk's reaction seems to be analogous to this:
Doctor: Good news! The latest tests have pushed back the cancer prognosis by a few years.
Patient: You hear that? Cancer's a myth! Time to smoke a pack to celebrate!
Not really. I am not denying climate change. I just believe that the world is a natural, adapting body that was created to not be static. I don't think the ice is melting because Joe Schmoe down the road owns a satanic SUV.
So a better analogy would be:
Doctor: Good news! Remember I told you that you would die of cancer by today because you drink too much milk? Well I was wrong, you won't die for another 20 years, but I am still confident milk is causing the problem.
Patient: Sorry Doc, but your predictions suck and I don't think you really understand my problem or the cause of it. I won't stop drinking milk any time soon.
I am not denying climate change, I am simply saying that the 'experts' either have no idea what is driving it and/or are completely dishonest.
AntiDamascus
09-16-2013, 20:46
Why are they lying?
Do you have any idea how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been made off of phony climate change science?
ReluctantSamurai
09-16-2013, 20:58
I am simply saying that the 'experts' either have no idea what is driving it and/or are completely dishonest.
Actually, many of the 'reasons' for climate change, whether man-made or natural, are reasonably well known. The problem comes with trying to model these reasons into a prediction, because the models are very non-linear. There is no definite progression from pointA to pointB to pointC, etc. You can have events that drive your model forward one year or even several, and then events that reverse those trends.
Rhyfelwyr
09-16-2013, 21:20
As much as Vuk is saying some outrageous things in this thread, I do think that the language used to demonize people who challenge climate change is way over the top, and generally unfair.
See for example this article (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/16/can-mps-resist-flat-earth-love-in)(from the Guardian, surprise surprise), which compares questioning climate change to advocating a flat earth, and dubs them "climate change deniers" - the association with the more commonly-used term "holocaust deniers" being plain enough.
Montmorency
09-16-2013, 21:45
As much as Vuk is saying some outrageous things in this thread, I do think that the language used to demonize people who challenge climate change is way over the top, and generally unfair.
I think we can admit that members of either sides can be fairly smug with regard to their opposite. But it can be rather tiresome for deniers (and "denier" is a rather flat and neutral term when you come to think about it) to make pretty ridiculous and/or irrelevant claims.
questioning climate change
Some people deny that climate change is anthropically-driven to any significant degree, despite much evidence to the contrary. Others deny outright that the climate even changes or can change. I think it's perfectly OK to point and laugh at those latter people.
gaelic cowboy
09-16-2013, 22:08
The daily mail article can be debunked with secondary school maths never mind a college engineering degree
The daily mail article can be debunked with secondary school maths never mind a college engineering degree
Sorry to be a jerk, but the irony really made me laugh. :P
gaelic cowboy
09-16-2013, 22:22
Sorry to be a jerk, but the irony really made me laugh. :P
No idea what your laughing at man
it can be debunked by maths that you learn in school
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maths
It is a Britishism, not a real word. ~;) Otherwise you would hear it being spoken in America.
My favorite Britishism is "drink driving". The use of the present tense makes it seem way more hardcore.
AntiDamascus
09-16-2013, 23:41
Do you have any idea how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been made off of phony climate change science?
Where are these hundreds of billions coming from? The government? The Democrats and Republicans have united for decades to shovel money at scientists to push this idea of global warming?
Where is the money going? Are these scientists making millions of dollars in salary? Why give these guys tons of money on lies? Where is the payoff to giving these guys tons of money?
Otherwise you would hear it being spoken in America.
Please never ever take courses in linguistics. You'll just upset people.
Please never ever take courses in linguistics. You'll just upset people.
lol mate, turn your sense of humor on and read it again. ~;)
"Mate"? This is not Australia, bro, this is America.
"Mate"? This is not Australia, bro, this is America.
Well said. I knew you were really an American at heart. ~;)
Strike For The South
09-17-2013, 00:11
Desire without knowledge is not good, and whoever makes haste with his feet misses his way.
Proverbs 19:2
a completely inoffensive name
09-17-2013, 00:49
Do you have any idea how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been made off of phony climate change science?
Let me check the US Federal budget real quick.
Nope, it's all still going to missiles and the elderly. I wonder where all that money is coming from then.
AntiDamascus
09-17-2013, 02:21
Let me check the US Federal budget real quick.
Nope, it's all still going to missiles and the elderly. I wonder where all that money is coming from then.
What has me wondering is what is the point. Is it just money laundering? Is the government just handing over "hundreds of billions" to these scientists because of stuff they all know is fake? Why? The government has to get something out of it and the only thing I've seen so far here is "population control".
How does that work? "Oh man, we need to use electric cars..... so let's have less kids"? I don't get how recycling or renewable energy does that.
The only other thing he could mean is like controlling the population like brainwashing or puppet stringing the masses or whatever. It just seems like a waste of money. If you want people fat and stupid just give them free TV and Cheetos and let them go. I don't see the need for the deception when it can turn on them bad.
Daily Mail bashing is fun for the whole family, but Vuk is correct, it is being reported on other sites:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html
Even if the WSJ leans right, Murdoch hasn't turned it into the Sun just yet.
I think you are sadly mistaken on that one. At least when it comes to stuff about the climate
The easy rule to remember is to never ever read anything written by David Rose or Matt Ridley.
10849
http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-sea-ice-delusions-mail-on-sunday-telegraph.html
I think you are sadly mistaken on that one. At least when it comes to stuff about the climate
The easy rule to remember is to never ever read anything written by David Rose or Matt Ridley.
I haven't looked at a print WSJ in a while. Do they have topless women in business skirts yet?
CountArach
09-17-2013, 14:35
Do you have any idea how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been made off of phony climate change science?
Tons of it! Mostly made by people accepting money from oil companies and the Koch brothers!
I think you are sadly mistaken on that one. At least when it comes to stuff about the climate
The easy rule to remember is to never ever read anything written by David Rose or Matt Ridley.
10849
http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-sea-ice-delusions-mail-on-sunday-telegraph.html
The numbers come from the university of Cambridge, 4th in rankings of the world, not sure. Ice ice baby
Do they have topless women in business skirts yet?
Topless women might make me forget about their crappy science...
HoreTore
09-17-2013, 18:03
I note that Vuk seems to be reluctant to name names. He's been challenged several times to elaborate on the "who's and what's" of his population control claim, yet no response.
As Vuk is someone who is usually quite happy to share wildly controversial claims, this puzzles me. Why chicken out now, Vuk?
I note that Vuk seems to be reluctant to name names. He's been challenged several times to elaborate on the "who's and what's" of his population control claim, yet no response.
As Vuk is someone who is usually quite happy to share wildly controversial claims, this puzzles me. Why chicken out now, Vuk?
