Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Foxx]

with more than half the world on lockdown, i'm thinking that if there is any truth to this man made global warming, we will be seeing the undeniable, noticeable effects of the shutdown of emissions fairly soon. will we even have a Summer?

[123719bwiqrb]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

with more than half the world on lockdown, i'm thinking that if there is any truth to this man made global warming, we will be seeing the undeniable, noticeable effects of the shutdown of emissions fairly soon. will we even have a Summer?

 

Don't worry, the data will fit the narrative.  Greta is on it right now, leading her team of esteemed epidemiologists (lemmings) to the promised land. 

[Foxx]

6 minutes ago, ScotSHO said:

 

Don't worry, the data will fit the narrative.  Greta is on it right now, leading her team of esteemed epidemiologists (lemmings) to the promised land. 

i mean seriously, isn't this like the Al Gores, Gretas, AOC's of the world's wet dream? this is their golden opportunity when the 'science' will prove itself out.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Foxx

[billsfan1959]

50 minutes ago, ScotSHO said:

 

Don't worry, the data will fit the narrative.  Greta is on it right now, leading her team of esteemed epidemiologists (lemmings) to the promised land. 

 

I see Tiberius posted a research article in another thread concluding people who contract COVID-19 have a greater chance of dying in areas of higher air pollution. So, not only is Trump responsible for the deaths from this virus, the entire fossil fuel industry is as well....

[Deranged Rhino]

4 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

You lost me a bit in your last two paragraphs, DR, but I always appreciate outside-the-box brainstorming for difficult problems! Here is broadly where I stand on this subject, since I have some time to waste this morning:

 

(Trimming for space, but appreciate the post and discussion  ) 

 

I am curious where I lost you within those last two paragraphs, and would be happy to explain it better if you wish. Though, admittedly, that post was meant to be WAY outside the box in an attempt to discuss this (partisan charged) topic without falling into the partisan talking points/spin which both sides employ. 

 

Just a few thoughts on your comments (again only trimming for space/conversational purposes, not trying to twist your statements): 

 

4 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

1. Man-induced climate change is not a hoax like this thread title suggests.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I agree (and I think a lot do who post in this thread). Where I begin to differ, is when trying to determine to what extent humans are impacting the climate. The climate has been changing since our species first emerged -- and will continue to change long after we're gone. While I don't deny man's industrialization has played a role, I question how much we've accelerated an otherwise natural cycle. I'm certain we have (cause and effect and all), but the world has been "ten years from ending" since the 80s, if not longer. 

 

Still, for me, even that isn't the real crux of the issue. What concerns me are the extreme solutions being pushed in light of this unknown.

 

A dramatic reshaping of our economic and governmental models seems extreme, especially when that plan alone does nothing to address other emerging nations who are in the early days of their industrialization process. Strict enforcement would need to be done globally -- yet that's never a part of the plans I see/hear about. It's usually some form of: "we'll start in the west, and the rest of the world will follow our example" -- which sounds great but is not very realistic in terms of assessing geopolitics and human nature. 

 

So that leaves me in the position of understanding there's an issue we're facing as a global community, while wanting to protect the principles of sovereignty and civil liberties that have helped make the western world a beacon of hope, freedom, and the good. 

 

4 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

2. The computational models that scientists use to predict global warming time frames and levels of severity are certainly open to criticism, but not at all to the degree that the biggest and loudest climate change skeptics state. When it comes to the problem-solving stages of climate change, I have no problem operating from the worst-case starting point of these models due to the grave potential impact on civilization.

 

I understand the logic -- I do. And I agree completely that there are two sides to this debate, and both extremes of those sides are funded by some unsavory businesses/interests who are trying to drag the debate down into partisan mudslinging and outright disinformation. 

