Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[BillsFanNC]

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/23/2024 at 12:48 PM, ScotSHO said:

Literally the first thing that pops up on google - aka a study that struggles to link CO2 and temps: https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76

 

Yay!! You can use an internet search engine! Now use it once more for any critiques of that paper’s flaws and limitations. Doing so may help explain why a paper that is 7 years old has negligible citations and no follow-up research, from the author himself or from any peers within the skeptical climate science community.

 

The theme of my posts has been to direct some of that same skeptical energy toward the skeptics, too. The correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and surface temperature has been exhaustively researched over the years, so any future hypothesis that challenges the conventional wisdom has a steep mountain of scientific tests to climb.

 

On 4/23/2024 at 4:40 PM, Orlando Tim said:

The cooling of the stratosphere I finally looked up and it was presented less than 5 years ago based on the findings of people looking for global warming. I am not stating the cause is not what they state it is, I simply will wait for a little more time and until more people have gone through the data. This does bring us to our next point, which is what is the solution? Is turning it over to the government a good idea? We just saw what happened with COVID and how they messed it up, why do you believe they will do better? 

 

You just looked up the stratosphere cooling effect NOW?? We’ve been talking about it for several weeks! The theory has been around for many decades, soon after the discovery of the stratosphere itself. How much more time is needed for the data to persuade you? 1 year? A decade? A century? A full geological epoch? I have already explained why the data is so persuasive. Climate skeptics always have unreasonable standards that are never rooted in scientific reasoning…

 

A solution to anthropogenic climate change is way too nuanced for me to address in full right now (and I’d rather focus on NFL draft gossip, to be honest, because this is my personal Christmas in April!). So a very brief summary:

 

1. What private industries should mostly control: market-driven technological innovation in solar energy, electric vehicle battery technology, nuclear energy, other green energy (wind, geothermal, hydro, biofuel), carbon sequestration, planetary terraforming, civil engineering, agricultural tech, and lab-grown meat.

 

2. What the government should mostly manage: fundamental STEM research funding in everything related to the climate change problem, carbon market legislation for industries, green economy training programs for displaced workers of old energy economy, public transportation upgrades, all other civil infrastructure upgrades, regulations/land acquisitions for curbing suburban sprawl, land reforestation, and EPA oversight of environmental conservation practices.

 

You brought up COVID, by the way, as if managing a sudden pandemic in real time is comparable to long-term planning for climate change… Ironically enough, the absence of effective government economic intervention (in the form of financially compensating citizens who were forced to not work) was an enormous socioeconomic stressor but a policy that libertarian types supported. The standard free-market solution was to keep everything open as normal, but doing so would have rapidly overloaded hospitals and led to many more deaths.

[ScotSHO]

17 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Yay!! You can use an internet search engine! Now use it once more for any critiques of that paper’s flaws and limitations. Doing so may help explain why a paper that is 7 years old has negligible citations and no follow-up research, from the author himself or from any peers within the skeptical climate science community.

 

The theme of my posts has been to direct some of that same skeptical energy toward the skeptics, too. The correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and surface temperature has been exhaustively researched over the years, so any future hypothesis that challenges the conventional wisdom has a steep mountain of scientific tests to climb.

Yay, you can attack the messenger! 

 

Do you not expect flaws to be pointed out and lack of citations from a peer audience that is 97% biased the other way?  Do you not see the massive inertia of the climate industry fighting to ensure they keep getting grant money (aka food on the table)?

 

I'm open to the climate sciences and the idea of anthropomorphic anthropogenic warming, but as a STEM person I see biases and wild extrapolation happening way more often in this field than I'd like.  Scientific skepticism is very important.

Edited yesterday at 01:34 PM by ScotSHO
I got my anthros mixed up

[Tommy Callahan]

Like the boy that cried wolf story.  The climate change histaica been claiming the same hair on fire narrative (for more funding ) for decades now.  

 

Without evidence they have no integrity left.  

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

Lol

 

[ChiGoose]

Climate change is a pretty solid example of a specific way the political right is currently broken and living in a fantasy world.

 

The right doesn't like a lot of the left's solutions for combating climate change (and that's fair, it's ok to have policy differences and no plan is perfect) but instead of acknowledging reality and proposing their own plan, they just deny that climate change is a thing at all. 

 

Then they point to anecdotes, highlight anyone with extreme positions as being representative of everyone, ignore predictions that were correct while highlighting predictions that were wrong, and try to evoke emotional reactions that distract for the factual realities.

