|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
The steps we should take is address the US contributions. Continue to legislate reducing emissions from both corporate and individual usage. Continue to legislate more fuel efficient vehicles. Continue to legislate more efficient appliances. Increase the cost of gasoline and diesel fuels by adding an additional tax that will be set aside to use only to mitigate harmful effects of global warming and rebuilding infrastructure. Place a moratorium on any new coastal construction and tax existing coastal industry and corporations. Work on plans to move people away from potential flood areas. In other words, elect Democrats! Surrender freedom! Ignore the 10th amendment! How will the successes of all these increases in government be measured?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
There's an amusing dissection of Tom Luongo's scam tactics here: It's amusing all right!
quote: .56 degrees as opposed to Luongo's claim of .36???? WOW, what a shocking difference!!!!!!! and;
quote: WHAT A HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!!! Hahahaha - thanks for the amusement! But I'm more amused at Al Gore's tactics over the years, or by the fact that so many liberals automatically accept it without question; Page not found - The Western Journal The Health Wyze Report - The Health Wyze Report http://www.foxnews.com/...nnel-founder-sue-al-gore-for-fraud
quote: Maybe it's not so amusing after all.
quote: Don't count on it Mr. Coleman, $22 billion a year buys a LOT of scam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: \ Expenditures on global warming studies, by the U.S. and much of the world, is all over the internet. It's a big business. Yeah but if it is real then it makes sense that people are spending money to stop it. I was asking how you know that the people that are saying that the scientists are lying aren't the ones who are lying? I trust the advocates of small government over advocates of big government. I find rich people who advocate small government to be more accountable for their mistakes than rich people who advocate big government. Corruption of course, makes it all less cut and dried than I wish it was, but the general rule still applies IMO. In message 102, jar listed the following as ways to address global warming;
quote: Then when I asked "How will the successes of all these increases in government be measured?" - in message 104, he said this in message 106;
quote: Do you think that is ignorance, or do you think it's lying? Continue to legislate were the most repetitive words in his list. No increases in government? 7 green dots? I love this place!! Edited by marc9000, : Included question
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: What action do I propose to "do something" about my fear of a future financial crisis? And here's my answer - THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP BORROWING MONEY. Do you have any answers to global warming that are that direct and simple? In other words, you are not personally going to do anything about your fear of a future crisis. I'm not personally able to control anything about U.S. spending, other than vote for politicians who seem most likely to better control it.
You want the government to fix the problem while you go on doing what you do I don't borrow money without a concrete plan to pay it all back, with interest, in a prescribed amount of time.
On the other hand, you want people who are concerned about global warming to take on the problem strictly by taking personal actions. If the burning of fossil fuels directly contributes to their way of life, heating their homes, delivering them food, powering their cars, it's much more related to what they object to, than my spending habits are to what I object to, government spending habits.
No, I don't have a solution for global climate change that involves a bunch of people sitting on their butts ranting about government spending all the while sucking off the government teat. I'm on no government hand-out programs. I work and pay taxes. No teat for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
I can give you examples from my country. One way is to go the nuclear . The idea is to not only built new nuclear power stations, but also to replace existing coal fired power stations with nuclear stations at the end of their life-spans. This is not an ideal way, but it is a lot better as far as greenhouse gases are concerned. I agree. But nuclear power is controversial, because of safety reasons. Chernobyl is the obvious example. There is always organized opposition to nuclear power any time it's proposed, usually from the same political left who objects to coal and other conventional methods. It's often their unreasonable safety demands and other obstructions that make nuclear power untenable, and actually increases the use of coal etc. that many of them also object to. But again I agree with you, I'm all for nuclear power!
While existing, proven technologies are utilised, a lot of research on alternative energies are being conducted. One of the major organisations involved is Sanedi. Solar farms, wind farms, etc. have been opened with the accompanying research in improving the technologies. One of the units at the second largest coal fired power station in the country has already been converted to be fired by Underground Coal Gasification (UCG). Sasol has been running a pilot project utilising UCG on one of their major plants (converting UCG into chemicals). The major greenhouse gases get captured instead of being released into the atmosphere.Futhermore, a lot of research and exploration is being done on shale gas and CBM. If these things are done with private funding and investments, I love seeing it! But it shouldn't be done with public money IMO.
