Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8960 total)
52 online now:
dwise1, GDR, PaulK, Theodoric (4 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,131 Year: 879/23,288 Month: 879/1,851 Week: 2/321 Day: 2/48 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
jar
Member
Posts: 31987
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 556 of 573 (869194)
12-25-2019 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 554 by Faith
12-25-2019 1:30 AM


Really Basic Basics Faith
Ice retreats because the atmosphere and oceans warm up.

We have records of temperatures from multiple lines of evidence covering many millions of years.

What is missing is ANY evidence of any world wide flood at anytime humans existed.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Faith, posted 12-25-2019 1:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6951
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 557 of 573 (869433)
12-30-2019 11:29 AM


Wind Turbines Are Not Killing Fields for Birds
Dear Leader continues to lie about climate, energy and renewable energy.

Wind Turbines are way down the list of killers of birds. By orders of magnitude.

quote:
Wind turbines have not been found to diminish home values of nearby properties or cause cancer. According to numbers aggregated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, cats are a bigger scourge to the overall bird community than wind turbines. The most recent estimate places the number of bird deaths at the paws of cats at 2.4 billion. Collisions from wind turbines on land killed a small fraction of birds in comparison to the damage that cats and glass buildings cause to the general bird population. Land wind turbines were responsible for over 200,000 bird deaths while collisions from building glass are estimated to be responsible for nearly 600 million bird deaths.

Infographic: Wind Turbines Are Not Killing Fields for Birds

Infographic: Wind Turbines Are Not Killing Fields for Birds | Statista You will find more infographics at Statista

I could not find any other topic this was appropriate for and did not feel it qualified for a new topic. If there is a better thread please let me know.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by AZPaul3, posted 12-30-2019 11:57 AM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 559 by frako, posted 12-30-2019 12:26 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 560 by frako, posted 12-30-2019 12:26 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4805
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 558 of 573 (869439)
12-30-2019 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 557 by Theodoric
12-30-2019 11:29 AM


Re: Wind Turbines Are Not Killing Fields for Birds
I was looking to place it in Is The World Getting Better Or Worse? where we had a subtopic about this some time back but you beat me to it, which is fine and probably more appropriate given the Deranged Orange One's latest bs. Here is just fine.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Theodoric, posted 12-30-2019 11:29 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2846
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 559 of 573 (869443)
12-30-2019 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by Theodoric
12-30-2019 11:29 AM


Re: Wind Turbines Are Not Killing Fields for Birds
Yea but there is still the issue of Windmill Cancer.



Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Theodoric, posted 12-30-2019 11:29 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by AZPaul3, posted 12-30-2019 12:53 PM frako has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2846
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 560 of 573 (869444)
12-30-2019 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by Theodoric
12-30-2019 11:29 AM


Re: Wind Turbines Are Not Killing Fields for Birds
double post

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Theodoric, posted 12-30-2019 11:29 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4805
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 561 of 573 (869448)
12-30-2019 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by frako
12-30-2019 12:26 PM


Re: Wind Turbines Are Not Killing Fields for Birds
And all the gasses that blow out from them. That's not good either.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by frako, posted 12-30-2019 12:26 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by frako, posted 12-30-2019 1:35 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2846
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 562 of 573 (869450)
12-30-2019 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by AZPaul3
12-30-2019 12:53 PM


Re: Wind Turbines Are Not Killing Fields for Birds
The problem with renewable energy and countries like The united states, Russia, and Saudi Arabia is that your economies depend on fossil fuels. The USA especially depends on the sale of Oil worldwide because oil can only be sold in dollars, allowing you to print huge amounts of money and not get as much inflation as the money is spred worldwide. Just on that fact alone if the world stops buying oil america goes bankrupt. Dont quote me on it but from memory i think 36% of the worlds capital is invested in fossil fuels.

Based on these conditions the world will kick and scream against any meaningful change. And we would need drastic changes to save our civilisation if at this point it is even possible as methane is escaping the arctic, where there is more carbon stored then there is currently in the atmosphere. The warmer it gets the more methane escapes warming the world further, so more methane escapes... So our best choice right now is to open a bear light a cigarette and watch the world burn down.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by AZPaul3, posted 12-30-2019 12:53 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20454
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 563 of 573 (870187)
01-14-2020 9:51 AM


Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News (renamed)
The Right Side of the News (renamed)
Message 4250:

marc2000 writes:

... . I have a renewed interest in the climate change debate these days, though it should probably be taken to the official thread (started years ago by you) But unless I'm told to go there, I'm just as satisfied to keep going on that here.

