Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[row_33]

 

You don't get pneumonia from the cold.

 

If you did, I'd be dead several times over.

 

Once you get it, you are never going to forget you had it.

 

I've gone through six or so intense drug cures for pneumonia and bronchitis.

[Koko78]

Finally, somebody says it.

 

 

Al Gore is ‘not very smart’, who only made his vast fortune just because he happened to get lucky by obsessing about climate change.

 

 

Possibly we’d all guessed this already. Now it has been confirmed by an expert in the field of finance – Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway vice chairman and fellow investment billionaire Charlie Munger.

Munger, who was speaking at an informal investors’ Q & A – recorded here – clearly does not rate Gore’s intelligence or investment acumen.

 

 

He can't be that stupid, he did invent the internet, after all...

[OCinBuffalo]

And...a few pages later, I see some of you are getting it, but, still:

 

Global Warming as a political issue?

 

Is. Dead.

 

EDIT: It will be interesting to see how many pages this thread generates over time, and how long it takes for the board to accept the political reality.

 

Perhaps we could use this thread to do PPP Football? Face it: it's going to have to be re-purposed eventually.

Edited June 28, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[row_33]

 

He can't be that stupid, he did invent the internet, after all...

 

and he claimed he was the inspiration for the dude in Love Story.... the author has repeatedly denied it.

[Coach Tuesday]

Keeping in mind, of course, that her idea of "talking" and "associating" with "such people" is berating them over how horrible they are

 

Sounds familiar...

[Tiberius]

President Donald Trumps decisions on the climate could be a disaster for the planet, warned famed physicist Stephen Hawking. We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible, Hawking told the BBC in an interview to mark his 75th birthday. Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.

 

The most famous scientist in the world raised particular concern about Trumps decision to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate accord, as well as his well-publicized doubts about whether global warming is real in the first place. He also expressed frustration at the situation, noting that while global warming is a clear and present danger, its also preventable.

 

Climate change is one of the great dangers we face, and it's one we can prevent if we act now, Hawking said. By denying the evidence for climate change, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, Donald Trump will cause avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/03/stephen_hawking_warns_trump_could_push_the_earth_over_the_brink.html

[Chef Jim]

President Donald Trumps decisions on the climate could be a disaster for the planet, warned famed physicist Stephen Hawking. We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible, Hawking told the BBC in an interview to mark his 75th birthday. Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.

 

The most famous scientist in the world raised particular concern about Trumps decision to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate accord, as well as his well-publicized doubts about whether global warming is real in the first place. He also expressed frustration at the situation, noting that while global warming is a clear and present danger, its also preventable.

 

Climate change is one of the great dangers we face, and it's one we can prevent if we act now, Hawking said. By denying the evidence for climate change, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, Donald Trump will cause avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/03/stephen_hawking_warns_trump_could_push_the_earth_over_the_brink.html

 

What is we're beyond the tipping point?

[DC Tom]

 

What is we're beyond the tipping point?

 

We have to stop thinking about reversal and start thinking about mitigating effects. We've been beyond the tipping point for 15 years or so.

 

And Hawking isn't a climatologist - there's no reason to think he knows what he's talking about.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

We have to stop thinking about reversal and start thinking about mitigating effects. We've been beyond the tipping point for 15 years or so.

 

And Hawking isn't a climatologist - there's no reason to think he knows what he's talking about.

 

but...but...he's a supergenius inside a crippled body!

 

that's gotta count for something!

[gatorbait]

Can someone please school me real quick on a question. I'm not that concerned about ice melting or the ocean and air temps raising slightly. But what about the 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide that gets released into the atmosphere every year? Won't this have a cumulative effect over 50 or 100 years?

Edited July 3, 2017 by gatorbait

[Chef Jim]

 

We have to stop thinking about reversal and start thinking about mitigating effects. We've been beyond the tipping point for 15 years or so.

 

And Hawking isn't a climatologist - there's no reason to think he knows what he's talking about.

