Jump to content

The Folly of Ignoring Climate Change


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Someone who can read and understand the science published by the CONSENSUS.

Someone who doesn't know that consensus is bought and sold.

Quote

 

So do fossil fuel industry dollars. I'm sure many of those on your list get those.

 

Fossil fuel bucks in foreign countries are used to lobby against fossil fuels here. Get it?

Our leftards think that foreign fossil fuels are like someone else's dessert - the calories/emissions don't count.

Quote

 

Tar sands oil from Canada is especially bad for the environment due to the amount of energy it takes to refine it.

 

How much energy does it take to build a supertanker and ship blood-oil all the way here from SA?

Quote

 

Do you really not understand that different oil has very different problems?

 

Do you really not understand anything?

Quote

How do you propose to get China to be responsible producers of power?

I didn't say that Canada should bring China to heel.

I commented on the logic behind sending Alberta coal to China to burn it because it's too dirty if you burn it here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Someone who doesn't know that consensus is bought and sold.

Funding research by the Federal government is NOT "bought and sold" just cause you CLAIM that.

 

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Fossil fuel bucks in foreign countries are used to lobby against fossil fuels here. Get it?

Plenty of foreign fossil fuel bucks ALSO lobby for fossil fuels HERE. Like Canada wants a pipeline to ship dirty tar sands to Texas for refining.

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Our leftards think that foreign fossil fuels are like someone else's dessert - the calories/emissions don't count.

I'm sure you're an expert on what leftists "think." NOT.

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

How much energy does it take to build a supertanker and ship blood-oil all the way here from SA?

Whose blood was used to produce SA oil?

 

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Do you really not understand anything?

I understand that you've FAILED to answer an inconvenient question. Proly cause you're SCARED.

 

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

I didn't say that Canada should bring China to heel.

I commented on the logic behind sending Alberta coal to China to burn it because it's too dirty if you burn it here. 

You believe Canada's government can and should stop that? AFAIC, they can leave it in the ground.

There is nothing wrong with a government promoting tech advancement instead of permitting externalized costs of POLLUTION.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Even assuming they're CLIMATE scientists who publish.  Not people with a degree in Science (or even in the Arts), weathermen, or others who call themselves climate scientists and never publish.

That's ripe.

So you automatically agree that "EVERY MEMBER OF THE NAMELESS, FACELESS MOB WHO FORMS PART OF THE MAGNIFICENT AND ILLUSTRIOUS CONSENSUS IS 100% LEGIT", but the people whose names are right there on that list are probably bogus.

I'll admit, there's no arguing with that 'logic' lol.

Quote

1. No, they weren't.  There was no published science that was supported by more than a handful saying we were headed to an ice age or somesuch.

Yes, they were scientists. You even said yourself that they were al least somewhat supported in ^that^ sentence. 

Why would you just directly lie like that? You know I can read English, right? 

Quote

2. I was surprised that the article, while challenging the 97% figure (which I have looked into myself) corrected it by saying that papers she included didn't accept OR reject.  So then THIS from your very link:

 

So ... they are saying STRONG consensus... 

There's a thing about going around saying "97%" when that's just actual bullshit.

All that they did to arrive at that number in the first place was search up all the people who used a very specific phrase in their papers. The legend grew from there. The legend originated from a lie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can sum up by paying attention to the fact that every leading physicist I am aware of, especially Professor Steven Hawking before he passed away, say we need to do everything possible to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions.  If you are a climate change denier, unless you are a better physicist than Professor Hawking, you don't know what you are talking about. If you disagree, let us know what your credentials are.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, robosmith said:

Funding research by the Federal government is NOT "bought and sold" just cause you CLAIM that.

I'll go by what the actual scientists say and just ignore your bullshit, thanks.

Quote

Plenty of foreign fossil fuel bucks ALSO lobby for fossil fuels HERE. Like Canada wants a pipeline to ship dirty tar sands to Texas for refining.

FYI the profit margin for Alberta oil is quite low. They can't compete for lobbyists. 

FYI there's a lot more to safe, reliable domestic oil production than just cost or cleanliness. It's the most important strategic resource on the planet. Letting your ability to produce oil atrophy could be a massive mistake.

Means sweet FA to you though, you think small all the time. 

Quote

I'm sure you're an expert on what leftists "think." NOT.

Leftists don't think at all, they're f-tards.

There ya go, I'm an expert. 

Quote

Whose blood was used to produce SA oil?

Guess ffs.

Quote

I understand that you've FAILED to answer an inconvenient question. Proly cause you're SCARED.

I opted not to answer a stupid question. Don't ask me why I chose that one from the multitude.

Quote

You believe Canada's government can and should stop that?

 

Stop what? Alberta mining coal? Burning it domestically? Selling it to China?

Quote

 

AFAIC, they can leave it in the ground.

 

Right. It's no skin of your nose, so why not just shut it all down? What could be a possible reason?

Quote

There is nothing wrong with a government promoting tech advancement instead of permitting externalized costs of POLLUTION.

There's something wrong with being stupid enough to think that a stupid plan is a good plan. Guess what that is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We can sum up by paying attention to the fact that every leading physicist I am aware of, especially Professor Steven Hawking before he passed away, say we need to do everything possible to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions.  If you are a climate change denier, unless you are a better physicist than Professor Hawking, you don't know what you are talking about. If you disagree, let us know what your credentials are.

He was ONE physicist. I just made a list of people who disagree with him which includes climatologists, meteorologists, astrophysicists (who study gases at a planetary level). 

Do we all just stop the planet and do whatever Professor Steven Hawking tells us to do? Can I at least read his will before I agree to that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It doesn't matter what doomsayers say, it matters what scientists say.  There was no accepted prediction of a coming ice age in the 70s... that's a falsehood and it cancels your arguments.

