Trump on climate change report: 'I don't believe it'

[Media_Truth]

You are still not getting it,
If co2 has a minimal response,
Then the urgent calls for action,
Are unwarranted.
Again there is minimal empirical
Data to support co2 forcing at the predicted levels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have yet to provide a variable that is causing our warming. You mentioned aerosols, and although they do effect climate in short term ways, they don't raise temperatures continually over 40 years. Solar changes were also mentioned, but those have been studied extensively, and it's been concluded that they couldn't be causing such drastic temperature changes. CO2 is the overriding, undisputed variable.

 

[Nemiroff]

the greenhouse effect describes theoretical energy transit, the long wavelength infrared energy emitted from earth is slowed on it's path to space.
As I said the problem with the concept is that we have not actually measured the predicted imbalance over a change in CO2 levels.
In your boiling pot analogy, we do not know the stove setting, high heat, low heat, off, we have measured the temperature increasing about 1C,
which could have been caused by simple dead band changes in the kitchen.
The math is not perfect, it is buried in the noise and uncertainty.
Clouds alone add about ten times the uncertainty as the expected measurement.

The boiling pot analogy was meant to show the heat storing capacity of water, not an exact correlation to global warming. When you account water temperatures, it fits perfectly.

And where did you get the idea that it is theoretical? Unless you mean as theoretical as the theory of gravity and the germ theory of disease (aka fact)

If we know the exact rate of absorption, and the exact quantities... what's there to be theoretical?

We also have direct measurements of the co2 in the air in different time periods, and the actual global temperature readings. It's very clear cut

 

[longview]

You have yet to provide a variable that is causing our warming. You mentioned aerosols, and although they do effect climate in short term ways, they don't raise temperatures continually over 40 years. Solar changes were also mentioned, but those have been studied extensively, and it's been concluded that they couldn't be causing such drastic temperature changes. CO2 is the overriding, undisputed variable.

I have never found any insolation recordings from 1970, so we really do not know how much the aerosol clearing has change the amount of sunlight reaching the ground.
We also do not know all of the climate cycles and how they interfere with each other.
Clouds, We know that clouds are a negative factor, but the magnitude of the effect has great uncertainty.

 

[longview]

The boiling pot analogy was meant to show the heat storing capacity of water, not an exact correlation to global warming. When you account water temperatures, it fits perfectly.

And where did you get the idea that it is theoretical? Unless you mean as theoretical as the theory of gravity and the germ theory of disease (aka fact)

If we know the exact rate of absorption, and the exact quantities... what's there to be theoretical?

We also have direct measurements of the co2 in the air in different time periods, and the actual global temperature readings. It's very clear cut

Let talk about the theory of AGW just a bit.
CO2 is supposed to absorb 15 um photons, and it can when it is at ground state,
except that atmospheric CO2 is almost never at ground state.
An Excited CO2 molecule would be transparent to a 15 um photon, the dipole moment would not fit for absorption.
When we try to measure the predicted imbalance that added CO2 should have caused, we can detect a signal, but not measure it.
What we do measure is less than half of what is predicted.
SO no the math does not fit perfectly, it does not fit at all!

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Trump on climate change report: 'I don't believe it'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46351940


Oh boy, here we go again lol. Is President Trump trolling or is he actually serious? Why do facts all of a sudden not matter? Why do popular conservatives like to say "Facts don't care about your feelings", but forget this thinking when it comes to a lot of scientific consensus?

Consensus is not a proof of scientific fact.

You do know that, right? Ask Einstein about consensus. Yano?

Obviously not.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/the_tyranny_of_consensus_.html

One of the many tools used to manage the true believers and keep them from drifting into certain skeptical apostasy is called consensus -- the numbering of the faithful. The term itself belies the failure of the most basic tenet of the philosophy of science, which argues forcefully against consensus seeking. Unlike religion, science is specifically designed to disallow the forcing of absolutes. Instead, the process of science is unambiguously intended to manage an ever changing understanding of truth. Science is purposefully designed to argue against itself, and even disprove itself, through a constructive intercourse of internal skepticism. Indeed, it is that skepticism that comprises the energy that drives science to a new, always evolving understanding of truth. Thus, the true scientist is ever the unsatisfied skeptic, never the defender of the faith, and certainly never the policeman of the State’s consecrated dogma.