 

I've already started to think about mitigating the effects. It's called death. !@#$ y'all.

[Tiberius]

And Hawking isn't a climatologist - there's no reason to think he knows what he's talking about.

 

Ha ha, nope, he's clueless, right?

[Doc Brown]

Can someone please school me real quick on a question. I'm not that concerned about ice melting or the ocean and air temps raising slightly. But what about the 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide that gets released into the atmosphere every year? Won't this have a cumulative effect over 50 or 100 years?

 

I'm not concerned about lung cancer, but what will the cumulative effect of my health be in 40 years if I continue to smoke 4 packs of cigarettes a day?

 

If you buy into man made global warming you already answered your own question.

[gatorbait]

 

I'm not concerned about lung cancer, but what will the cumulative effect of my health be in 40 years if I continue to smoke 4 packs of cigarettes a day?

 

If you buy into man made global warming you already answered your own question.

If the worst repercussions are slightly warmer temps and some raised sea levels than the skeptics are right, it's not that big of a deal. I was asking if that much CO2 could do more damage than that because I don't know.

[Azalin]

Can someone please school me real quick on a question. I'm not that concerned about ice melting or the ocean and air temps raising slightly. But what about the 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide that gets released into the atmosphere every year? Won't this have a cumulative effect over 50 or 100 years?

 

That's actually a good question, and presuming you're being genuine, then my honest answer is nobody knows, but the speculation is all over the place. The big problem is that the issue had been politicized, so much of what is passed off as legitimate answers ranges anywhere from likely correct to absolute hogwash. In my opinion, the best thing is for humanity to continue to scale back fossil fuel use without artificially driving up energy costs, and to realize that climate science is both in it's infancy and completely speculative in nature.

 

The best (and only) way to approach any field of science is from a skeptic's point of view.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Azalin

[gatorbait]

 

That's actually a good question, and presuming you're being genuine, then my honest answer is nobody knows, but the speculation is all over the place. The big problem is that the issue had been politicized, so much of what is passed off as legitimate answers ranges anywhere from likely correct to absolute hogwash. In my opinion, the best thing is for humanity to continue to scale back fossil fuel use without artificially driving up energy costs, and to realize that climate science is both in it's infancy and completely speculative in nature.

 

The best (and only) way to approach any field of science is from a skeptic's point of view.

It was genuine, thanks for the solid response.

[4merper4mer]

 

That's actually a good question, and presuming you're being genuine, then my honest answer is nobody knows, but the speculation is all over the place. The big problem is that the issue had been politicized, so much of what is passed off as legitimate answers ranges anywhere from likely correct to absolute hogwash. In my opinion, the best thing is for humanity to continue to scale back fossil fuel use without artificially driving up energy costs, and to realize that climate science is both in it's infancy and completely speculative in nature.

 

The best (and only) way to approach any field of science is from a skeptic's point of view.

 

 

The problem with "scaling back" use of fossil fuels is much more complicated than anyone is willing to admit. Fossil fuel use has driven a better quality of life than anyone could have imagined even 250 years ago. It has contributed to a huge population growth. And now we can't survive without it. The species can survive....not the individuals. Telling everyone to stop using fossil fuels is telling them to just go ahead and die. Newsflash: that isn't built into our DNA.

 

It is wonderful to preach the use of clean...alternative....green....energy from Al Gore's helipad on his mansion that takes him to his private jet, but the things that are preventing alternative energy from thriving are lack of knowhow and physics. You can't just call an oil company executive evil and wish solar power could fly a plane or power a grid and have it happen. Everyone needs to grow up and commie politicians need to stop making up crap and preaching. Good luck.

[Azalin]

 

 

The problem with "scaling back" use of fossil fuels is much more complicated than anyone is willing to admit. Fossil fuel use has driven a better quality of life than anyone could have imagined even 250 years ago. It has contributed to a huge population growth. And now we can't survive without it. The species can survive....not the individuals. Telling everyone to stop using fossil fuels is telling them to just go ahead and die. Newsflash: that isn't built into our DNA.