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.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : changed photo link


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 12:06 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 569 by marc9000, posted 01-15-2020 9:53 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20454
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 564 of 573 (870201)
01-14-2020 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by RAZD
01-14-2020 9:51 AM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News (renamed)
The Right Side of the News (renamed)
Message 4243:

marc2000 writes:

Which of course is all wrong. Scientists were aware of climate change over 100 years ago,

marc9000 writes:

What was causing that?? Too many model T's?

Coal burning industries. Steam locomotives and ships burning coal.

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.

BTW - See Message 563 above with newspaper article from 1912.

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.

The oil and coal industries spent millions on distracting people -- especially gullible people -- away from the "inconvenient truth"

quote:
An Inconvenient Truth - Wikipedia

Gore became interested in global warming when he took a course at Harvard University with Professor Roger Revelle, one of the first scientists to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[15] Later, when Gore was in Congress, he initiated the first congressional hearing on the subject in 1981.[16] Gore's 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, dealing with a number of environmental topics, reached the New York Times bestseller list.[17]

As Vice President during the Clinton Administration, Gore pushed for the implementation of a carbon tax to encourage energy efficiency and diversify the choices of fuel better reflecting the true environmental costs of energy use; it was partially implemented in 1993.[18]

He helped broker the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions.[19][20] The treaty was not ratified in the United States after a 95 to 0 vote in the Senate. The primary objections stemmed from the exemptions the treaty gave to China and India, whose industrial base and carbon footprint have grown rapidly, and fears that the exemptions would lead to further trade imbalances and offshoring arrangement with those countries.[21][22]

Gore also supported the funding of the controversial, and much-delayed satellite called Triana, which would have provided an image of the Earth 24 hours a day, over the internet and would have acted as a barometer measuring the process of global warming.[23] During his 2000 presidential campaign, Gore ran, in part, on a pledge to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.[24]


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 world of Greta Thunbergs is a brand new thing.

The point is that there were many people before Greta, you just haven't been paying attention, and when you did, you conformed to the propaganda program of big oil/gas corporations and their million $$ campaigns of disinformation and mockery.

When that technology includes using fossil fuels, yes.

Fossil fuels are directly or indirectly behind most ALL technology.

Electricity powers most modern technologies. There are many ways to generate electricity without fossil fuels.

AND it is becoming more and more economical to use wind and solar -- even when they compete against subsidized oil and coal(and nuclear). Look at new electrical generation plants and what is being built.

quote:
The climate crisis explained in 10 charts

The upside (I) – wind and solar energy is soaring

Huge cost drops have seen renewable energy become the cheapest energy in many places and the rollout is projected to continue. Analysts also expect coal use to fall. But much government action is still required to reach the scale needed, and solve difficult problems such as aviation and farming.

The upside (II) – electric vehicles

The global fleet of electric cars and vans is still small compared with those running on fossil fuels. But sales are growing very fast. Electric cars are cheaper to run, suggesting they will become mainstream.


Other countries can benefit from this without having to go through the messy generation of electricity with fossil fuels.

That's what the data shows, certainly when we look at the rate of change in climate we see nothing in past climate changes of that order of magnitude of changes/year (decade, century).

From my link in Message 4228;

Cherry-picked data does not make a trend. There was also a Year Without a Summer - Wikipedia in 1817.

The issue of Climate Change is that it is a distinct long-term trend.

quote:
Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions. The first graph shows atmospheric CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, in recent years, with average seasonal cycle removed. The second graph shows CO2 levels during the last three glacial cycles, as reconstructed from ice cores.


That goes back 400,000 years and shows regular cycles of high and low CO2 levels, and then recent levels exceeding all the historic highs.

It was called Global Warming initially because that was the first observed effect (again see image above in Message 563), since then we have discovered that increasing global temperatures has significant on the location and pattern of climates world-wide, and the name was modified to Climate Change.

Again it was the trends in climate patterns that became more and more apparent, and we can and have modeled the change in CO2 over the past.

There seems to be a LOT of selective quoting and omissions in the promotion of climate change fear. Just this evening, David Muir of ABC news did a quick mention of how the earths oceans were warmer than they've ever been, but he didn't mention that a significant part of ocean warming comes from the ocean floor, not just the air above it.

Again that doesn't address the change in ocean temps, the trend, just the sources of heat. Are you saying that the earths core is heating up and that is causing an increase in ocean temps? If so then please document this.

When it comes to Darwinism, the scientific community has pretty much always had non-atheists very thoroughly outnumbered. They might not be so lucky when it comes to climatology, and the associated meteorology and astronomy that go along with it. ...

and ... you'll still be wrong. The scientific community is as convince of the validity of climate change as they are of evolution. Because both are fully supported by the preponderance of evidence and the absence, to date, of any contradictory evidence.