The idea that one can simply use popular poll results and prevailing opinions to define science-by-consensus is not at all new. In 1931, a book was published titled “100 Authors Against Einstein” refuting Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity. In the publication, there were not just 100, but 120 scientists, engineers and laity who all attempted to repudiate Einstein’s theories and promoted the book as the consensus view against relativity. Their aim was to prove by their sheer numbers and academic credentials that Einstein was not just spinning an outrageous fantasy in the name of science, but by simple virtue of their consensus numbers, he was overwhelmingly wrong. Einstein’s response was characteristically brilliant. He said simply, “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” The book, and each of its 120 signatories are now, of course, relegated to the scientific Hall of Shame. This consensus-based, adolescent pile-on of Einstein historically backfired in a rather spectacular way, as all consensus schemes are wont to do.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I regret to inform you that you do not have super secret anti global conspiracy information. You're not here to save us. You're here for self worth.

And so, what exactly is your purpose here? :lamo

 

[Media_Truth]

Iblaming the Tobacco companies and the fuel companies for not knowing is ...

That's just crazy. You really believe these companies didn't know. I use past tense, because the internal knowledge goes way back for both commoditiies.

 

[Todzilla]

If you believe that added CO2 has the capability of turning the planet into a "charred hellscape", you are engaging in fantasy, not science.
Capitalism cares about sustainable paths forward, so profits can continue.
The consumers try to get the best deal possible, that still meets their needs.
What do you think we should be doing that we are not, and how do you think that would help?

Capitalism doesn't give a **** about my grandchildren or yours. It's a great system for maximizing short to medium term profit and finding the most efficient means of using (or "exploiting," if you will) resources to create goods and services. I am pro-Capitalism, but...

Depletion of shared common resources (the tragedy of the commons, if you will), do not fit into any Capitalistic model and therefore need government protections. Carbon taxes are a crude, blunt instrument, but at least offer some mechanism by which we can attribute full costs of shared common resources to production. We are not currently paying all the costs of carbon energy. We're subsidizing it through health costs, wars in the Middle East and many other areas.

If we wait for Capitalism to solve environmental problems, we may be too late.

As for the charred hellscape, even if you think the environmental changes will not directly cause environmental devastation, they will upset the economics of so many nations, that wars will inevitably break out at a far greater scale than currently experienced.

 

[longview]

Capitalism doesn't give a **** about my grandchildren or yours. It's a great system for maximizing short to medium term profit and finding the most efficient means of using (or "exploiting," if you will) resources to create goods and services. I am pro-Capitalism, but...

Depletion of shared common resources (the tragedy of the commons, if you will), do not fit into any Capitalistic model and therefore need government protections. Carbon taxes are a crude, blunt instrument, but at least offer some mechanism by which we can attribute full costs of shared common resources to production. We are not currently paying all the costs of carbon energy. We're subsidizing it through health costs, wars in the Middle East and many other areas.

If we wait for Capitalism to solve environmental problems, we may be too late.

As for the charred hellscape, even if you think the environmental changes will not directly cause environmental devastation, they will upset the economics of so many nations, that wars will inevitably break out at a far greater scale than currently experienced.

Your subjective opinion is noted.

 

[ecofarm]

And so, what exactly is your purpose here? :lamo

I have fun. I don't push CT blogs to make up for a lack of education and experience. I don't pretend to have special inside info. That's lame BS losers employ to feel better about themselves.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I have fun. I don't push CT blogs to make up for a lack of education and experience. I don't pretend to have special inside info. That's lame BS losers employ to feel better about themselves.

Basically stating you have no idea, not a valid clue as to what you are talking about here.

Confirmed my assessment, thanks.

 

[ecofarm]

Confirmed my assessment, thanks.

Big surprise. You think that's science.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Big surprise. You think that's science.

I am pretty sure we have a consensus on the issue... isnt that how your side decides the "science"?
:lamo

 

[ecofarm]

I am pretty sure we have a consensus on the issue... isnt that how your side decides the "science"?
:lamo

Take a good look, kids. That's what happens when you choose blogs over an education.

 

[JustHanging]

Take a good look, kids. That's what happens when you choose blogs over an education.

World class dumbasses who couldn't pass a grade 8 science exam think they know better than the tens of thousands of people who have devoted their lives to learning about the subject.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Kruger Dunning, and world class dumbassery.

