AN ANTI-SCIENCE MANIA TAKES OVER GOP

[longview]

The data is that there are over 7 billion people alive on Earth,
A number that can only be sustained, with energy we get from naturally stored hydrocarbons.
There are not enough of those naturally stored hydrocarbons, to allow everyone alive
to improve their condition to a first world lifestyle for very long, and the alternate energy sources,
cannot fill all the demands currently filled by fuels made from oil.
I am not talking about cars, but Jets, Ships, tractors, ect, the things that allows us to produce,
and transport enough food to sustain 7 billion people.
If we are not to become a world of energy rich and energy poor, we need a sustainable path forward,
where everyone alive could achieve a first world lifestyle if they choose to.
Within the scope of current technology, storing surplus alternate energy as man made hydrocarbons,
is about the only sustainable path forward.

 

[ataraxia]

The data is that there are over 7 billion people alive on Earth,
A number that can only be sustained, with energy we get from naturally stored hydrocarbons.
There are not enough of those naturally stored hydrocarbons, to allow everyone alive
to improve their condition to a first world lifestyle for very long, and the alternate energy sources,
cannot fill all the demands currently filled by fuels made from oil.
I am not talking about cars, but Jets, Ships, tractors, ect, the things that allows us to produce,
and transport enough food to sustain 7 billion people.
If we are not to become a world of energy rich and energy poor, we need a sustainable path forward,
where everyone alive could achieve a first world lifestyle if they choose to.
Within the scope of current technology, storing surplus alternate energy as man made hydrocarbons,
is about the only sustainable path forward.

Meh, the free market will take care of it. It’s magic and takes care of everything. Let’em pick themselves up by their own bootstraps. Why are you worried about it?

 

[longview]

Meh, the free market will take care of it. It’s magic and takes care of everything. Let’em pick themselves up by their own bootstraps. Why are you worried about it?

I know what I am advocating. What are you advocating?

 

[ataraxia]

I know what I am advocating. What are you advocating?

You are advocating some policy. That’s tyranny. I am not advocating anything. We can’t know anything for sure anyway. Leave it all free and let’s see what happens. That’s real freedom.

 

[istodolez]

We know that CO2 levels are raising, and that some of that raising is from Human emissions,
Although the exact percentage is uncertain.

Here's a handy summary of natural and human sources:

SOURCE: IPCC AR4 Fig 7.3

In other words we actually DO kinda know how much excess CO2 humans produce in the overall carbon cycle.

It is best to read the actual science when debating theses points.

 

[longview]

You are advocating some policy. That’s tyranny. I am not advocating anything. We can’t know anything for sure anyway. Leave it all free and let’s see what happens. That’s real freedom.

For some reason, I do not believe you!

 

[longview]

Here's a handy summary of natural and human sources:



SOURCE: IPCC AR4 Fig 7.3

In other words we actually DO kinda know how much excess CO2 humans produce in the overall carbon cycle.

It is best to read the actual science when debating theses points.

That is a nice graphic, but the range of uncertainty on some of those numbers are quite large.
The 6.4 Gt Carbon for fossil fuels emissions looks fairly close, and would equate out to ~ 3 ppm per year.

 

[watsup]

The data is that there are over 7 billion people alive on Earth,
A number that can only be sustained, with energy we get from naturally stored hydrocarbons.
There are not enough of those naturally stored hydrocarbons, to allow everyone alive
to improve their condition to a first world lifestyle for very long, and the alternate energy sources,
cannot fill all the demands currently filled by fuels made from oil.
I am not talking about cars, but Jets, Ships, tractors, ect, the things that allows us to produce,
and transport enough food to sustain 7 billion people.
If we are not to become a world of energy rich and energy poor, we need a sustainable path forward,
where everyone alive could achieve a first world lifestyle if they choose to.
Within the scope of current technology, storing surplus alternate energy as man made hydrocarbons,
is about the only sustainable path forward.

You deniers ar hilarious. You hang your hat on one particular aspect and claim that it is the be-all, end-all of the conversation . Not too long ago, there was a chatter in another but related thread (human overpopulation) who claimed that there was more than enough fossil energy to last for centuries and had the statistics to prove it. Now you say exactly the opposite. You are both deniers, just at the opposite end of the energy pole.
There are two kinds of deniers:
"Manmade global warming is a hoax!"
And
"There is AGW, BUT......!!!!!!
There are lots like you: "There is AGW, BUT it's not that big of a deal and those who claim it is a real problem are ALARMISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are not alone. There are plenty like you, and it's really not that far off from the comments made by Repub politicians in the OP.