I'll just do it for him, lying about the climate is a billion-dollar industry. Billions go from hand to hand in the emission-rights trade, and let's not forget the green lobby's who think the apocalypse of doom is comming. For governments it's easy tax.
HoreTore
09-17-2013, 19:22
I'll just do it for him, lying about the climate is a billion-dollar industry. Billions go from hand to hand in the emission-rights trade, and let's not forget the green lobby's who think the apocalypse of doom is comming. For governments it's easy tax.
.....and which environmental organization is happy about the emission trade, exactly? Which green organization or party doesn't see it as governments paying lip-service to environmental concerns while allowing business to continue as usual?
Goofball
09-17-2013, 23:24
Do you have any idea how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been made off of phony climate change science?Do you have any idea how many trillions of dollars big oil makes? They don't want to lose that. If you want to see where the financial motivation is, you're looking at the wrong side.
HopAlongBunny
09-18-2013, 02:36
Actually, we should be worshiping these defenders of freedom for providing "stimulus" during lean financial times.
Very few people or organizations are so willing to pour money down a hole simply to provide employment to persons they despise.
God bless the Koch brothers!
ajaxfetish
09-18-2013, 02:51
I'll just leave this here, as it seems relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH5D9P6KYfY
.....and which environmental organization is happy about the emission trade, exactly? Which green organization or party doesn't see it as governments paying lip-service to environmental concerns while allowing business to continue as usual?
You must be reading quality media. A simple google should do.
HoreTore
09-18-2013, 08:33
You must be reading quality media. A simple google should do.
There's hardly a green organization in the world who is happy with Kyoto, and I note that you are incapable of showing evidence to the contrary.
There's hardly a green organization in the world who is happy with Kyoto, and I note that you are incapable of showing evidence to the contrary.
Did I say green organisations. Sorry you will have to find it yourself, I don't bother with discussing religion.
Major Robert Dump
09-18-2013, 10:02
I don't know if global warming exists or not, but I am all for it because I hate sweaters
InsaneApache
09-18-2013, 10:14
I havn't read all the posts but I can imagine what has been said,(again and again), however I would like to make this point.
Science is never settled.
Anyone who says otherwise has no understanding of theory and science.
Over to you.
Oh and something else for you to ponder on.
This thing called global warming has resulted in the largest transfer of money from poor people to rich people in history. A sort of reverse Robin Hood. When the whole sorry mess comes crashing down there will be blood on the streets.
And how they love it. Apart from the scam that is the emission trade there is also the moral blackmail from green organisition who have absolutily no problem with skullf*cking children, the younger the better. And of course there is the government who loves the extra taxes they can demand, and of course the flaggalanties who all buy it.
In the meantime an ice-age is comming so get a good coat
This thing called global warming has resulted in the largest transfer of money from poor people to rich people in history.
You mean from lazy moochers to hard-working people who deserve it.
At least it's a proper application of glorious capitalism, your Robin Hood was a filthy communist who believed in the dirty redistribution.
In the meantime an ice-age is comming so get a good coat
So you do believe in climate change?
So you do believe in climate change?
Climate change yeah, manmade climate change no
HoreTore
09-18-2013, 12:05
Did I say green organisations. Sorry you will have to find it yourself, I don't bother with discussing religion.
You responded to a claim on green organizations.
You responded to a claim on green organizations.
Nope, that's just where you want the discussion to go
Every member of this forum who has expressed some sort of skepticism on current accepted 'science' concerning man-made climate change has endured more ridicule than they would have if they had come out and told everyone that they molest children regularly. "Flat-Earth Science Deniers" and other terms have been used to describe those of us who believed that the science accepted by today's governments contradicted history and common sense. Our's was not just another opinion though, but a vile heresy that should never be uttered on these forums, and managed to open the flood-gates of bitter bile from those wise members of this forum who disagreed with us.
When I said that the science was not settled, I was told what a fool I was, and that ever respectable scientist accepted current theories and that the science was as settled as it could possibly get.
What do you think now darlings? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html)
Ohh, my, oh my that sounds familiar.
Admit it, you don't know dog-poo. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)
Even our best scientist don't understand a tiny fraction of what causes changes in our climate or how to predict them. The best thing we got is history, and it shows swings more drastic than we have seen since the industrial revolution all throughout history.
Now let's see how many of you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you are wrong and to apologize for all the inappropriate crap you have said through out the years to the members who have disagreed with you on this subject.
I like how an average volcanic eruption injects more carbon in the atmosphere than human kind has for the last 100 years. Yet we still get bull like "carbon footprints" and the asshats at the top want to push a global carbon tax on us.
HoreTore
09-19-2013, 10:20
I like how an average volcanic eruption injects more carbon in the atmosphere than human kind has for the last 100 years. Yet we still get bull like "carbon footprints" and the asshats at the top want to push a global carbon tax on us.
So.... Reduced consumption is something you consider bad....?
InsaneApache
09-19-2013, 10:41
So.... Reduced consumption is something you consider bad....?
/facepalm/
So.... Reduced consumption is something you consider bad....?
You are like a small country which has logical fallacies and deliberately inept arguments as its major exports.
HoreTore
09-19-2013, 11:02
/facepalm/
It's an honest question, not an accusation or anything like that, IA.
The aim and (debatable) effect of a tax, in this case a carbon tax, is to reduce consumption in the market economy and usually increase consumption in government.
Given Myth's previous posts, I had the impression that he considers consumption in the market economy as bad, thus I would think a tax reducing that kind of consumption to be right up his alley. This works the same whether or not climate change is true, since the tax will lower consumption anyway.
That's where the emission-trade comes in. The big guns can buy it off if they hand over protection-money, nothing happens in the end, they can pump as much CO2 as they want and the consumer gets the bill. Emission-rights speculations and outright fraud is very lucrative. It's one of the most refined pyramide-games ever.
HoreTore
09-19-2013, 11:43
That's where the emission-trade comes in. The big guns can buy it off if they hand over protection-money, nothing happens in the end, they can pump as much CO2 as they want and the consumer gets the bill. Emission-rights speculations and outright fraud is very lucrative. It's one of the most refined pyramide-games ever.
Hence the reason why the greens are far from happy with Kyoto.
We need to change our way of consumption, and Kyoto doesn't do that.
Hence the reason why the greens are far from happy with Kyoto.
We need to change our way of consumption, and Kyoto doesn't do that.
They may not be happy but they are very happy with the global-warming hoax, scaring naive people is also very lucrative. A lot of the money from the immesion-rights rolls straight into their bankaccounts to lobby for useless windmills. Such a mignificant pie. Lying about the climate is a multi-billion business
Yeah, the emission trade is not a failure of the environmental protection groups but of the political and economic implementation.
What it should do though is redistribute money to industries which reduce their emissions, thus making their product cheaper than those from industries which have to pay for their high emission levels. Whether that is actually noticeable or relevant I don't know though.