Actually, coal and oil would be targets for the simple reason that they are the main culprits. Coal is a lot more detrimental to the atmosphere than the gases extracted from the earth. Simple chemistry. I agree of course. But the main reason so many of us have in objecting to government mandates to slow or stop it, is the nature of those mandates, which often result in infringement of liberty, and waste. About 5 years ago in the U.S., we had a "cash for clunkers" program. A dumb name, and a dumb program. Taxpayer money was used by the government to "buy" older cars and scrap them, "encouraging" people to buy newer, less polluting cars. I don't believe destroying useful products will ever benefit a society in the long run. I'm sure new car makers were happy to contribute millions in political contributions to get this done. For the future, who knows? Will the government perform tests and determine that older cars, older lawn mowers, chain saws, farm equipment, construction equipment, etc. must all be confiscated and destroyed in the name of global warming? Current manufacturers of all those things would surely make political contributions to get this type of legislation passed. It's called corruption. Again, if it happens, it should be up to the people, not the scientific community.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Don't you even read and investigate your own sources? This site: Is your "investment guru's" page of falsehoods about climate change Yes. I just didn't realize that you think it's obvious that investment guys are always crooks, while believing all the Al Gore's of the world are just truthful, innocent guys.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. 1.2 million? Hmmm, do scientific papers from global warming activists disclose the government money they get to research their findings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Are we to assume that you are now convinced that GW is real? No I haven't changed my opinion, now I have to take the time to dissect your little trick, but it should just take a minute. The earth has undergone natural warming and cooling cycles for thousands of years. There are now 7 billion people, up from under just 1 billion in only a couple of hundred years. If the scientific community can show their slight temperature increases here and there, I don't deny it's true. If humans cause it to keep warm, eat, you know, maintain a civilized way of life, I don't deny that either. But I deny that any human action to slow it or reverse it, even by the liberty destroying heavy hand of government, is going to change it enough to make a difference in it.
marc9000 writes: What suggestions do you have? I suggest that you use facts and evidence to decide whether GW is real, rather than blindly accepting the words of the politicians to whom you're devoted. That's not what I was asking, and you know it.
marc9000 writes: What steps should be taken to cut back their use? ... I'd like to see you list and justify actions to remedy it. Summarized nicely by jar in Message 102 and Message 110, and Pressie in Message 108, and others. I saw those lists of actions, but not much in the way of ways to justify them. From jar's message 106;
quote: So we let the government and scientific community take actions that they see fit, with a promise that they will evaluate their successes in 100 years?? That comes up just a little short in the accountability department.
marc9000 writes: Do any of your proposals NOT involve politics? The main proposal I've made to you is to stop denying global warming exists. But in your case it involves only politics. Other than the voluntary ones that some of the others listed which most seem to agree will accomplish very little, the "continue to legislate" ones ALL involve politics.
My proposal, if implemented, could be considered effective if you stop denying global warming. It could only be measured by some admission on your part that you're wrong. So you won't specify what it is, and it's measurement would be successful if people like me would just stop questioning it and start trusting you?
No, best estimates will have to do. That goes both ways. Best estimates that we are being scammed will have to do for myself, Charlie Daniels, and millions of other Americans.
We have reasonable estimates of fossil fuels consumed and CO2 generated by industry, transportation, etc, in every developed country, country by country. How about a link to that? A country by country list, I haven't noticed one yet in this thread. Then we could explore some estimates on how much undeveloped countries have benefited from technologies from developed countries, and how much of the global warming condemnation they deserve.
Of course you don't. You deny that there is any problem. Any solution would seem more problematic. I don't see how dealing with it could possibly cause more problems than it solves. When people are stripped of their liberties, with a promise that benefits from it will be measured in 100 years, problems happen.
It's a global problem, therefore it's an international problem. Who makes that determination? 4 days ago, 100+ year old LOW temp records were being broken in my area, and other areas of the U.S. Different people have different ideas of what problems are.
Nations have governments. Governments have politics. It's naive and stupid to suppose that governments shouldn't get involved. They are charged with protecting the interests of their citizens and developing infrastructure. This issue demands that they do their jobs. Except for nations with entrenched tyrants as their leaders, they should get involved with what a general consensus of their people say they should get involved with. Not giving any special priorities to certain special interest groups.
Actually the change was about 0.6 C (1 F) over 50 years. I said 1 degree in 50 years. 0.6 C rounded off is one degree. 1 F is one degree. We see you struggling.
