Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"[W:1000, 1660]

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Science + Logic + Ideology = Indoctrination

Science is the absence of ideology.

Extreme politics is ideological.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

But you don't care about global warming... The solution to global warming has to fit your ideology. Therefore you mustn't think global warming is a pressing problem. I mean, heck, how long before some green technologies are fully implemented? Forty years?

Sustainable technologies are driven by need and long term economics. Temporary technologies are driven by corporate, make more money regardless of the cost to others.

 

[cabse5]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

nm.......

 

[cabse5]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Science is the absence of ideology.

Extreme politics is ideological.

Then your global warming 'science' ISN'T science is it.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Then your global warming 'science' ISN'T science is it.

It's mostly physics. Some are educated enough in physics to understand it at the level of the IPCC, most are not. An unfortunate reality.

 

[cabse5]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Sustainable technologies are driven by need and long term economics. Temporary technologies are driven by corporate, make more money regardless of the cost to others.

Need I go further? You are an ideologue. Science doesn't come into the picture.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Need I go further? You are an ideologue. Science doesn't come into the picture.

I'm fully supportive of, and educated in, science. Science has and is telling us what the consequences are of any particular action or inaction. That's what it's supposed to do.

Politics has to choose among those actions and therefore consequences.

Most politicians, being naturally cowardly and indecisive and wanting to push the decisions off to other politicians, dislike the position that the truth has put them in. As there is no other option, their political instinct is to try to sell, to people ignorant of the science, that the science and the IPCC therefore are wrong.

They have been somewhat successful.

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

You will find that the vast majority of the species going extinct are island species. We've most killed all the continental species we are ever going to poaching of Rhino excepting.

(Citation needed)

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Sustainable technologies are driven by need and long term economics. Temporary technologies are driven by corporate, make more money regardless of the cost to others.

It appears you are far less worried about renewables which don't work than with the people making money from the current hydrocarbons which do work.

Lets take a look at the economics of this vs MwH generated



:shock:

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Every time I see a global warming thread I post the same thing: Environmentalists don't care about global warming.

No, most of these environmentalists do not really care about the environment. They only ever talk about co2 and the chance of some potential future damage that is assumed if their projections are correct.

Meanwhile, they will NEVER talk about the REAL POLLUTION THAT IS CAUSING REAL ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE THAT IS MEASURABLE AND HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!

All they really care about is the control over life itself that will be obtained if there is control over co2.

They care about clean skies and clean water. Making Earth's environment more pristine-like, at any cost.

Just like when they decided to start burning food for fuel that increased the cost of food and put hundreds of thousands into starvation.

Quit arguing with environmentalists about the validity of global warming. They don't care (they probably care less than you). Their global warming solution(s) must leave the earth in a more pristine-line condition or the solution is invalid....
Maybe global warming isn't a chronic problem, huh environmentalists?

You are right that they don't REALLY care, you are wrong that the solutions will make the earth more pristine. These eco-fascists want nuke plants everywhere, even while we have 4 plants that will be belching radioactive waste and debris into the foreseeable future.

For example, what's a quick and dirty way to create a colder climate throughout the world?
Clutter the higher atmosphere with debris. Kinda like the Ice Age caused by the meteor that struck the earth and helped to kill off the dinos, or claims (by the very same environmentalists) of a nuclear 'winter' caused by multiple nuclear explosions.

I know this is an off the cuff suggestion , but frankly this is a terrible idea since we really don't understand the climate well enough to not see undesirable consequences.

7 billion humans will have an unavoidably huge impact whatever way you slice it. We are the dominant species and others will just have to make way to accommodate that. All of these modern environmental issues simply represent back door green eugenics and as such represent the real threat to a much greater number of us. Green idealogues care little about that given they have decided that the Earth is far too precious and fragile for most of us to continue to exist upon it with the quality of life many of us enjoy.

Here is why we should fear them

C3: Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters

It would be easy to dismiss these people as cranks were it not that they inhabit positions of often great power and influence in our world

You hit the nail on the head here...

The green movement as it's pushed IS modern eugenics...

It's mostly physics. Some are educated enough in physics to understand it at the level of the IPCC, most are not. An unfortunate reality.