... The few links alone that I've already put up in Message 4228 go a long way in covering key omissions by today's climate alarmists.

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.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 9:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 12:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 566 by JonF, posted 01-14-2020 1:03 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20454
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 565 of 573 (870207)
01-14-2020 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by RAZD
01-14-2020 12:06 PM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News (renamed)
The Right Side of the News (renamed)
Message 4244:

marc2000 writes:

Yup, you took the bait! I c/p'd detail of only one of those links, where the guy starts out saying he's not a scientist, and you ran with that, without checking the fact that the last link there described a book by Dr. Tim Ball, a 40 year climatologist.

When will you conspiracy theory people ever learn to check your sources.

quote:
Dr. Tim Ball: The Lie that Just Won't Die

The deathless and - in many specific respects - completely fictional meanderings of Dr. Tim Ball have begun appearing again on right-wing blogs all over the net. At City Troll, at Convenient Untruth and at New Orleans Lady, the same tired and retreaded old climate rant paints Dr. Ball as the courageous victim of a plot to silence a well-meaning skeptic.

But Ball can’t even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the field. It also was granted by the university as a doctor of philosophy, not the more prestigious “doctor of science” that Ball claims in these articles.

He claims as well to have been a professor (again of climatology) at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, while he confirmed in his own Statement of Claim in a pending lawsuit (look here ) that he was a professor (of geography, never climatology) for just eight years.

Dr. Ball claims never to have been paid by oil and gas interests, but if you look here , you’ll find a Globe and Mail story in which Dr. Barry Cooper, the man behind Ball’s former industry front group, the Friends of Science , offers this clumsy admission: “[The money’s] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry,” says Prof. Cooper. “It’s also from foundations and individuals. I can’t tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals.”

Here you’ll find a podcast of Dr. Ball talking to the Ottawa Citizen , saying that he goes out of his way to ignore who might be paying his bills, but crediting the energy industry lobby firm, the High Park Group . And here, you’ll find High Park Group veteran Tom Harris, telling the Toronto Star that his new industry front group, the Natural Resources Stewardship Project , was created at the suggestion of High Park Group president Timothy Egan.

Tom Harris, executive director of the NRSP, is credited by New Orleans Lady for passing along this version of the Ball tirade, also printed Monday on the right-wingy website, Canada Free Press. Yet all of these factual inconsistencies have been brought to Harris’s attention on previous occasions.

It is inevitable that this post will be criticized as an ad hominem attack on dear Dr. Ball (and perhaps on Harris, as well). But how can you argue science with someone who doesn’t feel bound by the limits of truth?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just endured an unprecedented process of vetting and peer-review to produce a document, the veracity of which has been double-checked and endorsed by thousands of the best scientists in the world. It must be soul-destroying to see a long-retired geographer who rarely published during his colourless academic career and who never conducted any research in atmospheric science dismiss that effort without a shred of evidence or a hint of good conscience.


Dr. Tim Ball, NOT a 40 year climatologist, who published no peer reviewed articles on the subject and who worked for big oil/coal interests. And he lies. Shocking.

Why do you think Yahoo search is not liberal? Curious.

Just type "climate change hoax" into google, then type it into yahoo. Big difference in what comes up.

Which doesn't mean it is not liberal. All search engines will get different results. Again you should look for science papers/documents for the facts. Anyone can publish garbage on the internet and some gullible idiot will take it as gospel because they don't have the training to spot garbage...

What those 24 papers show however, can offset a LOT of omissions from your 14,000, and most importantly, those and many other writings from non-scientists, (you know, those who can spot fraud a mile away) can address something that most of your 14,000 omit, ...

They didn't. Their pseudoscience failed.

... like what proof do we have that turning all energy production and use over to the U.S. government is going to actually accomplish anything, other than starting a war.

Curiously nobody I know is advocating that. Current electrical energy plants are being built by corporations, and they use renewable sources because it is more economical and return more profit as time passes -- the major cost is startup rather than ongoing like fossil fuel plants. We just had an old electrical plant here that used fossl fuels demolished because it was no longer profitable.

LOLz, thanks again for the chuckle chuckles. Yes, the whole world is in a conspiracy against you, and ordinary citizens can spot fraud a mile away, but they are duped every day by advertising lying claims (why do you think it still exists).

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 12:06 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5706
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 566 of 573 (870210)
01-14-2020 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by RAZD
01-14-2020 12:06 PM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News (renamed)
BTW - See Message 563 above with newspaper article from 1912.