 

It is wonderful to preach the use of clean...alternative....green....energy from Al Gore's helipad on his mansion that takes him to his private jet, but the things that are preventing alternative energy from thriving are lack of knowhow and physics. You can't just call an oil company executive evil and wish solar power could fly a plane or power a grid and have it happen. Everyone needs to grow up and commie politicians need to stop making up crap and preaching. Good luck.

 

I agree completely with everything you posted. I thought I addressed your point, at least very generally speaking, by using the phrase "scale back fossil fuel use without artificially driving up energy costs". For the record, what I mean is continue to use fossil fuels for now, only replacing them when it becomes less expensive to do so. Alternative energy can't just be an alternative, it has to be cost effective, affordable, and widely available to replace fossil fuels in any practical way.

 

I've heard it put this way: you don't have a real energy alternative until you can use it to put jets in the air. Nothing else available that I know of even comes close to being able to do that.

[4merper4mer]

 

I agree completely with everything you posted. I thought I addressed your point, at least very generally speaking, by using the phrase "scale back fossil fuel use without artificially driving up energy costs". For the record, what I mean is continue to use fossil fuels for now, only replacing them when it becomes less expensive to do so. Alternative energy can't just be an alternative, it has to be cost effective, affordable, and widely available to replace fossil fuels in any practical way.

 

I've heard it put this way: you don't have a real energy alternative until you can use it to put jets in the air. Nothing else available that I know of even comes close to being able to do that.

 

 

 

You are correct and guess how we advance to use of energy alternatives.....

 

By using fossil fuels to enable their discovery and viability. Because that is all we have right now. Cutting fossil fuels for the sake of cutting fossil fuels will enable only death and it will stunt the emergence of viable alternatives because it will shut down free markets which have enabled advancements unimaginable to the generations that came before. Ingenuity in individuals and small groups has far more value than some massive collective, because they are diversified.

 

For every Curie, Ford, Guttenberg, Whitney or other famous pioneer, there are 100 that failed. And that doesn't make them worthless to society. In fact they provided enormous value even in their failed attempts at whatever they were doing. To centralize control of resources and deny people an opportunity to succeed or fail will ensure our failure as a whole, because we will be denied the opportunity to people who would ultimately succeed in what is to some degree a numbers game. And we are going to deny it because Al Gore the charlatan wants to get even fatter?

[Azalin]

 

 

 

You are correct and guess how we advance to use of energy alternatives.....

 

By using fossil fuels to enable their discovery and viability. Because that is all we have right now. Cutting fossil fuels for the sake of cutting fossil fuels will enable only death and it will stunt the emergence of viable alternatives because it will shut down free markets which have enabled advancements unimaginable to the generations that came before. Ingenuity in individuals and small groups has far more value than some massive collective, because they are diversified.

 

For every Curie, Ford, Guttenberg, Whitney or other famous pioneer, there are 100 that failed. And that doesn't make them worthless to society. In fact they provided enormous value even in their failed attempts at whatever they were doing. To centralize control of resources and deny people an opportunity to succeed or fail will ensure our failure as a whole, because we will be denied the opportunity to people who would ultimately succeed in what is to some degree a numbers game. And we are going to deny it because Al Gore the charlatan wants to get even fatter?

 

I couldn't agree more. Again, I think we're very much on the same page.

 

Any practical alternative to fossils fuels is likely a long way off, and I am 100% against artificially driving up the cost of any form of energy, like what was done to the coal industry a few years ago. That doesn't mean that I do not support research and investment into developing reliable alternative energy, but again - you're right. It probably won't be a reality for a long time. I don't fault people for caring, either - it's just that what so many people believe to be truth is a bunch of manufactured bull#$%& because they take a political view, not a realistic one.

 

The only meaningful legacy that Al Gore will leave is Manbearpig.