This is a pretty balanced look at climate change
Comments
-
Against. Definitely against.CuntWaffle said:
War?MikeDamone said:
I support the troopsdnc said:
+1CollegeDoog said:
The life oil gave us is great. What was once a boon is now a risk.MikeDamone said:CollegeDoog said it isn't about warming anyway. He said "oil is great", and shifted the debate to what will people in the next three or four generations use when the oil supply fails to meet demand. Isn't that correct? In that debate, it isn't about science, it's about economics. A topic he is woefully lacking in.
If you really care about the middle class and the poor you'd be worried about the 2% crop decrease expected in the next 20 years, against a 10-14% increase in global population.
You'd worry about the droughts and the excess water vapor, a result of increased atmospheric CO2, that creates wild fires and more extreme weather. I worry about the people of New Orleans and coastal New Jersey. The people in Tornado Alley.
The people effected by the flooding in Colorado and Iowa. The flooding expected to come to coastal cities as sea ice melts and oceans rise.
There's a sound bite.
I am also against bullying, war and parking lot rapes -
Wow. Mann's original stuff was proven fake and wrong, but its real because he's published subsequent work vetted by his same friends that vetted the original work that agrees. BRILLIANT. I see you ignored the question on proxies...probably better for you. I'll be kind and not embarrass you by mentioning how wrong the climate models have been shown to be. And if you think any scientific work in which they say here are the results, but you can't look at the data used or the method used to calculate it (whether it be Mann's x, y, or z paper, Hanson's fake temperature data, etc. ) is legit then no one can help you.CollegeDoog said:
Wrong again.
Since Mann and co initially published their findings comparing medieval temperatures today, there have been breakthroughs in other temperature measuring devices such taking ice cores, which confirm the initial findings.
Mann actually released a new research paper that found that the "little ice age" between 1400 and 1700 were caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that are not occurring today.
Dozens of other studies have found that global mean surface temperature has been higher the last few decades than at least the previous four centuries.
And even if the hockey stick was busted, which it isn't, would it matter? The case for AGW came from climate mechanics and not the preceding centuries. They are just there for comparison's sake.
Fucktarded, as always with the skeptics.
Beyond all that...I'm sorry you don't have at least a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics and economics and at least have a grasp of understanding that if you wanted to do something spending money on wind or solar cells is about the dumbest economical way possible to do it because it doesn't remove the huge capital costs required to supply the grid when those sources are not available. At least get on board with the former founder of Greenpeace and admit that if you want to see these types of changes nuclear is the only realistic path, or Lomborg and realize the politics are drowning out more legit ways to spend money to help people.
Or keep repeating yourself over and over with false bravado about how right you are in your own mind...a lot of Ty's supporters did the same.
-
LOL I'm glad you brought up thermodynamics because now you're operating in my #Wheelhouse.HoustonHusky said:
Wow. Mann's original stuff was proven fake and wrong, but its real because he's published subsequent work vetted by his same friends that vetted the original work that agrees. BRILLIANT. I see you ignored the question on proxies...probably better for you. I'll be kind and not embarrass you by mentioning how wrong the climate models have been shown to be. And if you think any scientific work in which they say here are the results, but you can't look at the data used or the method used to calculate it (whether it be Mann's x, y, or z paper, Hanson's fake temperature data, etc. ) is legit then no one can help you.CollegeDoog said:
Wrong again.
Since Mann and co initially published their findings comparing medieval temperatures today, there have been breakthroughs in other temperature measuring devices such taking ice cores, which confirm the initial findings.
Mann actually released a new research paper that found that the "little ice age" between 1400 and 1700 were caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that are not occurring today.
Dozens of other studies have found that global mean surface temperature has been higher the last few decades than at least the previous four centuries.
And even if the hockey stick was busted, which it isn't, would it matter? The case for AGW came from climate mechanics and not the preceding centuries. They are just there for comparison's sake.
Fucktarded, as always with the skeptics.
Beyond all that...I'm sorry you don't have at least a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics and economics and at least have a grasp of understanding that if you wanted to do something spending money on wind or solar cells is about the dumbest economical way possible to do it because it doesn't remove the huge capital costs required to supply the grid when those sources are not available. At least get on board with the former founder of Greenpeace and admit that if you want to see these types of changes nuclear is the only realistic path, or Lomborg and realize the politics are drowning out more legit ways to spend money to help people.