 

But this pandemic should reinforce the fact that models can't predict the future. They can only project the present onto the future, leaving no room for human innovation or any other "outside the box" solutions we may stumble on as a people. I don't think being honest about that (not that I'm saying you're not being honest about it, not at all what I mean) does a disservice to the cause itself. In fact, I think ignoring this fact, when it's clear to most empirical minds, hurts the cause far more than it helps. My favorite example of how silly it can be to rely on models as predictors of the future is the horse ***** debate in NYC at the end of the 19th century. At that time, everyone was using horses, and people were actually concerned about the rising population numbers and what that would do in terms of horse ***** piling up in the streets of NYC. Had the world modeled the problem back then, and reorganized their society based on it, it would have looked insurmountable without eliminating horses entirely... 

 

... But they didn't see, couldn't see, that the world was about to change forever due to the advent of the automobile and the combustion engine. Not in decades, but in a few short years.

 

My personal take is that there's a middle ground that must be found between being slavishly devoted to models as if they were bibles, and being hopelessly optimistic/naive about the long term costs of a runaway climate disaster. And I think the vast majority of individuals, if you get them talking honestly and not from a partisan standpoint, would agree that it's a problem we have to be aware of, a problem we have to work to get ahead of, but that we shouldn't over-react without a full understanding of the data or the cost of the solutions being pushed. 

 

Again, it's kind of amazing how much this current pandemic parallels the debates around climate. 

 

4 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

3. Private industry has an important role to play in terms of technological innovation and churning out applicable products into the global markets, but it needs government incentives to move toward these solutions in a focused and expedited manner. In terms of the fundamental science behind these products, this is best done in academia and with (primarily public) research grants. It’s been this way for a while now. The glory days of Bell Labs and IBM research labs are long gone. The same goes for the government labs, too. The glory days of NASA and the Manhattan Project are even more long gone.

 

We're very much on the same page with this issue. 

 

My personal issue with this is detailed in my other post, but revolves around the fact that the government (more than likely) has been suppressing advanced technologies (especially with regards to energy and propulsion) from the private sector and the people for 70+ years -- so how can we trust them to be the arbiters of truth now? This suppression was done for reasons of national security originally (in the late 40s through the 60s), but then slowly became about protecting the global economy which runs on oil.

 

This, obviously, is a FAR OUT there claim to make, but there's thousands of pages of FOIA documentation which suggest it's legit. That's why I personally roll my eyes when I hear government employees/officials/candidates push more government as the answer to this issue. If these government types truly cared about the climate, they wouldn't be looking to garner more power and control over us through their solutions, they'd be digging into their archives and Special Access Programs looking for the tech the people of this country paid to develop without even knowing it. (imo of course)

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

3 hours ago, ScotSHO said:

 

Don't worry, the data will fit the narrative.  Greta is on it right now, leading her team of esteemed epidemiologists (lemmings) to the promised land. 

 

How dare you...(said with scowling grimace)!

[Nanker]

Are the Neanderthals responsible for the 10,000 foot thick sheet of glacier that covered New York State and most of the New England states receding some 20,000 years ago?  If so, we owe them a debt of gratitude because that glacier retreat formed Long Island, Block Island, Fishers Island, the Elizabeth Islands, Cape Cod, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and Chappaquiddick. Not to mention the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes! ?

Edited April 8, 2020 by Nanker

[ComradeKayAdams]

18 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

I am curious where I lost you within those last two paragraphs, and would be happy to explain it better if you wish. Though, admittedly, that post was meant to be WAY outside the box in an attempt to discuss this (partisan charged) topic without falling into the partisan talking points/spin which both sides employ. 

 

Hi DR,

 

I was confused about the “top secret patents related to propulsion” and “recovered craft” comments. No need to type up a lengthy explanation to me if you don’t want. Is there a link or book you recommend I check out on this?

 

You raised an excellent point here which I forgot to cover: the issue of countries like China and India raising the global carbon footprint despite whatever efforts we make to reduce our own. Diplomacy and open dialogue and pressure from Paris Agreement countries may not be enough. Hopefully the international economic pressures from wanting to participate in an exploding renewable energy economy would be enough, as well as a shrinking international demand for fossil fuels that China and India self-generate. If not, maybe high tariffs or economic sanctions as a last resort?!