 

[longview]

You deniers ar hilarious. You hang your hat on one particular aspect and claim that it is the be-all, end-all of the conversation . Not too long ago, there was a chatter in another but related thread (human overpopulation) who claimed that there was more than enough fossil energy to last for centuries and had the statistics to prove it. Now you say exactly the opposite. You are both deniers, just at the opposite end of the energy pole.
There are two kinds of deniers:
"Manmade global warming is a hoax!"
And
"There is AGW, BUT......!!!!!!
There are lots like you: "There is AGW, BUT it's not that big of a deal and those who claim it is a real problem are ALARMISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are not alone. There are plenty like you, and it's really not that far off from the comments made by Repub politicians in the OP.

You what am I wrong about?

 

[watsup]

You what am I wrong about?

I have repeatedly posted information from NOAA and NASA at has shown that you are parsing much of the statistics that you present to come to conclusions that differ from the true intent of the statistics in order to push your “alarmist” view of AGW.

 

[longview]

I have repeatedly posted information from NOAA and NASA at has shown that you are parsing much of the statistics that you present to come to conclusions that differ from the true intent of the statistics in order to push your “alarmist” view of AGW.

Actually what you have posted are people's unsupported opinions of where in range of uncertainty the future warming may be.
While I have posted, how the empirical data does not support high levels of feedbacks, based on how the climate has responded to earlier warming.

 

[watsup]

Actually what you have posted are people's unsupported opinions of where in range of uncertainty the future warming may be.
While I have posted, how the empirical data does not support high levels of feedbacks, based on how the climate has responded to earlier warming.

So NOAA and NASA can’t actually scientifically support their assertions? Do you really believe that? Perhaps the problem is with you, in that you perhaps have not delved deep enough into their supporting evidence,eh?

 

[istodolez]

So NOAA and NASA can’t actually scientifically support their assertions? Do you really believe that? Perhaps the problem is with you, in that you perhaps have not delved deep enough into their supporting evidence,eh?

It is fascinating that the world's experts get so much of their own research wrong. If only they would spend more time on these fora in order to see how much they missed.

 

[istodolez]

Actually what you have posted are people's unsupported opinions of where in range of uncertainty the future warming may be.

You seem overly focused on 'uncertainty'. Certainly science lives and dies by uncertainty. The key is that the uncertainty can be controlled to some greater or lesser extent. Just the existence of "uncertainty" doesn't mean anything. Uncertainty is part and parcel of ALL science.

While I have posted, how the empirical data does not support high levels of feedbacks, based on how the climate has responded to earlier warming.

Yet, for some unknown reason, the world's experts don't share your view. I hope you get published and soon. To be able to set science aright after 100 years of misguided failures that so accurately reflect what is going on would be amazing!

 

[ataraxia]

For some reason, I do not believe you!

You seem overly focused on 'uncertainty'. Certainly science lives and dies by uncertainty. The key is that the uncertainty can be controlled to some greater or lesser extent. Just the existence of "uncertainty" doesn't mean anything. Uncertainty is part and parcel of ALL science.



Yet, for some unknown reason, the world's experts don't share your view. I hope you get published and soon. To be able to set science aright after 100 years of misguided failures that so accurately reflect what is going on would be amazing!

He has been telling us that he uses this forum to hone his argument before he springs it on the unsuspecting scientific community. He has been honing for years. Boy is the scientific community going to be in for a surprise when he finally unleashes this razor-sharp argument on them! I can just see them now, smacking their foreheads and wondering why they never saw it themselves all these years! And then I'm sure it's going to be a Nobel waiting for Longview. I hope when that happens he remembers all us little people on this little internet chat forum on which he spent all these years honing his argument.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Here's a handy summary of natural and human sources:

SOURCE: IPCC AR4 Fig 7.3

In other words we actually DO kinda know how much excess CO2 humans produce in the overall carbon cycle.

It is best to read the actual science when debating theses points.

Yes, that's one of many carbon cycle figures out there. I've seen ones I like better as the include things like carbon emissions from concrete production.