Or keep repeating yourself over and over with false bravado about how right you are in your own mind...a lot of Ty's supporters did the same.
The thermodynamic mechanism of global warming could not be more clear to anyone with an understanding of basic atmospheric physics and molecular composition.
If you want to argue against laws of thermal physics like Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, and proven theories such as the greenhouse effect be my guest.
I can already bet you're going to say the first law of thermodynamics, "energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed," is proof that the CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases. Fox News has actually trotted out a meteorologist to argue that this law is proof that AGW is impossible, not realizing that in doing so he is arguing against the greenhouse effect (which was actually developed a century ago). The CO2 emitted isn't the external source of heat, it's the sun. The increased CO2 traps the infrared rays reflected by the Earth's surface on a greater scale, which is then reflected in all directions (Kirchhoff's law) and in doing so warms the earth. In 2013 we passed 400 parts per million, an unprecedented number in all of the Holocene. It's only going to increase faster and you can guess what those ramifications will be.
If you want to argue against that go ahead, but trying to disprove the laws of physics is generally a losing battle, and you may want to save yourself the embarrassment. -
If you're going to start out by saying that Mann's original stuff was proven fake and wrong, I really shouldn't be entertaining your opinion. But I will because I laugh at people that think the scientists are operating in a large scale groupthink. You also didn't post any link that would confirm that it is "fake and wrong". If you do, I can already imagine the source.HoustonHusky said:
Wow. Mann's original stuff was proven fake and wrong, but its real because he's published subsequent work vetted by his same friends that vetted the original work that agrees. BRILLIANT. I see you ignored the question on proxies...probably better for you. I'll be kind and not embarrass you by mentioning how wrong the climate models have been shown to be. And if you think any scientific work in which they say here are the results, but you can't look at the data used or the method used to calculate it (whether it be Mann's x, y, or z paper, Hanson's fake temperature data, etc. ) is legit then no one can help you.CollegeDoog said:
Wrong again.
Since Mann and co initially published their findings comparing medieval temperatures today, there have been breakthroughs in other temperature measuring devices such taking ice cores, which confirm the initial findings.
Mann actually released a new research paper that found that the "little ice age" between 1400 and 1700 were caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that are not occurring today.
Dozens of other studies have found that global mean surface temperature has been higher the last few decades than at least the previous four centuries.
And even if the hockey stick was busted, which it isn't, would it matter? The case for AGW came from climate mechanics and not the preceding centuries. They are just there for comparison's sake.
Fucktarded, as always with the skeptics.
Beyond all that...I'm sorry you don't have at least a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics and economics and at least have a grasp of understanding that if you wanted to do something spending money on wind or solar cells is about the dumbest economical way possible to do it because it doesn't remove the huge capital costs required to supply the grid when those sources are not available. At least get on board with the former founder of Greenpeace and admit that if you want to see these types of changes nuclear is the only realistic path, or Lomborg and realize the politics are drowning out more legit ways to spend money to help people.
Or keep repeating yourself over and over with false bravado about how right you are in your own mind...a lot of Ty's supporters did the same.
The 1000 years of stagnant temperature at or below 0 degrees celcius projected in the hockey stick graph has been confirmed by the measurements available to us today. Ice cores are generally the best measurement, and scientists have been able to assess temperatures going back thousands of years; before the initiation of the Holocene 11,000 years ago by looking at CO2 in parts per million and Oxygen volume. The data extracted confirms this.
Other methods of Paleoclimatology confirm the findings in the hockey stick graph. It's why there are dozens of independent studies and peer reviewed journals that have consistent findings with the hockey stick graph.
And even if there were significant problems with it like you state, the hockey stick graph is not the basis of global warming, it's a useful tool in past comparison. Like I said, the climate mechanisms that cause AGW are more or less irrelevant to past temperatures.
You should really drop that argument. It's a loser. -
Lastly, on economics, this is where there will always be fundamental disagreement.HoustonHusky said:
Wow. Mann's original stuff was proven fake and wrong, but its real because he's published subsequent work vetted by his same friends that vetted the original work that agrees. BRILLIANT. I see you ignored the question on proxies...probably better for you. I'll be kind and not embarrass you by mentioning how wrong the climate models have been shown to be. And if you think any scientific work in which they say here are the results, but you can't look at the data used or the method used to calculate it (whether it be Mann's x, y, or z paper, Hanson's fake temperature data, etc. ) is legit then no one can help you.CollegeDoog said:
Wrong again.