Yeah, the emission trade is not a failure of the environmental protection groups but of the political and economic implementation.
What it should do though is redistribute money to industries which reduce their emissions, thus making their product cheaper than those from industries which have to pay for their high emission levels. Whether that is actually noticeable or relevant I don't know though.
By placing windmills that are not only harmfull for the enviroment, and run on tax rather than wind? For something that doesn't exist? There is no (manmade) global warming it's a hoax. There is no real rise in temperature (0.2 I believe in a century, now it's cooling down) there are no melting icecaps, there no rising sealevels. There are only people who get really rich from it, and pass the bill.
Can I get a Rolex with this https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=981&bih=410&q=earth+temperature+graph&oq=earth+temperature&gs_l=img.1.1.0i19l10.2072.10282.0.13256.18.10.0.8.8.0.211.1187.3j6j1.10.0....0...1ac.1.26.img..0.18. 1331.tl8kT4Hwnlw#biv=i%7C9%3Bd%7CNEOIWcL20XiulM%3A
Lotsa industrial periods, or it is of course perfectly normal that it occasionally warms up or cools down. For the historians among is, medieval warmth rings a bell? What what was that, an industrial period, cow-farts perhaps
HoreTore
09-19-2013, 12:08
Yeah, the emission trade is not a failure of the environmental protection groups but of the political and economic implementation.
What it should do though is redistribute money to industries which reduce their emissions, thus making their product cheaper than those from industries which have to pay for their high emission levels. Whether that is actually noticeable or relevant I don't know though.
For us westerners, production costs in China are pretty irrelevant. You as a consumer won't notice it if the Chinese factory increases or decreases its production costs by, say, 20%.
I don't see product price as the problem. What's more of a problem is that we buy one, and then buy a new one a year later because the first one stops working. We've stopped producing durable items, that needs to be changed. Furniture is a good example here. Compare the furniture you've bought with the furniture your grand-parents bought. The drop in quality is extreme. If I buy a table now, it'll get wobbly within a few years. My fathers dinner table, inherited from the 20's, is as sturey as it was when it was made.
Capitalism encourages mass-producing low quality products, and that's the major problem IMO. Furniture, iPhones, cars, etc. All of it is crap, and intended as crap.
What's more of a problem is that we buy one, and then buy a new one a year later because the first one stops working. We've stopped producing durable items, that needs to be changed. Furniture is a good example here. Compare the furniture you've bought with the furniture your grand-parents bought. The drop in quality is extreme. If I buy a table now, it'll get wobbly within a few years. My fathers dinner table, inherited from the 20's, is as sturey as it was when it was made.
Capitalism encourages mass-producing low quality products, and that's the major problem IMO. Furniture, iPhones, cars, etc. All of it is crap, and intended as crap.
I wanted to bring that up at first but was afraid to derail the topic. I agree with all of this. My dad just lost a drilling machine that was about as old as me, most of the stuff you can buy nowadays wouldn't last anywhere near as long. A lot of the parts are even intended to fail by adding low quality parts on purpose.
What I do like in this regard are services which buy old electronics and either resell them after some refurbishing or recycle them so the rare materials in them can be used again.
And Fragony, I don't care as much about whether global warming is manmade or not, I care about cars and their emissions being harmful to pretty much everything and the same is true for many factory exhaust gases. Not everything we pollute the air with is actually completely harmless and if we can find better alternatives, why not use/encourage them?
Montmorency
09-19-2013, 12:53
And Fragony, I don't care as much about whether global warming is manmade or not, I care about cars and their emissions being harmful to pretty much everything and the same is true for many factory exhaust gases. Not everything we pollute the air with is actually completely harmless and if we can find better alternatives, why not use/encourage them?
Gutmensch socialist ferret international apocalypse windmills!
Furthermore: Eurabia quality intellectualoco media!
It's an honest question, not an accusation or anything like that, IA.
The aim and (debatable) effect of a tax, in this case a carbon tax, is to reduce consumption in the market economy and usually increase consumption in government.
Given Myth's previous posts, I had the impression that he considers consumption in the market economy as bad, thus I would think a tax reducing that kind of consumption to be right up his alley. This works the same whether or not climate change is true, since the tax will lower consumption anyway.
I don't view consumption as bad or good, I view it as necessary. What I want is for our needs to be met with manufacturing and energy that are clean and go hand-in-hand with our beautiful planet.
However this tax will do none of those things. The money will go somewhere, and it will mostly condition people that being taxed on externally imposed guilt is OK. Next thing you know, there will be "fat tax" because people feel guilty that they are fat.
The big polluters - petroleum based chemical industry, hevy MFG and resource excavation and treatment, power plants will all keep on truckn' and making money. That tax will do jack to stop them or make them consider alternative ways of doing their thing.
Seriously, the only way for alterntive energy and manufacturing to be developed is for us to run out of oil and coal reserves.
HoreTore
09-19-2013, 13:13
Human behaviour is determined in a large part by economic realities. If you want to change human behaviour, you cannot avoid economic incentitives.
In addition to supporting taxes on pollution, I also support taxes on stuff like sugar products. Raise the tax on the bad stuff, and we'll choose the good stuff.
I have no idea if any of this is relevant, I've barely skimmed the thread, but here is my opinion.
A carbon tax is designed to tax big polluters with the idea that they will want to lessen emissions by finding better, more sustainable ways of fueling their work, and that the money from the tax will be put into environmental research and aid to help ensure that that the system is cycle of benefit.
The end goal of a carbon tax is to reduce emissions, and I believe if enforced it should have the effect it wants. More reward for sustainable design should be introduced as incentive possibly. Maybe limits as well, where if they pass a certain threshold for a set amount of time, they pay less for the next year or so. I don't know how exactly to solve the issue, but it is a right step towards getting funding and also reducing the harm we do.
Human behaviour is determined in a large part by economic realities. If you want to change human behaviour, you cannot avoid economic incentitives.
In addition to supporting taxes on pollution, I also support taxes on stuff like sugar products. Raise the tax on the bad stuff, and we'll choose the good stuff.
Surprisingly enough I agree with Horetore's principle. If they make less money off fossil fuels and more off sustainable sources, they'll choose that. Image is important as well and companies will do anything to get ahead, even taking a loss to ensure future profits.
HoreTore
09-19-2013, 13:16
I have no idea if any of this is relevant, I've barely skimmed the thread, but here is my opinion.
A carbon tax is designed to tax big polluters with the idea that they will want to lessen emissions by finding better, more sustainable ways of fueling their work, and that the money from the tax will be put into environmental research and aid to help ensure that that the system is cycle of benefit.
The end goal of a carbon tax is to reduce emissions, and I believe if enforced it should have the effect it wants. More reward for sustainable design should be introduced as incentive possibly. Maybe limits as well, where if they pass a certain threshold for a set amount of time, they pay less for the next year or so. I don't know how exactly to solve the issue, but it is a right step towards getting funding and also reducing the harm we do.