The physics calculations that is used in the models are not accurate to the physics going on in reality. That's why the projections are diverting so strongly from the measurements.

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

The green movement as it's pushed IS modern eugenics...

Indeed. Can you think of a project by any green organisation in the last 30 years that has actively benefitted the welfare humanity rather than impeded it ?

3.4 million children die globally every year from lack of access to clean water. That's not in some climate model 100 years down the line that's here and now. Where is the green outcry over this given they claim to be trying to save us ? Where are the green projects that dig wells for these people so this doesn't happen ? This could be solved using a tiny fraction of the resources spent on climate change so why aren't the greens doing so ?

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Indeed. Can you think of a project by any green organisation in the last 30 years that has actively benefitted the welfare humanity rather than impeded it ?

SO2 mitigation with cap and trade

The Montreal Protocol and CFC reduction.

Conservation and restoration of Amazonian rainforest

Return of multiple migratory bord species from the brink of extinction (450 nesting pairs left in 1960. I saw about 100 last weekend in an afternoon)

Etc etc.

http://discovermagazine.com/galleries/zen-photo/h/happy-enviroment#.Uv5wgXi9LCQ

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

SO2 mitigation with cap and trade

The Montreal Protocol and CFC reduction.

Conservation and restoration of Amazonian rainforest

Return of multiple migratory bord species from the brink of extinction (450 nesting pairs left in 1960. I saw about 100 last weekend in an afternoon)

Etc etc.

9 of Humanity's Greatest Environmental Successes | DiscoverMagazine.com

I meant benefitted humanity as in setting out to proactively save human lives rather than plants or animals at human expense. The DDT ban alone has been responsible for an estimated 50 million entirely preventable malaria deaths or around the casualties for the whole of WW2

Malaria Victims: How Environmentalist Ban on DDT Caused 50 Million Deaths - Discover the Networks

Because of environmental opposition to the use of hydrocarbon fuels and electrification in the third world around 1.5 million per annum die from indoor pollution cooking from open fires

Air Pollution - Indoor Pollution from Cooking Fires Kills 1.5 Million People Annually

Then you have the green bans on water chlorination. Greatly Increasing deaths from totally avoidable diseases like Typhus and Cholera worldwide

http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Michael Fumento - Rachel's Folly The End of Chlorine.pdf

The list goes on .....

All these issues could be resolved at a fraction of the cost being spent on AGW/global warming/climate change/climate disruption or whatever the latest saleable epithet used to keep the cash flowing

Where is the green protest that we do so ?

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

It appears you are far less worried about renewables which don't work than with the people making money from the current hydrocarbons which do work.

Lets take a look at the economics of this vs MwH generated

View attachment 67162055

:shock:

I hope that you aren't thinking that subsidies are relevant to this conversation.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

No, most of these environmentalists do not really care about the environment. They only ever talk about co2 and the chance of some potential future damage that is assumed if their projections are correct.

Meanwhile, they will NEVER talk about the REAL POLLUTION THAT IS CAUSING REAL ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE THAT IS MEASURABLE AND HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!

All they really care about is the control over life itself that will be obtained if there is control over co2.



Just like when they decided to start burning food for fuel that increased the cost of food and put hundreds of thousands into starvation.




You are right that they don't REALLY care, you are wrong that the solutions will make the earth more pristine. These eco-fascists want nuke plants everywhere, even while we have 4 plants that will be belching radioactive waste and debris into the foreseeable future.



I know this is an off the cuff suggestion , but frankly this is a terrible idea since we really don't understand the climate well enough to not see undesirable consequences.



You hit the nail on the head here...

The green movement as it's pushed IS modern eugenics...



The physics calculations that is used in the models are not accurate to the physics going on in reality. That's why the projections are diverting so strongly from the measurements.

This is what happens when someone lets politicians into the physics lab.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

I meant benefitted humanity as in setting out to proactively save human lives rather than plants or animals at human expense. The DDT ban alone has been responsible for an estimated 50 million entirely preventable malaria deaths or around the casualties for the whole of WW2

Malaria Victims: How Environmentalist Ban on DDT Caused 50 Million Deaths - Discover the Networks

Because of environmental opposition to the use of hydrocarbon fuels and electrification in the third world around 1.5 million per annum die from indoor pollution cooking from open fires

Air Pollution - Indoor Pollution from Cooking Fires Kills 1.5 Million People Annually

Then you have the green bans on water chlorination. Greatly Increasing deaths from totally avoidable diseases like Typhus and Cholera worldwide

http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Michael Fumento - Rachel's Folly The End of Chlorine.pdf

The list goes on .....