Since Mann and co initially published their findings comparing medieval temperatures today, there have been breakthroughs in other temperature measuring devices such taking ice cores, which confirm the initial findings.
Mann actually released a new research paper that found that the "little ice age" between 1400 and 1700 were caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that are not occurring today.
Dozens of other studies have found that global mean surface temperature has been higher the last few decades than at least the previous four centuries.
And even if the hockey stick was busted, which it isn't, would it matter? The case for AGW came from climate mechanics and not the preceding centuries. They are just there for comparison's sake.
Fucktarded, as always with the skeptics.
Beyond all that...I'm sorry you don't have at least a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics and economics and at least have a grasp of understanding that if you wanted to do something spending money on wind or solar cells is about the dumbest economical way possible to do it because it doesn't remove the huge capital costs required to supply the grid when those sources are not available. At least get on board with the former founder of Greenpeace and admit that if you want to see these types of changes nuclear is the only realistic path, or Lomborg and realize the politics are drowning out more legit ways to spend money to help people.
Or keep repeating yourself over and over with false bravado about how right you are in your own mind...a lot of Ty's supporters did the same.
It's wrong that fossil fuel producers get to pollute the environment for free and a carbon tax is long overdue. Cap and trade would be an interesting experiment because it's a market based solution to cut emissions.
The problem is the Oil lobby which strangles legislative progress and works the system to the tune for $24 Billion worth of annual tax breaks (and people think it's the scientists that are financially motivated). It's becoming increasingly clear that the problem of global warming is beyond the solutions of the free market and in need of a political movement. Big oil is perfectly happy to sit on trillions of dollars worth of staked oil reserves because it will always be cheap and the infrastructure is efficient. They can't see beyond the billion dollar profits. It's why they continually push the skeptic agenda and proportionally invest very little in sustainable alternatives. The only way to curb global warming is political action, not sitting on our hands and hoping the free market produces a renewable winner.
You're right that Solar has been expensive for a long time, but recently the costs have been plummeting as it has become more efficient and cheaper to produce. I read recently that it's falling on a logarithmic scale of 7% annually. Experts in the industry seem to think that Moore's Law is applicable to the improvements shown in solar power efficiency.
The potential energy from sunlight is mouth watering:
"The numbers are staggering and surprising. In 88 minutes, the sun provides 470 exajoules of energy, as much energy as humanity consumes in a year. In 112 hours – less than five days – it provides 36 zettajoules of energy – as much energy as is contained in all proven reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas on this planet.
If humanity could capture one tenth of one percent of the solar energy striking the earth – one part in one thousand – we would have access to six times as much energy as we consume in all forms today, with almost no greenhouse gas emissions. At the current rate of energy consumption increase – about 1 percent per year – we will not be using that much energy for another 180 years."
So please keep peddling your defeatist attitude when it comes to solar energy. Of course it's going to take massive capital costs to get it working efficiently enough to be a global solution, but the vast potential of solar is worthy of that and I have little problem with government subsidies and credits.
You want to keep the energy cheap, I can understand that, but dirty. The latter part of that equation is no longer viable.
-
Finally admits he wants to fuck the poor and middle class
-
You know what REALLY fucks the poor and middle class?RaceBannon said:Finally admits he wants to fuck the poor and middle class
Things like the 2012-2013 drought which cost farmers between 75-150 Billion, and affected US GDP by .5-1%.
Higher food prices historically fuck over the poor the most.
It's a big picture thing.
-
CollegeDoog has reached IMALOSER territory on this bored.
-
I would suggest everyone read through this thread just so they can see what a terrible poster you are.CuntWaffle said:CollegeDoog has reached IMALOSER territory on this bored.
-
If only higher fuel prices didn't raise the cost of food you'd have a point. I mean you were really close.CollegeDoog said:
You know what REALLY fucks the poor and middle class?RaceBannon said:Finally admits he wants to fuck the poor and middle class
Things like the 2012-2013 drought which cost farmers between 75-150 Billion, and affected US GDP by .5-1%.
Higher food prices historically fuck over the poor the most.
It's a big picture thing.
So we raise the raise the price of gas to get to work and fuel to heat the home and food to eat for an undefined and most likely meaningless difference in your hysteria.
Great plan as always. I guess I am too stupid to get it
![[Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/0207c5b8d9863e3a221f61582bd6bfa3_100.png)