Don't see anything here. Neither the link or the first part https://scontent-bos3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/...52738969550848_o.jpg will load for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 12:06 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 567 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2020 4:12 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20454
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 567 of 573 (870271)
01-15-2020 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 566 by JonF
01-14-2020 1:03 PM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News (renamed)
Don't see anything here. Neither the link ...

The image is on a facebook page. you may need to be logged in to facebook to see it. Let me know.

... Neither ... or the first part https://scontent-bos3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/...52738969550848_o.jpg will load for me.

picture loads for me. There is a bit more after the .jpg for the picture (see in peek mode)

https://scontent-bos3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/...52738969550848_o.jpg

I get an error message when I cut off the stuff after the .jpg and the picture loads fine for me when I double click that link. It comes up with a FB icon in the tab corner, so it would imply a facebook page.

Thanks

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by JonF, posted 01-14-2020 1:03 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by jar, posted 01-15-2020 5:38 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31987
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 568 of 573 (870278)
01-15-2020 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 567 by RAZD
01-15-2020 4:12 PM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News (renamed)
Here is a copy I found and hosted that may work:


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2020 4:12 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1079
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 569 of 573 (870282)
01-15-2020 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by RAZD
01-14-2020 9:51 AM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News (renamed)
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 billion
1927, 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 has invaluable information for better decisions. | "Knowledge is power". Better-management.org has invaluable information for better decisions.

quote:
In 2020 the earth will reach the bottom of the eleven year solar cycle numbered 24, and it will start into solar cycle number 25. So the best Christmas present I can offer you is to explain why the solar cycles are so important. NASA, NOAA, the Russians and the Chinese have indicated that solar cycle 25 will be the least active for at least 100 years and many experts claim the unfolding Grand Solar Minimum will be a 200 year event.

1. The successive ice ages on earth during the 2.5 million year Pleistocene era have historically been triggered by what is known as Milankovich cycles (now generally accepted). These consist of three separate cycles referred to as “the Tilt variation of earth from the sun”, “the Obliquity of earth’s motion through space”, and “Eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun”. Of these three cycles the most influential is eccentricity and it takes around 100,000 years to happen. Our civilisation has only begun during the latest 10-12,000 year interglacial period we live in called the “Holocene”, which has now lasted for at least 11,500 years. A plunge into extreme glaciations is now probably due. It was alluded to by the expert climate scientists during the 1970’s when earths average temperature had cooled by about 0.4 degrees C., from 1945. No-one actually knows when it will happen.

2. Within the Holocene period, The time of maximum warmth due to natural cycles is said to have already passed and it is considered that the Minoan Warm period 3,500 years ago was when that occurred. So there is good evidence available that points to earth’s average temperatures today being some 2-3 degrees C. cooler than the Holocene temperature maximum. There are possibly two certainties that will affect us. The first is that the solar cycles with rising and falling levels of electromagnetic activity will drive the natural climate variations on planet earth as they will the climates of the other planets within our solar system since the beginning of time. The second certainty (well an extremely high probability) is that at some point the Milankovich cycles will usher in the return of a period of extensive glaciation that is similar to previous ice ages.

3. Full ice ages with extensive glaciations must be accepted as near certain extinction-level events. The significance for New Zealand is less onerous than for others, yet that may mean a progressive but effective end to agriculture in the South Island…. as and when it occurs.

4. Our recorded history of the impact of varying levels of solar activity really began with the Maunder Minimum (1645AD-1715AD) but these provided a mathematical trace back to earlier Grand Solar Minimums before the birth of Christ. Grand Solar Minimums coincide with the coldest periods of “the Little Ice Age” (which ran from about 1280AD – 1870AD). They also align well with the record of famines and the fall of dynasties in China. Both the Russian and the Chinese governments take the science behind Grand Solar Minimums very seriously and use the known cycles for their strategic planning. As a result I commend the history of Grand Solar Minimums to the attention of yourselves and your Civil Defence personnel.

5. Space exploration and remote climate monitoring only really began in about 1979. Today the probing of solar influence is a regular event and the effect of the solar cycles on earth’s weather is well-known if suppressed by the mainstream media.

6. So my Christmas present to you is to provide my personal understanding of how Grand Solar Minimums likely affect the earth’s climate

This will be extremely topical because many believe we have entered a cooling cycle that will last until 2055. Some believe it will last much longer. The data supports this conclusion. The data does not support suggestions that humans, CO2 build-up and/or CH4 build-up cause climate change. So I think this topic is well worth spending some time on.


[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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 9:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 572 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2020 12:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1079
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 570 of 573 (870283)
01-15-2020 10:49 PM



Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2020 10:31 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020