daz28 Posted May 4, 2021 Posted May 4, 2021 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: Oh dear. You aren't really going to quote that faux 97% narrative are you. My doctor knows that science is never settled, that is not how it works. And my accountant knows that throwing good money after bad, because many people have been force fed one sided data for two decades, is foolish. 99% of what your doctor knows is accepted science. If you don't believe me ask his malpractice lawyer.
B-Man Posted May 4, 2021 Posted May 4, 2021 4 minutes ago, daz28 said: 99% of what your doctor knows is accepted science. If you don't believe me ask his malpractice lawyer. My doctor,, who got his license in 1980, would not recognize his practice in 2021.
daz28 Posted May 4, 2021 Posted May 4, 2021 1 minute ago, B-Man said: My doctor,, who got his license in 1980, would not recognize his practice in 2021. I hope he kept his subscription to medical journals current. Medical professionals are required to do contimuing education.
Orlando Buffalo Posted May 6, 2021 Posted May 6, 2021 On 5/4/2021 at 7:31 PM, daz28 said: If after researching for yourself, and not being able to come up with an answer, you then went to 100 doctors, and 97 of them told you you will die if you don't follow their advice, what would you do? Since 90+% of doctors said kids should be face to face in school last fall why did so few liberals believe them? As for climate change, pollution is bad and we should work to pollute less but I have been told every 5 years since the early 90s that we are 12 years from death unless things change and yet things did not improve in China or India but here we are. It is literally 15+ years since "An Inconvenient Truth" and literally not one thing that was warned has happened.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted May 6, 2021 Posted May 6, 2021 On 4/24/2021 at 11:52 AM, B-Man said: John Kerry Implies Net-Zero Emissions Goal Not Good Enough, Says We Need To ‘Get Carbon Dioxide Out Of The Atmosphere’ by Charlotte Pence Bond At the virtual Leaders’ Climate Summit on Thursday, climate czar John Kerry made the claim that even if a goal of net-zero emissions is achieved, carbon dioxide will still need to be removed from the atmosphere. Kerry spoke through a screen as the summit was held on a virtual format, saying, “Even if we get to net zero, we still have to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. This is a bigger challenge than a lot of people have really grabbed onto yet.” https://www.dailywire.com/news/john-kerry-implies-net-zero-emissions-goal-not-good-enough-says-we-need-to-get-carbon-dioxide-out-of-the-atmosphere John Kerry is an absolute moron.. He’s Another fine example of why generational wealth is bad for society
reddogblitz Posted May 6, 2021 Posted May 6, 2021 On 4/24/2021 at 8:52 AM, B-Man said: John Kerry Implies Net-Zero Emissions Goal Not Good Enough, Says We Need To ‘Get Carbon Dioxide Out Of The Atmosphere’ by Charlotte Pence Bond At the virtual Leaders’ Climate Summit on Thursday, climate czar John Kerry made the claim that even if a goal of net-zero emissions is achieved, carbon dioxide will still need to be removed from the atmosphere. Kerry spoke through a screen as the summit was held on a virtual format, saying, “Even if we get to net zero, we still have to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. This is a bigger challenge than a lot of people have really grabbed onto yet.” https://www.dailywire.com/news/john-kerry-implies-net-zero-emissions-goal-not-good-enough-says-we-need-to-get-carbon-dioxide-out-of-the-atmosphere John Kerry is an absolute moron.. 3 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: He’s Another fine example of why generational wealth is bad for society Actually its a good idea IMHO. Quote Based in Canada, Carbon Engineering’s Direct Air Capture system directly removes CO2 from the atmosphere, purifies it, and produces a pipeline-ready compressed CO2 gas using only energy and water. This CO2 can be combined with non-fossil fuel-generated hydrogen, to produce ultra-low carbon intensity hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and Jet Fuel-A. The pipeline CO2 can also be used for industrial purposes including production of steel and concrete, coatings and carbon fibers, or enhanced oil recovery. From its pilot plant in Squamish, British Columbia, Carbon Engineering has successfully developed and demonstrated its technologies and has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere since 2015 and converting it into fuels since 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/08/carbon-engineering-taking-co2-right-out-of-the-air-to-make-gasoline/?sh=3d4cc64613cc