The main problem with it, as I see it, is that it relies on market mechanisms to solve the issue.
The free market doesn't work, bring back the good ol' government sledgehammer to hammer through change.
The main problem with it, as I see it, is that it relies on market mechanisms to solve the issue.
The free market doesn't work, bring back the good ol' government sledgehammer to hammer through change.
Yeah, I agree with you there. Free market is useless for these kinds of things.
HoreTore
09-19-2013, 13:19
Surprisingly enough I agree with Horetore's principle. If they make less money off fossil fuels and more off sustainable sources, they'll choose that. Image is important as well and companies will do anything to get ahead, even taking a loss to ensure future profits.
Transportation is an obvious example on this. The cheaper my train is and the more costly my car is, the more likely it is that I will take the train to work instead of driving.
Of course there are exceptions to this as well, economic incentitives don't always work as intended(morals also play a part, for example). And of course, I sold my car in 2010. I didn't do it on economic grounds, I did it for moral reasons... Been a happy pedestrian ever since!
Transportation is an obvious example on this. The cheaper my train is and the more costly my car is, the more likely it is that I will take the train to work instead of driving.
Of course there are exceptions to this as well, economic incentitives don't always work as intended(morals also play a part, for example). And of course, I sold my car in 2010. I didn't do it on economic grounds, I did it for moral reasons... Been a happy pedestrian ever since!
Certainly. Public transportation is a great alternative. I just wish they introduced more of it.
Gutmensch socialist ferret international apocalypse windmills!
Furthermore: Eurabia quality intellectualoco media!
Stop begging I am not going to do the phunky monkey with you
Ironside
09-19-2013, 14:20
I like how an average volcanic eruption injects more carbon in the atmosphere than human kind has for the last 100 years. Yet we still get bull like "carbon footprints" and the asshats at the top want to push a global carbon tax on us.
Please spot the vulcano eruptions here (http://co2now.org/). The largest one is Pinabuto (1991) btw.
It's hard to dig out any good estimations, but we're at least talking the scale of 10 times Toba here (http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/). That was the emissions for 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions). Your "average vulcano eruption" is about 40 times stronger. It's in the size of wiping out humanity.
The advantage of (explosive) volcano eruptions is that along with the CO2, you get huge amounts of SO2 ejected high into the atmosphere. Combined with the particulates, this counters the greenhouse effect and cools the global climate.
Thanks for the thanks, since you copied all my inventions you must have really made an effort.
Edi, ipad sucks
Ironside
09-19-2013, 18:43
The advantage of (explosive) volcano eruptions is that along with the CO2, you get huge amounts of SO2 ejected high into the atmosphere. Combined with the particulates, this counters the greenhouse effect and cools the global climate.
Indeed. A Tora level eruption would cause global mass starvation due to the cooling effect. It's speculated to have been close to wiping out humanity (there's a human genetic bottleneck around the same time). Even Tambora (1815 Indonesia) caused "the year without summer" in Europe.
It just annoys me to see a blatant lie, simply because you didn't check the most factual basic source and saw the impossibillity of the statement.
gaelic cowboy
09-19-2013, 21:14
Only problem I can with a volcano based reduction is we will still merrily belch co2, the skeptics will cry ah ha ha and naturally we will end up in a worse position than before after the so2 levels out.
Of course an extinction level event will mean the s02 co2 mismatch will be the least worry we have.
So, the way I see it then, in order to counteract the global warming we need to burn a whole bunch of sulphur. Done and done.
gaelic cowboy
09-19-2013, 22:33
So, the way I see it then, in order to counteract the global warming we need to burn a whole bunch of sulphur. Done and done.
well run out of sulphur before we counteract enough carbon and well also emit more carbon trying to find extract the sulphur.
You would just end up cancelling the carbon it took to find the sulphur essentially and crucially you couldnt stop once you started.
In that case we need to burn a LOT more stuff. Enough for the soot to actually start obscuring sunlight. Remember what happened in Kuwait during the 1st Gulf war? That. Globally.
gaelic cowboy
09-19-2013, 22:40
In that case we need to burn a LOT more stuff. Enough for the soot to actually start obscuring sunlight. Remember what happened in Kuwait during the 1st Gulf war? That. Globally.
The was carbon being burnt in kuwait though, also soot doesnt last as long as carbon in the atmosphere
The was carbon being burnt in kuwait though.
And the temperature dropped by about 10 degrees Celsius.
gaelic cowboy
09-19-2013, 22:45
And the temperature dropped by about 10 degrees Celsius.
but the carbon was in the atmosphere for longer and the soot dissappeared in a short time
you wuld have the same problem with so2 the carbon would last longer that the sulphur in the atmosphere
but the carbon was in the atmosphere for longer and the soot dissappeared in a short time
you wuld have the same problem with so2 the carbon would last longer that the sulphur in the atmosphere
Which is why we gotta keep burning. Coal. Non-stop.
gaelic cowboy
09-19-2013, 22:51
Which is why we gotta keep burning. Coal. Non-stop.
thats crazy you would massively increase respiratory problems world wide.
It's the price of cooling the Earth, I guess.
Coughing up your lungs vs Learning to breathe underwater.
gaelic cowboy
09-19-2013, 22:59
There is no chance we will cool the earth instead we should be planning for a future thats warmer.
a completely inoffensive name
09-19-2013, 23:21
We can remove carbon from the atmosphere if we only had cheap enough energy and the political will to do it.
I'll just leave this here, as it seems relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH5D9P6KYfY
Thing is, there are two questions:
1) Is the Climate changing?
2) Is this change man-made.
I believe we have the Science that proves 1), however, 2) is more shaky, though there has been a widespread adoption of practises which have reduced emissions. The other day, some one was doubting the existence of Acid Rain because of the policies in place which has helped reduced it significantly (catalytic converters) have been doing their job. It will always be an uproad struggle with the money-interest behind the anti-change crowd (Which is something like 12 times more than the 'pro-change').
Papewaio
09-20-2013, 01:05
Go nuclear. Simple.
Go nuclear. Simple.
Fukushima means that the public opinion will bury this idea. Now I personally love nuclear power and would much rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal plant, but good luck convincing the bulk of the populace. It ain't happening.
Ironside
09-20-2013, 09:20
So, the way I see it then, in order to counteract the global warming we need to burn a whole bunch of sulphur. Done and done.
That type of global cooling has been suggested for geoengineering. Burning sulfur is both smog creating and acid rain creating, so it's not the best option though.
Pretty much all serious geoengineering suggestions are desperation actions though. Something about creating massive projects were you can't predict all consequences from.
Thing is, there are two questions:
1) Is the Climate changing?
2) Is this change man-made.