 

It's a common thing across a lot of different issues today: deny reality and push emotional reactions to prevent any action to address problems. Create an "us vs them" scenario the conveniently supports whatever big moneyed interests want.

 

Anyway, if you don't believe that climate change is real despite the o v e r w h e l m i n g evidence, you're being played like a fool.

 

PS: If you're not a fan of immigration, you should be really concerned about climate change.

[njbuff]

Cooked Goose buys into the Climate change farce.

 

Humans have NO INFLUENCE on Mother Nature WHATSOEVER.

 

If you buy into it, hopefully you are attacking China and India, and pay half your weekly wages to the cause……

 

before attacking your political opponents,

[ScotSHO]

27 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Climate change is a pretty solid example of a specific way the political right is currently broken and living in a fantasy world.

 

The right doesn't like a lot of the left's solutions for combating climate change (and that's fair, it's ok to have policy differences and no plan is perfect) but instead of acknowledging reality and proposing their own plan, they just deny that climate change is a thing at all. 

 

Then they point to anecdotes, highlight anyone with extreme positions as being representative of everyone, ignore predictions that were correct while highlighting predictions that were wrong, and try to evoke emotional reactions that distract for the factual realities.

 

It's a common thing across a lot of different issues today: deny reality and push emotional reactions to prevent any action to address problems. Create an "us vs them" scenario the conveniently supports whatever big moneyed interests want.

 

Anyway, if you don't believe that climate change is real despite the o v e r w h e l m i n g evidence, you're being played like a fool.

 

PS: If you're not a fan of immigration, you should be really concerned about climate change.

 

I'm not 100% bought in, but I'm not bought out either.  

[Tiberius]

 

[Orlando Tim]

7 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Yay!! You can use an internet search engine! Now use it once more for any critiques of that paper’s flaws and limitations. Doing so may help explain why a paper that is 7 years old has negligible citations and no follow-up research, from the author himself or from any peers within the skeptical climate science community.

 

The theme of my posts has been to direct some of that same skeptical energy toward the skeptics, too. The correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and surface temperature has been exhaustively researched over the years, so any future hypothesis that challenges the conventional wisdom has a steep mountain of scientific tests to climb.

 

 

You just looked up the stratosphere cooling effect NOW?? We’ve been talking about it for several weeks! The theory has been around for many decades, soon after the discovery of the stratosphere itself. How much more time is needed for the data to persuade you? 1 year? A decade? A century? A full geological epoch? I have already explained why the data is so persuasive. Climate skeptics always have unreasonable standards that are never rooted in scientific reasoning…

 

A solution to anthropogenic climate change is way too nuanced for me to address in full right now (and I’d rather focus on NFL draft gossip, to be honest, because this is my personal Christmas in April!). So a very brief summary:

 

1. What private industries should mostly control: market-driven technological innovation in solar energy, electric vehicle battery technology, nuclear energy, other green energy (wind, geothermal, hydro, biofuel), carbon sequestration, planetary terraforming, civil engineering, agricultural tech, and lab-grown meat.

 

2. What the government should mostly manage: fundamental STEM research funding in everything related to the climate change problem, carbon market legislation for industries, green economy training programs for displaced workers of old energy economy, public transportation upgrades, all other civil infrastructure upgrades, regulations/land acquisitions for curbing suburban sprawl, land reforestation, and EPA oversight of environmental conservation practices.

 

You brought up COVID, by the way, as if managing a sudden pandemic in real time is comparable to long-term planning for climate change… Ironically enough, the absence of effective government economic intervention (in the form of financially compensating citizens who were forced to not work) was an enormous socioeconomic stressor but a policy that libertarian types supported. The standard free-market solution was to keep everything open as normal, but doing so would have rapidly overloaded hospitals and led to many more deaths.

I am very rooted in reasonable explanations, which is why I always like more data. The investigation into stratosphere has only been done by those who wanted one answer. I will point out again that the historical trail of temperature in the stratosphere is very limited and any discussion of a larger time frame is reliant on computer modeling. I understand the climate is ever changing and recently it has been getting warmer, but climate change has become the boogie man and unrelated things have been blamed on it. 

 

Truly you and I will never agree because you only see what you want to see, which is government is the answer. To state a more free market solution would have overloaded hospitals is in direct opposition to what Sweden showed fully and Florida showed in the US. FL despite being one of the oldest populations in the US was  below average for death rate while being far more open until at least 2022. 