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted May 6, 2021 Posted May 6, 2021 12 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: Actually its a good idea IMHO. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/08/carbon-engineering-taking-co2-right-out-of-the-air-to-make-gasoline/?sh=3d4cc64613cc I was just talking about john Kerry... im all for solving water shortage and co2 in the atmosphere with technology
B-Man Posted May 30, 2021 Posted May 30, 2021 CBS News Interview with Climate Scientist Exposes the Whole Ruse. “CBS ‘climate specialist:’ It’s critical the Earth not warm 1.5 degrees Celsius CBS anchor: Why? Climate specialist: Well [because] that’s the number ‘we chose.’” https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2021/05/29/cbs-news-interview-with-climate-scientist-exposes-the-whole-ruse-n2590152
ALF Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point After the biggest-ever expedition to the Arctic, scientists warn point of no return on global warming may have already been reached. Presenting the first findings of the world’s largest mission to the North Pole, an expedition involving 300 scientists from 20 countries, Markus Rex said on Tuesday that the researchers had found that Arctic ice is retreating faster than ever before. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/15/global-warming-may-have-already-passed-irreversible-tipping-point 2
Orlando Buffalo Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 18 minutes ago, ALF said: Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point After the biggest-ever expedition to the Arctic, scientists warn point of no return on global warming may have already been reached. Presenting the first findings of the world’s largest mission to the North Pole, an expedition involving 300 scientists from 20 countries, Markus Rex said on Tuesday that the researchers had found that Arctic ice is retreating faster than ever before. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/15/global-warming-may-have-already-passed-irreversible-tipping-point If we have already tipped then what is point of trying to stop it? We can't do anything so just enjoy time here. Unless of course this is a lie to scare people.
Chef Jim Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 On 5/4/2021 at 4:49 PM, daz28 said: I hope he kept his subscription to medical journals current. Medical professionals are required to do contimuing education. So am I but a good number of professionals in my business are way behind the times. CE is easy to fake. On 5/6/2021 at 11:56 AM, Over 29 years of fanhood said: He’s Another fine example of why generational wealth is bad for society But taxing it to death is worse. On 5/6/2021 at 6:52 PM, B-Man said: Yep, keep blaming us............ I flew to Hawaii several years ago and was wondering where all the smog in the middle of the ocean was coming from. It took me a few seconds to realize "oh yeah....China"
Chef Jim Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 7 hours ago, ALF said: Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point After the biggest-ever expedition to the Arctic, scientists warn point of no return on global warming may have already been reached. Presenting the first findings of the world’s largest mission to the North Pole, an expedition involving 300 scientists from 20 countries, Markus Rex said on Tuesday that the researchers had found that Arctic ice is retreating faster than ever before. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/15/global-warming-may-have-already-passed-irreversible-tipping-point I've been saying we're past the point of no return for years not. Mother Nature is a b*tch and to think we can do anything to control her is laughable. Party on peeps!
Orlando Buffalo Posted June 16, 2021 Posted June 16, 2021 I asked this in the Biden as green president thread- what from "A inconvenient Truth" that was predicted has happened? At worst you can say it is 5% of what was predicted
Chef Jim Posted June 16, 2021 Posted June 16, 2021 58 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said: I asked this in the Biden as green president thread- what from "A inconvenient Truth" that was predicted has happened? At worst you can say it is 5% of what was predicted I can’t answer that. I’d have to have given I big enough ***** about to have watched it or cared about it. And I didn’t.
Orlando Buffalo Posted June 16, 2021 Posted June 16, 2021 9 hours ago, Chef Jim said: I can’t answer that. I’d have to have given I big enough ***** about to have watched it or cared about it. And I didn’t. I have watched it and Fahrenheit 911 to try and understand what the viewpoint was based on. F911 was garbage propaganda, it would wrap sleazy innuendo with slightly related facts and then draw a conclusion that always made Bush look the worse possible. An Inconvenient Truth was not as bad as propaganda to me because I think most of the scientists believe it but they are simply not great at their jobs. They drew conclusions based on incomplete data sets but thought they were complete.