I believe we have the Science that proves 1), however, 2) is more shaky, though there has been a widespread adoption of practises which have reduced emissions. The other day, some one was doubting the existence of Acid Rain because of the policies in place which has helped reduced it significantly (catalytic converters) have been doing their job. It will always be an uproad struggle with the money-interest behind the anti-change crowd (Which is something like 12 times more than the 'pro-change').
Acid rain was also a hoax. You know wind, it's air moving. If you look at how wind generally moves, nothing that was done here can't have had any effect here. Wind in Europe comes from the ocean, any industry there?
https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&biw=1024&bih=644&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=-xA8UpK-OYWA0AXVi4GoBg&q=wind+currents&oq=wind+curre&gs_l=img.1.0.0i19l8j0i5i19l2.1981.9933.0.11995.26.21.0.0.0.2.371.3213.5j11j4j1.21.0....0...1c.1.27.i mg..13.13.1772.PSc8qW0I7rw#biv=i%7C8%3Bd%7CEiYQGXDkhfP2KM%3A
HopAlongBunny
09-20-2013, 11:47
A little more analysis of "cooling" in context:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cooler-year-fails-to-shift-long-term-trend-of-arctic-sea-ice-melting
Satalite-images clearly show that the ice-caps are growing, who says otherwise is either reading quality media, so can't know the ice-caps are in fact growing, or flat out lying because they get their funds that way. Satalite images don't lie they are just pictures.
Satalite-images clearly show that the ice-caps are growing, who says otherwise is either reading quality media, so can't know the ice-caps are in fact growing, or flat out lying because they get their funds that way. Satalite images don't lie they are just pictures.
I never saw these pictures, they do not exist. If that is true for 90% of the population and you still refuse to link your sources then your cause is a lost cause mia muca.
HoreTore
09-20-2013, 13:16
Acid rain was also a hoax. You know wind, it's air moving. If you look at how wind generally moves, nothing that was done here can't have had any effect here. Wind in Europe comes from the ocean, any industry there?
It's comments like this that makes other people ignore you, Frags.
Seriously, read up on the science before you condemn it. In this case, I believe it's sufficient to open up a 9th grade science textbook.
I never saw these pictures, they do not exist.
Yes they do, you just can't have seen them if you read quality media. They have grown with 60%. If you want pics ask NASA.
I never saw these pictures, they do not exist. If that is true for 90% of the population and you still refuse to link your sources then your cause is a lost cause mia muca.
This is how much the ice has "recovered":
10864
http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-sea-ice-recovers-to-6th-lowest-extent-in-millennia.html
In other words, we can expect an ice age any minute now!! The bigmajorityofscientistswiththeirunsettledscience may think otherwise, but who cares what they say when my gut feel says they are wrong.
Pannonian
09-20-2013, 17:15
Go nuclear. Simple.
Is there enough fuel to go round for even the developed countries to go significantly nuclear? Is there any waste, and what happens to it? NB. these aren't rhetorical questions, I genuinely don't know the answers to the questions that immediately occur to me.
Is there enough fuel to go round for even the developed countries to go significantly nuclear?.
If we went all nuclear then the estimated reserves would be gone in a decade or so. If we can get Thorium to work, it would last a lot longer.
Nuclear can't replace oil though. Better batteries/biofuel for cars and biofuel for planes might cover those gaps.
Tellos Athenaios
09-20-2013, 19:35
Is there enough fuel to go round for even the developed countries to go significantly nuclear?
The question is not as straightforward as might seem at first due to the fact there are quite a few reactor/reaction designs which call for different fuels. In any case the widely available and commercially implemented are by and large 1970's BWR tech (boiling water reactors) based on Uranium and are basically a spin off of military research into nuclear bombs. They are relatively inefficient and have a few well known safety issues (thermal runway conditions). There are mitigations for most of the safety issues (pellets, molten salt based design) but inefficiency and waste products are essentially fundamental features of the design.
Alternatives include Thorium and a few similar elements which are more efficient and more importantly the isotopes produced by fission have a different decay trajectory which means that the reactor does not produce radioactive wasste material (or rather the waste decays so rapidly that it is not practical to transport it out of the reactor before the decay completes). Designs are a variation on 1950's research into "fission as an energy source".
Is there any waste, and what happens to it?
Yes, fundamentally the reaction is: whack a stable isotope, cause it to break up into isotopes of a smaller element and emit radiation and energy (heat). Capture radiation (or use it to whack the next isotope) and energy (heat). The question of waste is a matter of what isotopes are produced during whack-a-stable-isotope, can they be used as fuel for the reactor themselves and how do they decay into stable (non radioactive isotopes). Eventually Uranium decays into element isotopes which have a very long half life, which makes it impractical to keep them in the reactor (volume adds up) until they are decayed to an fully stable isotope of some other element. With Thorium and similar the decay is more rapid, and crucially at each step no long half-life isotopes should be produced. IIRC some of those isotopes can actually be used as fuel as well.
However there is another waste product to consider. That of extraction from ore, which is not necessarily very eco-friendly either (rather worse than drilling for oil). On the other hand mining for Uranium (yellow cake) is a small part of the total supply of yellow cake, as opposed to recycling reactor fuel.
a completely inoffensive name
09-20-2013, 19:58
Slowly the new energy economy is coming together. TA's post on nuclear is good. The main problem I hear from those that talk about alternative nuclear fuels is that the infrastructure surrounding them is so different, regulatory agencies who only deal with uranium reactors don't know how to go about certifying these radically different designs. In particular for the molten salt thorium reactor, you have entirely new designs carrying a very corrosive material, but materials science engineers have made new alloys to specifically curb corrosion from molten salt in order for the infrastructure to last 15-25 years. So you have to go about getting information about a brand new alloy, being used in conjunction with a highly corrosive material that is not often used, for a design that not many people have experience with.
Tesla has already done their tech demo of an electric car getting its battery swapped out in less than 90 seconds. If the future of electric cars is swapping batteries instead of recharging, then that's essentially one of the biggest hurdles eliminated (as long as liability for the battery is placed on Tesla and not the individual).
The US is already succeeding in shutting down coal production (which is good news for the Appalachian mountains), in favor of natural gas (fracking comes with its own problems though). But once the grid is free of fossil fuels and everyday transportation is handled by electric cars, the environmental impact of fossil fuel consumption will be negligible I believe. At which point we can maybe focus our efforts on engineering proposals to reduce the levels of CO2 already present in the atmosphere, perhapsvback down to pre 1800s levels.
a completely inoffensive name
09-20-2013, 20:32
Look up the Oglala aquifer. Fracking has already ruined much of our water.
Water which will be depleted by inefficient farming in another 100 years. That's another thing we need to tackle as soon as we get our energy problems solved.
If we went all nuclear then the estimated reserves would be gone in a decade or so. If we can get Thorium to work, it would last a lot longer.