So, what is it you know? Are you talking 50 years US or metric? Why don't you knock off with the "glowby" crap, Razd, and use just one name?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Well I'll be happy to take the Climate Change debate there, but here's a little tid=bit for you from facebook That's a scientific notice published in a newspaper in 1912. I'm reminded of a graph from Percy's Message 4164;
That graph covers 10,000 years, and is only a few inches wide, so it's not really possible to accurately pinpoint just what time period those lines on that chart started rocketing up, but it looks to me like early to late 1800's, right on up to today. Just about the time fossil fuels came into being. Now lets look at which years the world achieved an additional billion in population; In 1804, the world reached a population of 1 billion1927, 2 billion 1960, 3 billion 1974, 4 billion 1987, 5 billion 1999, 6 billion and 2012, 7 billion. The projection is sometime between 2024 and 2030, 8 billion. World population milestones - Wikipedia Is it reasonable to say that there's a correlation between the rise in CO2, and the increase in world population? Undoubtedly closely related to the increase in fossil fuel use as the population increased - I'll give you that. When I asked you if too many Model T's were the reason for the increased CO2 a hundred years ago, you said it was because of "Coal burning industries. Steam locomotives and ships burning coal." Again, that's fine I'll give you that. But what we have to realize is that those coal burning industries weren't luxuries - they became accepted and necessary to provide food and warmth, and primitive lifestyles, by today's standards, to a NEW UPWARD TREND in population growth. So therefore, I only see one way to reduce CO2 back to early 1800's levels, and that would be to eliminate 6 billion people from the earth. Since I don't see anyone from the scientific community or the far political left proposing that, I'd like to know what other SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN alteration to today's societies would satisfy today's climate change alarmists. As we see from the above figures, world population was about half what it is today when the U.S. EPA was formed in 1970. Since they're experts, they should have known what was going on in 1912, and that they had something to do. They didn't do it, did they? They aren't accountable, are they? My points have never been adamant disagreement with scientific findings, I'm just adamant that there's nothing humans can do about what mere human existence causes. Humans didn't create this planet, humans don't decide how long days and years are, and they can't control the weather. Only recently, since we see increasing moral decay and increasing beliefs in the scientific community that humans are little gods, have we seen political efforts to pretend humans can quickly and decisively control the general temperature and atmospheric content of the planet.
marc9000 writes: When world population was about 1/7 of what it is today. I wonder why the EPA didn't get busy on this when it was formed in 1970. I guess the reaction would have been the same in 1970 as in 1910, or 1920, or 1980, or 1990. Nothing but laughter, at the thought that putting the government in charge of energy production and use could cool the planet and calm storms. The world of Greta Thunbergs is a brand new thing. Your argument from incredulity is a lot of hot air signifying nothing. The reaction in 1970 was not laughter, rather it was mostly self-centered indifference of people who didn't recognize the implications. A rather common trait in humans. You missed the point, I didn't say or imply that the laughter was about any scientific findings, but that the laughter was "at the thought that putting the government in charge of energy production and use could cool the planet and calm storms."
Now I understand that you'll likely laugh at my reference to Al Gore. You've been taught to do that by the oil/coal industry propaganda machine and and fake science hacks they employ, because it endangers their comfy profit program. The same way you've been taught to blow through people like Tim Ball, for a similar, but a much more dangerous reason. Free market profit margins aren't nearly as threatening as massive government takeovers of human freedoms, with no accountability.
The issue of Climate Change is that it is a distinct long-term trend. And the issue of humans reversing / fixing it through big government action is also a long term issue, and since life is short, there's no accountability. Just short term rewards for both big government officials all the way down to common jealous people, who love to watch big government mandates destroy those that they're jealous of.