All_Pro_Bills Posted June 16, 2021 Posted June 16, 2021 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said: I have watched it and Fahrenheit 911 to try and understand what the viewpoint was based on. F911 was garbage propaganda, it would wrap sleazy innuendo with slightly related facts and then draw a conclusion that always made Bush look the worse possible. An Inconvenient Truth was not as bad as propaganda to me because I think most of the scientists believe it but they are simply not great at their jobs. They drew conclusions based on incomplete data sets but thought they were complete. Is what's happening climate change or climate cycles? After all the Earth was a lot warmer and lot colder at various times in many cycles for billions of years. Without any humans around. 715 million years ago the entire Earth was covered by ice. About 100 million years ago the Mid-West US was an inland sea. Then cooler, then warmer, then cooler. The last ice age ended about 12,500 years ago. CO2 concentration is now a bit over .04% of the atmosphere. What about the other 99.96%? Does that have any impact? Seems not as CO2 is all that matters. And what about water and air pollution? Misuse and mismanagement of land? Respect for the habitat of other species? The alarming extinction rate of animals on the planet? Destruction of coral reefs and the pollution of the oceans? Over-fishing of the oceans? All kinds of stuff that "environmentalists" appear to have forgotten about while chasing big grants and paychecks for "green" energy. But that's what happens when political ideologists take over the cause. Edited June 16, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills 2
ComradeKayAdams Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 On 6/15/2021 at 11:52 AM, Buffalo Timmy said: If we have already tipped then what is point of trying to stop it? We can't do anything so just enjoy time here. Unless of course this is a lie to scare people. There are multiple irreversible tipping points in the evolution of global warming. The article is highlighting one of the earliest that could be expected to go. Passing through one tipping point does not mean we shouldn’t try to avoid the others. As damaging as the loss of summer Arctic ice coverage would be, something like permafrost thawing in the Northern Hemisphere would be much more devastating to future generations. Because we’re dealing with feedback control systems that proceed nonlinearly and that could trigger cascading positive feedback loops, I don’t have a problem with the alarmist tones in the article. On 6/15/2021 at 9:06 PM, Buffalo Timmy said: I asked this in the Biden as green president thread- what from "A inconvenient Truth" that was predicted has happened? At worst you can say it is 5% of what was predicted What specific climate change metrics (surface temps, ice sheet sizes, glacier sizes, snow cover, sea level rise, ocean temps, ocean acidification levels, various extreme weather events, etc.) did Al Gore get wrong? Can you state his erroneous claims verbatim from the documentary and then provide the numbers from peer-reviewed research papers that contradict his claims? I’ll spot you the Mount Kilimanjaro glacier example, though Gore could have used plenty of other glaciers to make his point. It has honestly been a very long time since I saw the film, so I should probably watch it again over July 4 weekend to judge how well it has aged. But when critiquing the documentary’s veracity, we need to be mindful of distinctions between worst-case scenarios and expected ones. We also need to be cognizant of the fact that only 15 years have passed. Hey, at least Al Gore covered the thermohaline circulation science better than “The Day After Tomorrow” lol… 23 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said: I have watched it and Fahrenheit 911 to try and understand what the viewpoint was based on. F911 was garbage propaganda, it would wrap sleazy innuendo with slightly related facts and then draw a conclusion that always made Bush look the worse possible. An Inconvenient Truth was not as bad as propaganda to me because I think most of the scientists believe it but they are simply not great at their jobs. They drew conclusions based on incomplete data sets but thought they were complete. Which data sets are you determining to be incomplete? How are they incomplete? What should climate scientists do to assemble more complete data? 22 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: Is what's happening climate change or climate cycles? After all the Earth was a lot warmer and lot colder at various times in many cycles for billions of years. Without any humans around. 