23 hours ago, Foxx said:

with more than half the world on lockdown, i'm thinking that if there is any truth to this man made global warming, we will be seeing the undeniable, noticeable effects of the shutdown of emissions fairly soon. will we even have a Summer?

 

You might be interested to know that scientists can measure the dip in atmospheric carbon during the thirteenth century solely due to Genghis Khan’s raids. Destroying civilizations and allowing for the reforestation of the lands is good for the planet. So is the complete implosion of the world economy because of a pandemic. But there are less drastic solutions we can explore as well!

 

17 hours ago, Nanker said:

Are the Neanderthals responsible for the 10,000 foot thick sheet of glacier that covered New York State and most of the New England states receding some 20,000 years ago?  If so, we owe them a debt of gratitude because that glacier retreat formed Long Island, Block Island, Fishers Island, the Elizabeth Islands, Cape Cod, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and Chappaquiddick. Not to mention the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes! ?

 

No, that was due to things like the earth’s orbital fluctuations, variations in sun energy output, changing ocean currents, shifting continental positions, volcanic activity, and what not. Climate change since the advent of the Industrial Revolution can only really be explained by artificially throwing lots of carbon into the atmosphere and not having as many trees around anymore to absorb it. Earth scientists have accounted for all other possible contributing factors.

[Nanker]

2 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Hi DR,

 

I was confused about the “top secret patents related to propulsion” and “recovered craft” comments. No need to type up a lengthy explanation to me if you don’t want. Is there a link or book you recommend I check out on this?

 

You raised an excellent point here which I forgot to cover: the issue of countries like China and India raising the global carbon footprint despite whatever efforts we make to reduce our own. Diplomacy and open dialogue and pressure from Paris Agreement countries may not be enough. Hopefully the international economic pressures from wanting to participate in an exploding renewable energy economy would be enough, as well as a shrinking international demand for fossil fuels that China and India self-generate. If not, maybe high tariffs or economic sanctions as a last resort?!

 

You might be interested to know that scientists can measure the dip in atmospheric carbon during the thirteenth century solely due to Genghis Khan’s raids. Destroying civilizations and allowing for the reforestation of the lands is good for the planet. So is the complete implosion of the world economy because of a pandemic. But there are less drastic solutions we can explore as well!

 

 

No, that was due to things like the earth’s orbital fluctuations, variations in sun energy output, changing ocean currents, shifting continental positions, volcanic activity, and what not. Climate change since the advent of the Industrial Revolution can only really be explained by artificially throwing lots of carbon into the atmosphere and not having as many trees around anymore to absorb it. Earth scientists have accounted for all other possible contributing factors.

So none of that natural phenomena is still occurring?  Asking for a friend. 

[Joe Miner]

6 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Hi DR,

 

I was confused about the “top secret patents related to propulsion” and “recovered craft” comments. No need to type up a lengthy explanation to me if you don’t want. Is there a link or book you recommend I check out on this?

 

You raised an excellent point here which I forgot to cover: the issue of countries like China and India raising the global carbon footprint despite whatever efforts we make to reduce our own. Diplomacy and open dialogue and pressure from Paris Agreement countries may not be enough. Hopefully the international economic pressures from wanting to participate in an exploding renewable energy economy would be enough, as well as a shrinking international demand for fossil fuels that China and India self-generate. If not, maybe high tariffs or economic sanctions as a last resort?!

 

You might be interested to know that scientists can measure the dip in atmospheric carbon during the thirteenth century solely due to Genghis Khan’s raids. Destroying civilizations and allowing for the reforestation of the lands is good for the planet. So is the complete implosion of the world economy because of a pandemic. But there are less drastic solutions we can explore as well!

 

 

No, that was due to things like the earth’s orbital fluctuations, variations in sun energy output, changing ocean currents, shifting continental positions, volcanic activity, and what not. Climate change since the advent of the Industrial Revolution can only really be explained by artificially throwing lots of carbon into the atmosphere and not having as many trees around anymore to absorb it. Earth scientists have accounted for all other possible contributing factors.

 

 

You don't understand most of what you're talking about.