Nuclear can't replace oil though. Better batteries/biofuel for cars and biofuel for planes might cover those gaps.
Deutorium, ocean is full of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium
Deutorium, ocean is full of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium
It is not a limiting factor. Unless you thought of fusion I don't know why you bring that up
It is not a limiting factor. Unless you thought of fusion I don't know why you bring that up
What else would I be thinking of? It can be used for fusion yeah, and the sea is full of it. The water we can recycle.
What else would I be thinking of? It can be used for fusion yeah, and the sea is full of it. The water we can recycle.
Commercial fusion energy is likely to be several decades away, and we have no idea if it even will be cheap.
Commercial fusion energy is likely to be several decades away, and we have no idea if it even will be cheap.
Even in the darkest scenario's that is plenty of time. By that we will have Thorium-reactors running beautifully to sponch things up. That green-energy that does more harm than good is a waste of time. Looking at different options would also be a boost to the academic world, these windmills and solar-panels are costly in every way, it hurts living conditions, it hurts the wildlive, they hurt scientific progress.
Commercial fusion energy is likely to be several decades away, and we have no idea if it even will be cheap.
Not really decades away, still have ITER, it is just taking its time due to countries not really investing it in. But it is currently under construction in France as we speak.
Even in the darkest scenario's that is plenty of time.
Then you don't know what the darkest scenario is, but no big surprise there. I think most people can see the benefit in diverse energy research. It seems to me that a lot of "skeptics" have a craving for fossil fuels and a hatred towards alternative energy forms, so who is really hurting progress the most.
Wildlife is hurt by many things we do, and we could start with the cats before we even think about wind. Of course there is nothing we can do about the horrible animal suffering from solar cells. It is just so awful we have to stop!
Not really decades away, still have ITER, it is just taking its time due to countries not really investing it in. But it is currently under construction in France as we speak.
That is a test reactor. It has to be finished first, then run tests with whatever conclusions that will bring, and then a commercial design has to be designed and constructed. Estimates are from 2040 to even 2060 and beyond.
Lockheed does claim they have another design and it could be ready by 2025. Let's hope for the best.
I've been really busy with work and haven't had a lot of time to check in here, but I thought you guys may be interested in this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html) and this. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/new-climate-report-obliterates-un-ipcc-and-warmists/)
I've been really busy with work and haven't had a lot of time to check in here, but I thought you guys may be interested in this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html) and this. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/new-climate-report-obliterates-un-ipcc-and-warmists/)
Oh boy! The foundation of my green altar is shaking, or maybe not...
Let's take a look at your first link.
A big warning sign is obviously that it is the Daily Mail, but that is no excuse to just dismiss it. The funny thing is that if anyone spends a bit of time following what is happening in the denierosphere, as well as the proper science, then what is quoted in the article makes perfect sense. So, if we forget about the sensational title and negative tone in the article, the quotes do not show some conspiracy or that the whole science is wrong or whatever people might get out of it. (I'm assuming the quotes are correct)
Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.
Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.
The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.
All of them make some excellent points. It is deniers who tried to make big headlines with the focus on too few years or the silly start at 1998, and we know how they love to cherry pick and quote mine whenever possible. We don't need more of that in the actual IPCC reports. But this is also a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't. There is more than enough research that shows why surface temperatures haven't gone up so much.
Time for the other link.
Talking about a report made by the so called NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) Yes that definitely sounds very credible, right? It is supposed to be peer-reviewed, like all proper science should be, so it must be true, right?
A quick look at the authors and reviewers showed several of the usual "skeptical" suspects. And who put this together? Heartland Institute. Luckily others have done the work:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/
Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents (http://skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html) of the Heartland Institute.
Heartland’s credibility has been so damaged that mainstream funders have been abandoning (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/09/local/la-me-gs-unabomber-billboard-continues-to-hurt-heartland-institute-20120509) the organization, and it has been forced to discontinue (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/24/489430/the-self-inflicted-downfall-of-heartland-institute/) its annual climate conference.
There is little need for anyone to concern themselves with paid pal-reviewed "science"
HopAlongBunny
09-23-2013, 03:19
Gah!
Yet another attempt to explain away the precise conclusions of qualified journalists!:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-in-2013-is-sixth-lowest-on-record/index.html
Have CO2 emissions gone down since last year? If so why/how?
Ironside
09-25-2013, 08:18
Have CO2 emissions gone down since last year? If so why/how?
No, it hasn't.
August 2013: 395.15 ppm
August 2012: 392.41 ppm
(that monthly value should be quite close to the yearly average. The peak month value is over 399 for 2013)
Now there's always a natural variation due to the seasons (plants uses co2 after all), so if you cherrypick the highest value for 2012 vs the lowest for 2013, it'll have dropped.
That's the equivalent of proving regional cooling by comparing July values vs Januari values though.
Have CO2 emissions gone down since last year? If so why/how?
Apart from the small dip because of the recession it still seems to be rising http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/07/global-co2-emissions-increases-dwarf-recent-u-s-reductions/
Apart from the small dip because of the recession it still seems to be rising http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/07/global-co2-emissions-increases-dwarf-recent-u-s-reductions/
At least the European Mandates have worked, shame no one else cares.
InsaneApache
09-26-2013, 03:49
At least the European Mandates have worked, shame no one else cares.
/facepalm/
HopAlongBunny
09-27-2013, 13:37
The song remains the same:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/global-warming-95-likely-to-be-manmade-un-panel-says-1.1870378
accompanying graphs:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow.cfm?id=climate-change-see-the-dramatic-new-data-for-yourself
More. (http://www.caintv.com/ipcc-ok-fine-temperatures-aren)
More. (http://www.caintv.com/ipcc-ok-fine-temperatures-aren)
People who lie about the climate aren't quiting yet, repeat repeat keep repeating. Sea levels will RISE with 82cm, temperatures will RISE with almost 5 degrees celcius. ICECAPS will melt, causing DOOM. It's MANMADE
sigh... they ain't going down without a fright
Yeayeah boyzzz
What is CainTV?
Herman Cain captured the nation's attention during the 2012 presidential race because, while others were obsessed with the politics of distraction, Mr. Cain offered real solutions to the nation's economic and fiscal challenges. And he did it with a smile on his face and a sense of humor, because this is the way he achieved a lifetime of success in business and broadcasting.
With the debut of the nationally syndicated Herman Cain Show in January 2013, we want to expand the influence of the program via the web with Best of Cain. It's a constant flow of commentary, news, audio, video, humor and reader/listener interaction. Each day we bring you multiple commentaries from Mr. Cain and our team of contributors, as well as fun bits and our increasingly popular Fake Facebook conversations. We also offer each day, at the conclusion of the radio program, Overtime with HC, and video presentation from Mr. Cain that serves as a bonus for loyal listeners.