715 million years ago the entire Earth was covered by ice. About 100 million years ago the Mid-West US was an inland sea. Then cooler, then warmer, then cooler. The last ice age ended about 12,500 years ago. CO2 concentration is now a bit over .04% of the atmosphere. What about the other 99.96%? Does that have any impact? Seems not as CO2 is all that matters. And what about water and air pollution? Misuse and mismanagement of land? Respect for the habitat of other species? The alarming extinction rate of animals on the planet? Destruction of coral reefs and the pollution of the oceans? Over-fishing of the oceans? All kinds of stuff that "environmentalists" appear to have forgotten about while chasing big grants and paychecks for "green" energy. But that's what happens when political ideologists take over the cause. A few quick responses: 1. All known major non-anthropogenic climate change factors have been isolated and ruled out with rigorous data processing techniques. Atmospheric carbon rose ~31ppm from 1988 (the year of James Hansen’s Senate testimony) to 2006 (the release of Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”) and then an additional ~37ppm up to now. Simultaneously, mean Earth surface temperature rose ~0.33 degrees Celsius from 1988 to 2006 and then an additional ~0.39 degrees Celsius up to now. If anyone has a better explanation for this correlation, please cite the research paper you are referencing or tell us your novel hypothesis! 2. Water, methane, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide are the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere besides carbon dioxide. The methane also oxidizes into carbon dioxide over time, a lesser-known scientific fact that proponents of the fracking industry like to omit! The other ~99% of stuff in the atmosphere (mostly nitrogen and oxygen) does not contribute at all to global warming. 3. Most climate scientists and many green energy engineers are active members of and financial contributors to all sorts of environmental conservation organizations.
Orlando Buffalo Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 18 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: There are multiple irreversible tipping points in the evolution of global warming. The article is highlighting one of the earliest that could be expected to go. Passing through one tipping point does not mean we shouldn’t try to avoid the others. As damaging as the loss of summer Arctic ice coverage would be, something like permafrost thawing in the Northern Hemisphere would be much more devastating to future generations. Because we’re dealing with feedback control systems that proceed nonlinearly and that could trigger cascading positive feedback loops, I don’t have a problem with the alarmist tones in the article. What specific climate change metrics (surface temps, ice sheet sizes, glacier sizes, snow cover, sea level rise, ocean temps, ocean acidification levels, various extreme weather events, etc.) did Al Gore get wrong? Can you state his erroneous claims verbatim from the documentary and then provide the numbers from peer-reviewed research papers that contradict his claims? I’ll spot you the Mount Kilimanjaro glacier example, though Gore could have used plenty of other glaciers to make his point. It has honestly been a very long time since I saw the film, so I should probably watch it again over July 4 weekend to judge how well it has aged. But when critiquing the documentary’s veracity, we need to be mindful of distinctions between worst-case scenarios and expected ones. We also need to be cognizant of the fact that only 15 years have passed. Hey, at least Al Gore covered the thermohaline circulation science better than “The Day After Tomorrow” lol… Which data sets are you determining to be incomplete? How are they incomplete? What should climate scientists do to assemble more complete data? A few quick responses: 1. All known major non-anthropogenic climate change factors have been isolated and ruled out with rigorous data processing techniques. Atmospheric carbon rose ~31ppm from 1988 (the year of James Hansen’s Senate testimony) to 2006 (the release of Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”) and then an additional ~37ppm up to now. Simultaneously, mean Earth surface temperature rose ~0.33 degrees Celsius from 1988 to 2006 and then an additional ~0.39 degrees Celsius up to now. If anyone has a better explanation for this correlation, please cite the research paper you are referencing or tell us your novel hypothesis! 2. Water, methane, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide are the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere besides carbon dioxide. The methane also oxidizes into carbon dioxide over time, a lesser-known scientific fact that proponents of the fracking industry like to omit! The other ~99% of stuff in the atmosphere (mostly nitrogen and oxygen) does not contribute at all to global warming. 3. Most climate scientists and many green energy engineers are active members of and financial contributors to all sorts of environmental conservation organizations. Kay remember when he said no more snow? Or that hurricanes were part of global warming and then we had a record long time without hurricanes in the USA? He got one small part "right" assuming the data is not manipulated again. I will believe it is correct when the data is opened up to those whose openly disagree.