Curiously I've already addressed your list in Message 4239. Your "key commissions" are fake news, they don't fare well under scientific evaluation and all attempts to replicate the denial papers results failed. Maybe I missed it, but I think you missed one. Let's look at it, I'll c/p a few paragraphs from it. The Great Global Warming Hoax | 'Knowledge is Power' – better-management.org reveals invaluable information
quote: [bolded mine] Can you knock this out in a couple of sentences? I'm sure you can go to google and find thousands of frantic scientists who've condensed it very nicely for you. I'd also like some references to a scientific paper or two that PROVE that political action will reverse climate change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Note you're not supposed to argue by bare links, and a bare video would qualify imho. That said, your video is worthless. Well, that's where I thought I'd start, to see if you, or anyone else, after a full week, would address ANYTHING in the video. I have my answer, so I'll proceed by referring to it as I further try to address the continued climate change subject. Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has plans to combat climate change;
quote: https://www.vox.com/...-change-policy-power-natural-gas-coal and as I've mentioned before in the other thread, Tom Steyer has said that he'll "declare a climate change national emergency on day one of his presidency". Does it look to you like both of these guys are saying they'll "do anything they want"? Percy said in Message 4409;
Percy writes: and there are no serious proposals for the government "to take over most all decisions in how energy will be produced and used." I don't need to be a scientist to see wildly mixed messages in what I see about solutions to climate change. As we know, the "Green New Deal" has "ambitious" proposals, as AOC has expertly said. You know, 100% renewable energy in 12 (now 11) years. We also know that in 11 years, wind is not going to be blowing tractor trailers down the road as they deliver food to food stores. Sunlight power isn't going to completely replace the current fossil fuel burning machinery that produces food. Some progress towards renewable energy could be made in that period, but common sense tells us it won't be much. Now back to the video, at about the 2:10 mark, Wilson referred to the common, yet largely emotional cry by the left to DO SOMETHING about climate change. It's exactly the same cry we hear after a mass shooting, or a bus accident involving death or serious injury to several students. In the case of shootings, it's always a call for one more gun control law, in the case of bus accidents, it's the call for more and more expensive safety equipment on buses. Very small, incremental things, that have no measurable affect on future shootings / bus accidents. The same thing can happen with climate change, no matter how much the government meddles, new technology for renewable energy will be negligible, but the DO SOMETHING call will be satisfied by targeting only small voting blocks. Such as the antique auto industry, or people who heat their residences completely or partially with firewood. Those kinds of small voting blocks have no political power to stop these infringements on liberty. So that's one disagreement I have about the video being "worthless". Here's another; starting at about the 2:35 mark, he starts describing several instances where past scientific predictions have been completely wrong. Was that part incorrect, or was that part just a little less than worthless? Is if fair to dismiss FACTS, just because he's accused of being trained by special interests? I don't automatically dismiss "facts" by the scientific community concerning some of their terrifying findings, I just dismiss that they or anyone has the ability to do the equivalent of making 6 billion human beings stop eating, breathing, or keeping warm in winter.
Try again with real science. You're biggest problem seems to be an inability to differentiate between real science and non-science, picking what you want to be true rather than what reality says is true. The U.S. constitution doesn't give "real science" any more power than anyone else when it comes to making political decisions. Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: Is it reasonable to say that there's a correlation between the rise in CO2, and the increase in world population? Undoubtedly closely related to the increase in fossil fuel use as the population increased - I'll give you that. And also an increase in per capita fossil fuel use. "Per capita", so this use by "individuals" of fossil fuels is getting increasingly unnecessary, and must be regulated?
So we have a feed-back system that increases CO2 production exponentially. A feed back system? Cars are more efficient with fuel than ever before, thanks to expensive government mandates, we have more wind turbines than ever before. Are only things like people's hobbies, and overindulgence causing this feed back system?
As I said before I know someone who was on the National Science Board when Nixon was president, ie when the EPA was formed. The scientists knew what was going on, the politicians balked at doing anything about it. They still do ... because oil/coal industry lobbyists. And because the politicians know they'd be voted out of office. There's a reason that specific proposals to "do something" about climate change are still a secret.
Then get out of the way and let those who think we can do something get to work. "Get out of the way", and let government gobble up freedoms and money to do something that can't be measured? You're funny.
Not surprisingly I disagree totally: unchecked capitalism is a slide back to the worst kind of feudalism, as capitalism has no moral or ethical checking system. No accountability? How are international corporations held accountable? How is Walmart held accountable for paying starvation wages with workers on public assistance for housing health and food while they rake in billions? Nothing is perfect, but free markets are BY FAR the best way to hold companies, big and small, accountable.
As you can see, the Milankovich cycles indeed show that we should be entering a new ice age, as your link says, but that it is massively overwhelmed by human CO2 production. Overwhelmed by facts, or scientific community projections?
marc9000 writes: I'd also like some references to a scientific paper or two that PROVE that political action will reverse climate change. ROFLOL. Nice joke. Yes it is, there's no way to scientifically document how political action will have any effect on climate change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
From what you have (sort of) quoted I don't see anything of value, mostly regurgitated anti-renewable energy talking points paid for by big oil. Considering all the obvious increases in only the last three years, of talking points about climate change from big science, big government, big Democrat, big anti-America from all around the world, it's clear that big oil's spending, and whatever it stands to gain, is dwarfed by its opposition.