 

You have faith in others' words, but lack the ability to critically analyze the problem, the analysis methodology, and the proposed solutions. But you're pretty good at reading, paraphrasing, and bloviating.

 

By the way, this doesn't just apply to climate change.

[Azalin]

59 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

 

 

You don't understand most of what you're talking about.

 

You have faith in others' words, but lack the ability to critically analyze the problem, the analysis methodology, and the proposed solutions. But you're pretty good at reading, paraphrasing, and bloviating.

 

By the way, this doesn't just apply to climate change.

 

I'm enjoying the back & forth between RKA and DR. It's nice to see a little genuine discussion for a change, especially in this particular thread. 

[SoCal Deek]

8 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I'm enjoying the back & forth between RKA and DR. It's nice to see a little genuine discussion for a change, especially in this particular thread. 

And assuming Kay is right, all we need to do is plant lots and lots of trees. I’m all for it! It’s cheap. It won’t take long to have an impact. And everyone likes trees!  Why doesn’t someone propose this instead of the government overreach we’re getting from so many on the Left?

[Azalin]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And assuming Kay is right, all we need to do is plant lots and lots of trees. I’m all for it! It’s cheap. It won’t take long to have an impact. And everyone likes trees!  Why doesn’t someone propose this instead of the government overreach we’re getting from so many on the Left?

 

Planting trees, growing gardens on balconies and patios - that's always good. Even if we don't know the extent of their effect, we know that plants thrive on CO2 and produce oxygen. We don't have to be greenies or environmentalists to appreciate the value in that. 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Planting trees, growing gardens on balconies and patios - that's always good. Even if we don't know the extent of their effect, we know that plants thrive on CO2 and produce oxygen. We don't have to be greenies or environmentalists to appreciate the value in that. 

So if we’re going to have a massive infrastructure bill this year why not have even 10% of it go towards planting trees? Call it infrastructure! Trees are way cheaper than bridges and roads. Get ‘er done! 

[BuffaloHokie13]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So if we’re going to have a massive infrastructure bill this year why not have even 10% of it go towards planting trees? Call it infrastructure! Trees are way cheaper than bridges and roads. Get ‘er done! 

I'm sure it depends on your municipality, but here in DC any substantial infrastructure project also requires stormwater management practices, which typically includes bioretention planters to treat runoff from the road (trees planted here), and permeable paver sidewalks to also feed water to the planters.

[Joe Miner]

41 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I'm enjoying the back & forth between RKA and DR. It's nice to see a little genuine discussion for a change, especially in this particular thread. 

 

I appreciate the polite discussion.  

 

But it's like listening to a conversation at a barber shop.  Lot of words, lot of concern, some truth, and a lot of misunderstanding.Talk that neither clearly defines a problem or clearly defines a solution.

 

Once DR gets his writer's inspiration for the day (alcohol), we'll be here:

 

 

But I agree, it's nice to have civil discourse.

 

 

 

 

The DR drinking part was a joke.  But he is a writer...

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

And assuming Kay is right, all we need to do is plant lots and lots of trees. I’m all for it! It’s cheap. It won’t take long to have an impact. And everyone likes trees!  Why doesn’t someone propose this instead of the government overreach we’re getting from so many on the Left?

We need to form a group of young dedicated planters who will act like a new Pony Express, planting trees across the world. We can have different groups in competition like the Oak Boys, Elm Streeters, Maple Laughs and Ash Wipes. They can compete for the newly established Johnny Appleseed Cup. Oh, and any democrat that wants to sign up can join the Weeping Willows.  

[Buffalo_Gal]

oh, and
 

 

[KRC]

31 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

oh, and
 

 

 

You're setting your DVR, aren't you? That way, you can watch it over and over again.

[Azalin]

7 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

So if we’re going to have a massive infrastructure bill this year why not have even 10% of it go towards planting trees? Call it infrastructure! Trees are way cheaper than bridges and roads. Get ‘er done! 

 

I tend to think that most people are able to plant flowers and trees on their own, but if you think that it takes a village, then have at it.