All_Pro_Bills Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 9 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: There are multiple irreversible tipping points in the evolution of global warming. The article is highlighting one of the earliest that could be expected to go. Passing through one tipping point does not mean we shouldn’t try to avoid the others. As damaging as the loss of summer Arctic ice coverage would be, something like permafrost thawing in the Northern Hemisphere would be much more devastating to future generations. Because we’re dealing with feedback control systems that proceed nonlinearly and that could trigger cascading positive feedback loops, I don’t have a problem with the alarmist tones in the article. What specific climate change metrics (surface temps, ice sheet sizes, glacier sizes, snow cover, sea level rise, ocean temps, ocean acidification levels, various extreme weather events, etc.) did Al Gore get wrong? Can you state his erroneous claims verbatim from the documentary and then provide the numbers from peer-reviewed research papers that contradict his claims? I’ll spot you the Mount Kilimanjaro glacier example, though Gore could have used plenty of other glaciers to make his point. It has honestly been a very long time since I saw the film, so I should probably watch it again over July 4 weekend to judge how well it has aged. But when critiquing the documentary’s veracity, we need to be mindful of distinctions between worst-case scenarios and expected ones. We also need to be cognizant of the fact that only 15 years have passed. Hey, at least Al Gore covered the thermohaline circulation science better than “The Day After Tomorrow” lol… Which data sets are you determining to be incomplete? How are they incomplete? What should climate scientists do to assemble more complete data? A few quick responses: 1. All known major non-anthropogenic climate change factors have been isolated and ruled out with rigorous data processing techniques. Atmospheric carbon rose ~31ppm from 1988 (the year of James Hansen’s Senate testimony) to 2006 (the release of Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”) and then an additional ~37ppm up to now. Simultaneously, mean Earth surface temperature rose ~0.33 degrees Celsius from 1988 to 2006 and then an additional ~0.39 degrees Celsius up to now. If anyone has a better explanation for this correlation, please cite the research paper you are referencing or tell us your novel hypothesis! 2. Water, methane, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide are the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere besides carbon dioxide. The methane also oxidizes into carbon dioxide over time, a lesser-known scientific fact that proponents of the fracking industry like to omit! The other ~99% of stuff in the atmosphere (mostly nitrogen and oxygen) does not contribute at all to global warming. 3. Most climate scientists and many green energy engineers are active members of and financial contributors to all sorts of environmental conservation organizations. Well there are really two separate issues going on. The first is the "need" to lower greenhouse gas emissions to manage global temperature changes. The second is the "need" to replace hydrocarbon based energy sources when the cheap and easy to find oil supply starts to run out. The solution to replace oil and gas with electricity is a convenient and handy answer to both questions. But that leads to another issue which is the objective of electrifying all applications of hydrocarbon produced energy in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining the currently living arrangements, growth trajectories, and continuous increases in energy consumption required to support that growth (not even to mention advances in developing nations) is a pipe dream and a dead end. There is no way this is going to happen through the deployment of solar panels and wind turbines. The resources necessary don't exist on the planet or reside in countries or regions where there is resistance to developing them. The capital expenditures will exceed current estimates by many multiples. And our society and population are not at all equipped or ready to handle the radical changes to lifestyles and living conditions that will result. And counting on some yet to be developed technological breakthrough in energy production isn't much of a strategy either. The oil age provided a one-time bump in growth through a very efficient and cost effective means of producing large amounts energy and driving growth and progress but once its gone the human race will revert to trend unless something is found that produces more energy more efficiently and at less cost. Wind and solar and other renewables at current efficiencies at current cost just won't cut it. We need to stop fooling ourselves and work to find an effective long term solution.
Recommended Posts