All these issues could be resolved at a fraction of the cost being spent on AGW/global warming/climate change/climate disruption or whatever the latest saleable epithet used to keep the cash flowing

Where is the green protest that we do so ?

You adopt many disguises in your attempts at the political assassination of science, this among the most bizarre.

Fortunately most people easily distinguish politics from legitimate responsibility.

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

You adopt many disguises in your attempts at the political assassination of science, this among the most bizarre.

Fortunately most people easily distinguish politics from legitimate responsibility.

By what possible interpretation is that smearing and trolling response remotely relevant to what I posted ? :caution:

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

I hope that you aren't thinking that subsidies are relevant to this conversation.

Duhhh..... becuz we as taxpayer have to pay for them :roll:

Something has to be economically viable to be sustainable too

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

By what possible interpretation is that smearing and trolling response remotely relevant to what I posted ?

Your illegitimate political goal is to obscure science and instead follow the lead of those dedicated to squeezing the last dollar of profit from fossil fuels. Nothing at all noble about that. It's profits today over survival of our progeny.

Such treachery requires every dirty political trick that you can muster. Exposing them all is my service to those who would otherwise be fooled.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Duhhh..... becuz we as taxpayer have to pay for them :roll:

Something has to be economically viable to be sustainable too

Some things are based on economics, others on necessity. Hoping that doing nothing will cost nothing is mere naïveté. Doing nothing will cost everything.

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Your illegitimate political goal is to obscure science and instead follow the lead of those dedicated to squeezing the last dollar of profit from fossil fuels. Nothing at all noble about that. It's profits today over survival of our progeny.

Such treachery requires every dirty political trick that you can muster. Exposing them all is my service to those who would otherwise be fooled.

What on Earth are you talking about ! This sermon has nothing whatever to do with my post

Some things are based on economics, others on necessity. Hoping that doing nothing will cost nothing is mere naïveté. Doing nothing will cost everything.

Prove it ? This is just shroud waving :roll:

 

[Phys251]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Why should I?

I already answered that. See the post you quoted.

They never showed CO2 to warm the atmosphere as much as they claim in the presence of H2O. All they have is correlating temperures with the rise of CO2, and we all know CO2 rises with increased temperatures anyway.

I suspect the oceans would have absorbed far more CO2 than they have if they have not increased in temperture.

Again, their correlation = causation is not scientific evidence.

Prove that their analyses were wrong. The ball is in your court.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Prove that their analyses were wrong. The ball is in your court.

The only studies i could trace, souce by source by source, lead to an 80's study that quatifies the atmospheric effect of CO2 useing correlation equaling causation.

I have been unable to find any studies that quantify the warming of CO2 in the atmosphere that are not speculation.

These people are claiming that CO2 has specific warming that is scientifically quantified... nowhere.

I suggest you find a study that quantifies CO2, and find their methodology. They are making claims that are showing to be impossible, because we have not been warning in sync with CO2.

 

[Phys251]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

The only studies i could trace, souce by source by source, lead to an 80's study that quatifies the atmospheric effect of CO2 useing correlation equaling causation.

I have been unable to find any studies that quantify the warming of CO2 in the atmosphere that are not speculation.

These people are claiming that CO2 has specific warming that is scientifically quantified... nowhere.

I suggest you find a study that quantifies CO2, and find their methodology. They are making claims that are showing to be impossible, because we have not been warning in sync with CO2.

Need to see some legitimate sources before I'll take any of this at face value.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Need to see some legitimate sources before I'll take any of this at face value.

That's my point.

There is no legitimate source that shows the warming of CO2 in an atmospheric mix.

Please, if I'm wrong, find it. I have looked, and cannot find it. All I see are studies that reference past studies, and the root study referenced uses assumed warming of CO2 over the years to quantify it.

Again, if I am wrong. Please show me.