Look at the oil companies admitting that they knew about their business being detrimental to the climate but continuing anyway, because profits. The federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon, it's 24.4 cents on diesel fuel. For all 50 states all across the country - that's millions of dollars per second, every second of every year. Any ideas on how the dream of 100% renewable energy is going to cover this? The U.S. government is hemorrhaging enough debt per second as it is, it can't do without these excise taxes.
You claim there is a lot of money on the renewable energy side, but you're looking in the wrong direction. quote: Bloomberg - Are you a robot? The more I look in that "wrong direction", the more greed I see. What do you think the main motive for HP, Walmart, Goldman Sachs etc is, climate change, with profits as secondary, or the other way around?
Yes there are many possible ways to reduce CO2 and Methane emissions. Yes transportation requires a way to get to point B without dependence on recharging batteries for long distance travel and trucking, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't invest in renewable energy at all, or even as much as possible. And a lot of people are doing things on their own. I have solar panels, and I have not paid an electrical bill since august 2015. That means they have already paid for themselves. These things can and are happening, without government involvement. You made your choice without government involvement. Solar panels wouldn't work for me, my house is almost completely shaded by large trees. Sometimes they die, and fall down or I have to cut them. Then I use them for firewood. https://www.jbbardot.com/epa-bans-most-wood-burning-stoves/ Who can tell what the future holds with government bans? Looks like my lifestyle could be in danger, yours is not.
Creationist types love when science is wrong, because they think it makes all science wrong and untrustworthy. They don't believe it makes science wrong, but it makes political predictions, disguised as science, untrustworthy.
So yeah, dwelling on past failures and not looking at current success makes the video worthless. It's typical for cherry-picking information and presenting a misleading or false representation of the current science. Current predictions aren't automatically successful. Many people see current predictions that are based on political asperations as being no different than past ones. The cherry picking of information that all the "bigs" that oppose big oil is obvious.
And that is politics, not science, isn't it? So we should welcome the people that are making the public more aware of the situation and the danger of doing nothing. Conversely, the danger of making the world a better, cleaner place to live, if say the climate change science happens to be totally wrong (which is highly unlikely), and making industry more accountable and eco-friendly, is what? The danger is ECONOMIC CRASHES.
marc9000 writes: The U.S. constitution doesn't give "real science" any more power than anyone else when it comes to making political decisions. True, it allows absolutely stupid, self centered people an equal vote with informed people. So the issue is to make more people informed. It only has one safeguard concerning stupid, self centered people, and it involves presidential elections. It's called the Electoral College.
Curiously, I seem to remember that the founding fathers were big on having an educated public that could make cogent decisions. Is that somewhere in the Constitution? Or just in some of quotes and supporting thoughts of theirs found in places like the Federalist Papers? I suspect it could be, but it wouldn't go along well with most climate change alarmists parallel beliefs about uneducated, non-English people pouring over our southern border, would it?
Note that several of the failed predictions were due to inadequate modeling of the ocean's role. Any chances of inadequate modeling of the upcoming Milankovich cycle, or other future natural climate events that humans have nothing to do with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Increasingly dangerous to life on earth in general and human survival in particular. For that reason it needs to be curtailed. "BIG CURTAIL" - looks like the best way to refer to all the various opposition to "big oil".
marc9000 writes: Nothing is perfect, but free markets are BY FAR the best way to hold companies, big and small, accountable. Except that it has never worked. It hasn't? The U.S. is a complete, 100% failure? The rest of the world would be better off if the U.S. didn't exist? What other system of government works better? And where is it currently, or in past history, practiced?
marc9000 writes: Yes it is, there's no way to scientifically document how political action will have any effect on climate change. Wrong. Levels are being measured constantly, and anything with a positive effect will show up. Will show up when, 100 years from now? Will show up in spite of some very possible inadequate modeling of other climate variables, like the Milankovich cycle?
quote: Looks like the case keeps getting stronger, and you keep getting wronger. It gets politically stronger, when enough cherry picking is done. Each political view can do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Humans are short sighted and selfish, not necessarily self destructive. Fossil fuels are cheap and easy to use, so we use them. It takes a lot of spending and infrastructure to switch, so we don't. We don't see any change in the climate or threat to our way of life in the very short term, so we don't worry about it. Largely because many people see larger, more pressing worries. Such as, how to pay for things.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024