 

I will allow you the last word this go round but your solutions rely on government being honest and using financial restraint, which when we are 34 trillion in debt and members of Congress are worth 100s of millions makes the start of the discussion seem ridiculous. 

5 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Climate change is a pretty solid example of a specific way the political right is currently broken and living in a fantasy world.

 

The right doesn't like a lot of the left's solutions for combating climate change (and that's fair, it's ok to have policy differences and no plan is perfect) but instead of acknowledging reality and proposing their own plan, they just deny that climate change is a thing at all. 

 

Then they point to anecdotes, highlight anyone with extreme positions as being representative of everyone, ignore predictions that were correct while highlighting predictions that were wrong, and try to evoke emotional reactions that distract for the factual realities.

 

It's a common thing across a lot of different issues today: deny reality and push emotional reactions to prevent any action to address problems. Create an "us vs them" scenario the conveniently supports whatever big moneyed interests want.

 

Anyway, if you don't believe that climate change is real despite the o v e r w h e l m i n g evidence, you're being played like a fool.

 

PS: If you're not a fan of immigration, you should be really concerned about climate change.

I will ask you to point out one prediction that was correct that was trumpeted? Simply showing temps have risen in the past 50 years shows me nothing. The fact that 7 billion people affect the planet and the climate is changing is obvious and will always happen but your solutions are not only ineffective but damaging to our economy

 

[ChiGoose]

16 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

I will ask you to point out one prediction that was correct that was trumpeted? Simply showing temps have risen in the past 50 years shows me nothing. The fact that 7 billion people affect the planet and the climate is changing is obvious and will always happen but your solutions are not only ineffective but damaging to our economy

 

 

Aside from the 11 different sources I included in my post, I'll give you this: Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

 

I do find it interesting that you're bringing up whatever you think my solutions so dismissively since I personally don't have any climate solutions and my whole point is that the Right is rejecting the underlying truth (climate change is real and driven by humans) specifically because they don't like the solutions offered to combat it.

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Aside from the 11 different sources I included in my post, I'll give you this: Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

 

I do find it interesting that you're bringing up whatever you think my solutions so dismissively since I personally don't have any climate solutions and my whole point is that the Right is rejecting the underlying truth (climate change is real and driven by humans) specifically because they don't like the solutions offered to combat it.

The fact that I acknowledge the climate is changing, state we need to adapt to it, and then point out, that not one of your crisis situations has occured is me "denying climate change". No major water rising, still plenty of snow on mountains, no wild fires where the forest are culled but keep telling yourself you understand the science. Climate on the planet is forever changing and chances are the more people that like be on the planet the more we will affect it.

[ScotSHO]

T minus 8 hours until we get lectured on a certain mid-western US happening from yesterday.

[B-Man]

 

 

                                             

 

 

.

[reddogblitz]

On 4/26/2024 at 6:16 AM, ComradeKayAdams said:

1. What private industries should mostly control: market-driven technological innovation in solar energy, electric vehicle battery technology, nuclear energy, other green energy (wind, geothermal, hydro, biofuel), carbon sequestration, planetary terraforming, civil engineering, agricultural tech, and lab-grown meat.

 

IMHO we should be putting a lot of research and funding for removing the carbon from the air.  Trees do it, why not us?  If a lot of what I read is true about rising temperatures, rising seas, inproportionate deaths of poor people etc, seems it may be too late for conservation. Look at all the cars, truck, airplanes, manufacturing, container ships, etc still polluting it up and will for many years.  And electric cars although better still are responsible for pollution. I have seen estimates of between 30,000 and 80,000 miles before they produce less over their lifetime based on all the mining and shipping of lithium. 

 

So if you drive an electric car and don't keep it and drive it for 50,000 (taking the mid) you are actually doing a net increase in carbon emissions.  The way they're building and marketing these things as expensive high tech gadgets I would suspected a lot of the people buying them will upgrade to the newest hottest tech in a couple years like we do everything else high tech.  Hopefully there will be a robust used market for these things and people buy and drive them long enough to actually help anything.

 

I would also say building nuclear power plants that could give us all the electricity we'll need as more and more things go electric is important and is way more efficient than solar panels or windmills.  California has 1 remaining that supplies 11% of the state's electricity but they keep saying they're gonna shut it down for some reason.

 

Not denying anything but just thinking there may be better ways ..

Edited 3 hours ago by reddogblitz