Best of Cain is the web extension of the phenomenon that is The Herman Cain Show. Join us each day, share your thoughts and tell your friends. The Cain Train has never stopped rolling, and the place to hop aboard is here at Best of Cain!
Should be reliable and without bias.
Papewaio
09-29-2013, 12:10
What is CainTV?
It's like cAble TV but with a much more punishing outcome for fallen shows.
Their agricultural shows are to die for and the Cain anchormen all hit the mark.
Pannonian
09-29-2013, 13:08
It's like cAble TV but with a much more punishing outcome for fallen shows.
Their agricultural shows are to die for and the Cain anchormen all hit the mark.
CainTV may be good for agro-related programmes, but are they abel to cover livestock keeping as well?
They wanted to paint everything black back then to increase the absorption of sunlight, and now they want to paint everything white to reflect sunlight. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/)
Ironside
09-29-2013, 19:15
They wanted to paint everything black back then to increase the absorption of sunlight, and now they want to paint everything white to reflect sunlight. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/)
There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then. (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1)
There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then. (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1)
But who cares about peer-review when you have fair and balanced news (http://www.livescience.com/23448-fox-news-climate-coverage-wrong.html)
She can take the dark out of night time and paint the daytime black (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWxP1kI3UdE)
HopAlongBunny
09-30-2013, 05:07
It might be obvious but I thought I would point out a lil something.
The confirmation for global climate change, ice-cap reduction and so on seem to come from science journals;
The denial comes from the "pundit-sphere" ie: ppl who get paid to fill column inches.
Which is the more reliable source of information? I have my guesses you may make your own.
InsaneApache
09-30-2013, 10:39
As ever, follow the money.
Lulz, this is why I don't watch tv. It amazes me that there are still people who think the state-journal is really a journal. Pure agitprop yesterday, people who make money with lying about the climate sure have loyal talking heads
Looks you serious in the eye, the WARMING is DRAMATIC. We MUST ACT. That the earth isn't warming up but cooling down doesn't bother them at all. Repeat repeat keep repeating that we are all going to dieeeeehieeee
As ever, follow the money.
Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done (http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/accusations-that-climate-science-is-money-driven-reveal-ignorance-of-how-science-is-done/)
InsaneApache
09-30-2013, 15:54
Well our Prime Ministers father-in-law is doing very nicely out of it, as are a lot of politicians and their mates.
A huge re-distribution of wealth from the poor to the rich is going on as we speak. Like I said, follow the money.
Ironside
09-30-2013, 17:10
Well our Prime Ministers father-in-law is doing very nicely out of it, as are a lot of politicians and their mates.
A huge re-distribution of wealth from the poor to the rich is going on as we speak. Like I said, follow the money.
Let see now. Corrupt politicians and scientists (most of them obviously) are proposing taxing heavy industry like the oil industry. This heavy industry obviously takes no damage at all since they can simply pass on the higher prices to the costumers (us poor). Those extra taxes are then sent to smaller industries (like solar power), who gets all that money so they can teleport the money back in time to bribe all those politicians and scientists, so the politicians can set up those money making rules in the first place.
Nope, not seeing it. Minor corruption sure, but the large scale needed here no.
And that wealth distribution isn't exactly linked to green policies.
AntiDamascus
09-30-2013, 17:38
I am still amazed at the projection of some people. It's not the oil and coal industries spending money to keep their multi billion dollar industries going in the face of information they're damaging the earth. It's those scientists getting government kickbacks and bribes to get everyone to switch to solar and wind power..... because!"
It's like those poor tobacco companies trying to combat those vicious lies from people who want you to be "healthy".
InsaneApache
09-30-2013, 18:17
And that wealth distribution isn't exactly linked to green policies.
You're having a giraffe mate....
HoreTore
09-30-2013, 21:05
That the earth isn't warming up but cooling down doesn't bother them at all.
PRATT (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT)
A huge re-distribution of wealth from the poor to the rich is going on as we speak. Like I said, follow the money.
The politicians are corrupt, so the scientists must be corrupt too!
It is a rather extraordinary claim to say that thousands of scientists (and the clear majority) are faking it and have been doing it for decades. A vague "follow the money" does not count for much, but it sure does make it easy to dismiss anything one does not like.
AntiDamascus
09-30-2013, 22:49
10912
Yea like I said, it seems like projection.
Funny: Greenpeace activist who got busted by the Russian marine after being a nuissance at an oil platform has a problem. Her cell is so cold. Head of Greenpeace Netherlands is not pleased and wants Russia to raise the temperature in her cell. Oh sweet irony that would mean having to use more recources from Gazprom. The funniest part is that the irony is completily lost to them, they just can't see it.
Bored rich kids. Goes to show, it is something WE should do, but don't mess with their comfortable bliss. Gotta love bored rich kids with IDEALS
AntiDamascus
10-01-2013, 01:01
Funny: Greenpeace activist who got busted by the Russian marine after being a nuissance at an oil platform has a problem. Her cell is so cold. Head of Greenpeace Netherlands is not pleased and wants Russia to raise the temperature in her cell. Oh sweet irony that would mean having to use more recources from Gazprom. The funniest part is that the irony is completily lost to them, they just can't see it.
Bored rich kids. Goes to show, it is something WE should do, but don't mess with their comfortable bliss. Gotta love bored rich kids with IDEALS
Haha, I get it! It's cold in places up north so climate change is a myth! That comedy...... whoa knee-slapper.
Oh oh, I got another one. It's gonna snow up here soon. Climate change right? Because those "scientists" said it was gonna be 90 degrees forever everywhere and then it wasn't right? HAHAHAHAHAHA, oh man. I need a minute.
InsaneApache
10-01-2013, 09:54
Well as all their predictions have failed to materialise over the last 25 years you'd have to be one of the hard of thinking not to become skeptical.
Oh just admit it, you hate earth.
To put it less gently, you have to be a complete total idiot if you believe the lies of the church of global warming. B b b but it's SCIENCE. No you idiot it's money & piety
It's not putting your head in the sand, it's simply not happening. The temperature not rising is just a minor detail of course for the Green Khmar who need an industrial-caused apocalypse, lobby's who make money with it, and the emission-trade mafia and their pyramide scam
To me it seems obvious that short of a one-world-government with the power to enforce its will, climate change is something that is going to happen regardless of whether or not man is influencing it. We should be worrying about what we're going to do to adapt. Even if Europe was able to reign in their emissions, it is absolutely absurd to think that China, India, or even the USA could or would do so. Right now the two camps are A.) Stick head in sand and pretend it isn't happening, or B.) Pretend that if we had a solution, it would actually be adopted world-wide in a timely and effective fashion. It would be better to focus on how we're going to function in the environment that is coming, whatever that may be.
World War 3.
Sorta offtopic:
Can anyone tell me why they disagree with a theoretical idea of a Carbon Tax?