 

[ecofarm]

World class dumbasses who couldn't pass a grade 8 science exam think they know better than the tens of thousands of people who have devoted their lives to learning about the subject.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Kruger Dunning, and world class dumbassery.

Two words, second one is Limbaugh.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Take a good look, kids. That's what happens when you choose blogs over an education.

Dood, that is sooOOooOOOooo lame

But it truly is befitting of your normal posts. Maybe try some creativity, use the language, be better, do some research at least. Besides, it was you that is the one who said you know absolutely nothing about the topic... how is it now that I am the one without schooling? Wow...

And yes, you directed that correctly, your audience would be the kids, the juveniles in the peanut gallery here. We agree on that point.

 

[ecofarm]

As if not tl;dr.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

That's just crazy. You really believe these companies didn't know. I use past tense, because the internal knowledge goes way back for both commoditiies.

Yes the fossil fuel companies have known about the negative effecst of manmade global warming for a long. Their there response was to launch massive disinformation campaigns.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

 

[Bergslagstroll]

A positive thing is that more and more people around the world is demanding and taking action to combat climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-around-world?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

There you have this intersting documentary about how Americans are demanding and developing real solutions in the face of climate change.

https://www.paristopittsburgh.com/

Full episode on Youtube:

 

[Hawkeye10]

A positive thing is that more and more people around the world is demanding and taking action to combat climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-around-world?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

There you have this intersting documentary about how Americans are demanding and developing real solutions in the face of climate change.

https://www.paristopittsburgh.com/

Full episode on Youtube:

And yet things are getting worse we are told, and even Macron found out what happens when people come face to face with how much these plans cost.

 

[Todzilla]

Your subjective opinion is noted.

All opinions are subjective. Duh. Just like a slavish belief that Capitalism, left unchecked will cure all global ills. But please explain to me how the market magic forces prevent dumping toxic waste into waterways, spewing pollutants into the air and climate change. If it doesn't affect the polluters bottom line, laissez faire economics has no solution.

 

[longview]

All opinions are subjective. Duh. Just like a slavish belief that Capitalism, left unchecked will cure all global ills. But please explain to me how the market magic forces prevent dumping toxic waste into waterways, spewing pollutants into the air and climate change. If it doesn't affect the polluters bottom line, laissez faire economics has no solution.

It is based on profits, fuel from oil has a very real cost of goods sold price, making carbon neutral fuel also has a cost of goods sold price.
The price of oil is increasing, and the price of the man made fuels are decreasing.
As we add alternate energy to our electrical grids, the low duty cycle will cause massive surpluses ( look up duck curve).
These surpluses can affect the price of man made fuels, by lowering the wholesale electricity price.
At some point the greater profit will be from making fuel form electricity than form oil, and who doesn't like more profit?

 

[Todzilla]

It is based on profits, fuel from oil has a very real cost of goods sold price, making carbon neutral fuel also has a cost of goods sold price.
The price of oil is increasing, and the price of the man made fuels are decreasing.
As we add alternate energy to our electrical grids, the low duty cycle will cause massive surpluses ( look up duck curve).
These surpluses can affect the price of man made fuels, by lowering the wholesale electricity price.
At some point the greater profit will be from making fuel form electricity than form oil, and who doesn't like more profit?

But oil companies don't pay all the costs. Taxpayers fund wars in the Middle East. People in fracking states have no potable water. Carbon discharged into the atmosphere affects us all. Big oil gets lots of preferential tax breaks. We're not paying the true price of oil use. Carbon use is heavily subsidized by consumers and non-consumers alike.

What is the free market doing to address climate change? Nothing if it's not profitable right now. That's why China is eating our lunch with renewable energy technologies. Once fossil fuels get more expensive through increased extraction costs, they'll own most energy generation technologies.

 

[longview]

But oil companies don't pay all the costs. Taxpayers fund wars in the Middle East. People in fracking states have no potable water. Carbon discharged into the atmosphere affects us all. Big oil gets lots of preferential tax breaks. We're not paying the true price of oil use. Carbon use is heavily subsidized by consumers and non-consumers alike.

What is the free market doing to address climate change? Nothing if it's not profitable right now. That's why China is eating our lunch with renewable energy technologies. Once fossil fuels get more expensive through increased extraction costs, they'll own most energy generation technologies.

It doesn't matter about costs you imagine, what matters is the cost of goods sold on the balance sheet,
and those costs are increasing. As I said at some point the greater profits will be from the man made fuels.