Here is the one out of the AR5, figure 6.1:



Figure 6.2 from the AR5 is for methane:

 

[Bergslagstroll]

So NOAA and NASA can’t actually scientifically support their assertions? Do you really believe that? Perhaps the problem is with you, in that you perhaps have not delved deep enough into their supporting evidence,eh?

There the head of NASA also is a former climate denier appointed by Trump.

Trump's NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero.

Bridenstine has also backed up his rhetoric with vocal support for NASA's climate missions, which have been threatened under a Trump presidency.

www.space.com

 

[Lord of Planar]

There the head of NASA also is a former climate denier appointed by Trump.

Trump's NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero.

Bridenstine has also backed up his rhetoric with vocal support for NASA's climate missions, which have been threatened under a Trump presidency.

www.space.com

Your understanding if the English language is very lacking.

He is not a denier. He just isn't a follower of the AGW dogma.

He knows we have an impact. He doesn't deny that.

 

[ataraxia]

Your understanding if the English language is very lacking.

He is not a denier. He just isn't a follower of the AGW dogma.

He knows we have an impact. He doesn't deny that.

So why aren’t you outraged that he changed his mind doesn’t deny it? I thought it was all just a Chinese hoax. I wanna see some outrage.

 

[istodolez]

Your understanding if the English language is very lacking.

Most Norwegians I've met actually have a better grasp of the English language than your average American.

He is not a denier. He just isn't a follower of the AGW dogma.

When one (formerly) denied the role of HUMANS in AGW that's denial. Remember what the word "ANTHROPOGENIC" means? You might want to look that one up.

Here's his former position:

Tell me your view on human contributions, if any, to what’s happening with the climate.

I would say that the climate is changing. It has always changed. There were periods of time long before the internal combustion engine when the Earth was much warmer than it is today. Going back to the 1600s, we have had mini Ice Ages from then to now.

SOURCE: http://www.omagdigital.com/publication/?i=307413&article_id=2500588&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5

 

[Lord of Planar]

So why aren’t you outraged that he changed his mind doesn’t deny it? I thought it was all just a Chinese hoax. I wanna see some outrage.

We've been over this before. If you watch the unedited video, you see he did not change his mind.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Most Norwegians I've met actually have a better grasp of the English language than your average American.

Does my Viking heritage count to you? I didn't choose Leif Erikson for no reason. I'm a direct descendant. My father has some interesting Viking artifacts.

When one (formerly) denied the role of HUMANS in AGW that's denial. Remember what the word "ANTHROPOGENIC" means? You might want to look that one up.

Here's his former position:

SOURCE: http://www.omagdigital.com/publication/?i=307413&article_id=2500588&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5

LOL...

The text does look correct, but there could be alterations since I don't have a photographic memory.

Still... Where is the denial? He never says we aren't warming the planet.

"WHERE'S THE BEEF?"

Seriously. Why do you think he is a denier by that exchange?

Please quote us any part that supports your contention.

 

[ataraxia]

Still... Where is the denial? He never says we aren't warming the planet.

Trump's NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero.

Bridenstine has also backed up his rhetoric with vocal support for NASA's climate missions, which have been threatened under a Trump presidency.

www.google.com

So do you now fully agree with this quote of his :” "I believe fully in climate change and that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way."

 

[Lord of Planar]

Trump's NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero.

Bridenstine has also backed up his rhetoric with vocal support for NASA's climate missions, which have been threatened under a Trump presidency.

www.google.com

So do you now fully agree with this quote of his :” "I believe fully in climate change and that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way."

I never did disagree that we have an impact.

What's your problem assigning ideas to me I don't possess?

Yes, we contribute in a major way. Primarily land use changes, and polluting the sky.

 

[istodolez]

I didn't choose Leif Erikson for no reason. I'm a direct descendant. My father has some interesting Viking artifacts.

What parts of Scandinavia have you traveled to? I really like Scandinavia. I've been to Iceland 2X, Norway 2X and Finland more times than I recall.

Seriously. Why do you think he is a denier by that exchange?

When asked about humanity's role he suggests that climate changes even without human behavior. While that wouldn't necessarily mean he rules it out, the fact that it was in direct response to a question about HUMAN factors indicates denial.