Well as all their predictions have failed to materialise over the last 25 years you'd have to be one of the hard of thinking not to become skeptical.
IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-done-better-than-you-think.html)
Or is it something else you think about?
IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-done-better-than-you-think.html)
Or is it something else you think about?
Yeah, why that somehow is a source when it suits you. The methods of the IPCC has long been proven wrong, their prediction-models are off and their motivatvations and afilliations are highly questionable.
InsaneApache
10-01-2013, 16:58
IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-done-better-than-you-think.html)
Or is it something else you think about?
With the exaggerations and inaccurate information that has come out of the IPCC these last few years I'd rather read Noddy goes to Toytown. At least then I know I'm reading fiction.
Still If you tell a lie often enough.....
Nearly but not quite a Godwin. :sweatdrop:
aha, more vagueness then. One can get rid of IPCC and their models and yet one can't get rid of the science behind it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
aha, more vagueness then. One can get rid of IPCC and their models and yet one can't get rid of the science behind it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
Where have you been all my life?
Pannonian
10-01-2013, 22:53
aha, more vagueness then. One can get rid of IPCC and their models and yet one can't get rid of the science behind it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
It's the Have I Got News For You syndrome. Brits in particular think it's cool to dismiss politics, academical studies and other intellectually demanding stuff by reeling off a one line witticism, frequently in the form of "well, what do you expect from (insert tangential smear here)". Jon Stewart has introduced it to the US as well, but it's more established in the UK. Stewart at least has the saving grace of explicitly wanting more intellectual rigour in political discussion, but the HIGNFY crew don't even have that.
It's the Have I Got News For You syndrome. Brits in particular think it's cool to dismiss politics, academical studies and other intellectually demanding stuff by reeling off a one line witticism, frequently in the form of "well, what do you expect from (insert tangential smear here)". Jon Stewart has introduced it to the US as well, but it's more established in the UK. Stewart at least has the saving grace of explicitly wanting more intellectual rigour in political discussion, but the HIGNFY crew don't even have that.
It is more distrust of authority. All authority must be questioned with good reason, and if they are acting in good in good faith, then the evidence will speak for itself. Unfortunately, whilst this sentence is good and no objections, some people interpret it as distrust everyone deeply' and innocent people end up under-fire whilst heavily for doing nothing wrong. It is a growing sense of individual cynicism which is spreading through society along with apathy, truth is, they don't really care that much. Could be the age old "Oh who cares about recycling, it is only one person, stuff the council", they fail to realise a great many others are just like that, so it isn't 'just one person' but a few thousand. They abstract themselves from society as if they are something special compared to the rest.
Pannonian
10-02-2013, 01:52
It is more distrust of authority. All authority must be questioned with good reason, and if they are acting in good in good faith, then the evidence will speak for itself. Unfortunately, whilst this sentence is good and no objections, some people interpret it as distrust everyone deeply' and innocent people end up under-fire whilst heavily for doing nothing wrong. It is a growing sense of individual cynicism which is spreading through society along with apathy, truth is, they don't really care that much. Could be the age old "Oh who cares about recycling, it is only one person, stuff the council", they fail to realise a great many others are just like that, so it isn't 'just one person' but a few thousand. They abstract themselves from society as if they are something special compared to the rest.
HIGNFY has made it easy to dismiss authority though, by popularising the one liner followed by a knowing look and the applause and thus approval of the gallery. While I've been entertained by the programme, I've never taken it as my guide for how to view the world. I've always taken more from my education, which while I accept has not given me the knowledge to answer these questions well, has at least given me the ability to recognise the difference between good methodology and bad. If I do not have the knowledge to answer a question, I at least know what adequate treatment of evidence is and reasonable conclusions drawn from arguments thereof, and what rhetorical tricks are used to evade them. Even if I don't have all the information, I do recognise relevant information when I see it, and I mostly recognise where there are gaps. I favour arguments based on what evidence there is, even with uncertain and incomplete conclusions, versus arguments made principally on speculation based on these gaps.
It's the Have I Got News For You syndrome. Brits in particular think it's cool to dismiss politics, academical studies and other intellectually demanding stuff by reeling off a one line witticism, frequently in the form of "well, what do you expect from (insert tangential smear here)". Jon Stewart has introduced it to the US as well, but it's more established in the UK. Stewart at least has the saving grace of explicitly wanting more intellectual rigour in political discussion, but the HIGNFY crew don't even have that.
The denial of science is quite a fascinating topic. Motivated reasoning is, just like the Dark Side of the Force, quicker, easier and more seductive.
I have already posted a couple of the links in earlier threads:
The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney)
Conservative Trust Of Science At All Time Low, Study Confirms Chris Mooney Thesis (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/29/455257/conservative-trust-of-science-at-all-time-low-study-confirms-chris-mooney-thesis/)
Roots of (scientific) denial (http://whyfiles.org/2012/denial-of-science-science-of-denial/)
And just to be clear: science denial can be found on both sides of the political spectrum, but, at least in the USA, it sure does look like the Republicans take the top prize.
CBR , I recommend you watch Brian Cox's Science Britannic (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03bjpcy/Science_Britannica_Frankensteins_Monsters/)a, he goes into the whole portrayal of the distrust of Science, going back to its early days and great novel works such as Frankenstein monster which was based on the early works of electricity being the source of life and how it could bring a dead person back to life.. which in modern terms is widely known and accepted as a Defibrillation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defibrillation).
@CBR (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=2612) , I recommend you watch Brian Cox's Science Britannic (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03bjpcy/Science_Britannica_Frankensteins_Monsters/)a, he goes into the whole portrayal of the distrust of Science, going back to its early days and great novel works such as Frankenstein monster which was based on the early works of electricity being the source of life and how it could bring a dead person back to life.. which in modern terms is widely known and accepted as a Defibrillation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defibrillation).
Thanks. The evil BBC does not allow stupid foreigners to watch it on their site, but I have found it on YT.
Papewaio
10-05-2013, 02:58
The denial of science is quite a fascinating topic. Motivated reasoning is, just like the Dark Side of the Force, quicker, easier and more seductive
I'd say the dark side is more scientific:
They use genetics.
Have mathematical ability. For instance if one side has 5000 and the other side has 2 bringing balance to the force means the chosen one is going to make 4998 jedi into sashimi. Basic maths skills is a keystone in science.
I'd say the dark side is more scientific:
They use genetics.
Have mathematical ability. For instance if one side has 5000 and the other side has 2 bringing balance to the force means the chosen one is going to make 4998 jedi into sashimi. Basic maths skills is a keystone in science.
I don't believe in the claims that there are more than three Star Wars movies. No evidence will ever convince me!
The Science Britannica was interesting but did not go so much into detail compared to BBC Horizon: Science Under Attack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvB9EFdJ1d0 (does not seem to be available on BBC website)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.