But there were predictions and the media did push it as science. The head of NASA GISS who later became a fanatic pusher of Warmageddon did the computer model for the coming ice age "science."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

He was ONE physicist. I just made a list of people who disagree with him which includes climatologists, meteorologists, astrophysicists (who study gases at a planetary level). 

Do we all just stop the planet and do whatever Professor Steven Hawking tells us to do? Can I at least read his will before I agree to that? 

We don't have to stop the planet. We have to change our source of energy. Why are you so resistant to transitioning to nuclear power. It is a win-win for western Canada. We should have been doing this 40 years ago when global warming was established as the threat it is. 

When you were in your physics and chemistry classes, you learned that one of the properties of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases, is that they inhibit the re-radiation of energy. If the level of these GHG's drops, the earth cools. If it rises, the earth warms. This process occurs naturally and the change in levels normally occurs over thousands of years. What happened to cause the current situation is the industrial revolution and the explosion of the human population which has increased the levels of GHG's are a far more rapid pace than the earth can accommodate. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed the chemistry of the oceans, reducing the organisms in the ocean that consume CO2. The earth has warmed enough to begin melting the permafrost which is now releasing methane stored over thousands of years. As a GHG, methane is far worse than CO2. We are nearing the point of no return, if we haven't already passed it. Did you sleep through your physics and chemistry classes? 

For Canada, the fight against climate change is an incredible economic opportunity. We should be exporting nuclear reactors and fuel around the world. Along with it, we need to export all the new EV, rail and marine technology that goes with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1. So you automatically agree that "EVERY MEMBER OF THE NAMELESS, FACELESS MOB WHO FORMS PART OF THE MAGNIFICENT AND ILLUSTRIOUS CONSENSUS IS 100% LEGIT",

2. but the people whose names are right there on that list are probably bogus.

3. Yes, they were scientists. You even said yourself that they were al least somewhat supported in ^that^ sentence. 

4. Why would you just directly lie like that? You know I can read English, right? 

5. There's a thing about going around saying "97%" when that's just actual bullshit.

 

1. Why do you think it's a nameless faceless mob ?  How about you tell me who is publishing Ice Age papers and I'll give you a paper on Climate Change ok ?
2. I'm answering out of experience.  There are even people with Bachelor of Arts degrees who go on TV calling themselves climate experts... bloggers etc.
3. I don't doubt that someone submitted a paper on ice age, a real climate scientist with a degree.  Compared to the number of cites and attention given climate change it's a fleck of dust.
4. Please calm down and try not to get so hysterical.  This is not an emotional issue for me, nor should it be for you.  Your own source supports that human caused climate change is widely supported by the science so...
5. The Oareskes (not sure the spelling) study included studies that "used" climate change.  The Forbes article says that some articles didn't say anything here or there about it... I would say it invites some dialogue - sure maybe not 97%.  But as YOUR OWN SOURCE says... is 80% that much worse ?  Note that they didn't find papers that oppose climate change, just that the support for it is not 100% clear as cited by Cook et al.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right... you are correct when you point to media hysteria and I won't argue that.

I mentioned how NASA GISS's James Hansen did the climate models for ice ageists. Depopulationist Paul Ehrlich and Barrack Obama's future science adviser, John Holdren were also on board with the bogus "coming ice age" prediction. 

2019-02-18060142_shadow-1024x741.jpg

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Can I get a cite for that ?

Tell you what, I'll give you both sides.

Here's the original claim in an old Washington Post article:

https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/flashback-hansens-climate-model-says.html

and here's Hansen on a Warmist blog denying there was anything to it on a warmist blog later on.

https://grist.org/article/swift-boating-james-hansen/

These parsing of language denials by Hansen are common when his predictions of catastrophe are proven false by time.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Tell you what, I'll give you both sides.

Here's the original claim in an old Washington Post article:

https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/flashback-hansens-climate-model-says.html

 

It says " a NASA scientist using a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen" predicted an ice age would occur within 50-60 years."  So... this is deceptive at best: "James Hansen did the climate models for ice ageists. "

Moving on... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why do you think it's a nameless faceless mob ?  

Because it's "the mystical, unnamed 97%".

Quote

2. I'm answering out of experience.  There are even people with Bachelor of Arts degrees who go on TV calling themselves climate experts... bloggers etc.

97%ers.

Quote

3. I don't doubt that someone submitted a paper on ice age, a real climate scientist with a degree.  Compared to the number of cites and attention given climate change it's a fleck of dust.

The number of people who freaked out when the violent criminal known as Michael "Gentle Giant" Brown was shot for trying to steal a cop's gun was mysteriously high. 

The number of people who think that the BLM riots were "mostly peaceful" and that Jan 6th "was a dangerous act of treason which will be remembered alongside Pearl Harbour and 9/11" is pretty high.

The number of people who say "covid vaccine" and "Santa Claus" is just as high as the number of people who say "MANMADE CWIMUT CHANGE Q796QSn.gif". Almost identical ?

The number of people who believe something matters less and less to me all the time. 

Quote

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I'll go by what the actual scientists say and just ignore your bullshit, thanks.

Funny that you believe ^this is not JUST YOUR BULLSHIT.

"Actual scientists" say a lot of different things, but YOUR LIST of DENIERS is VERY SHORT.

And probably not even CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

48 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

FYI the profit margin for Alberta oil is quite low. They can't compete for lobbyists. 

Someone is paying a LOT to promote that pipeline.

48 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

FYI there's a lot more to safe, reliable domestic oil production than just cost or cleanliness. It's the most important strategic resource on the planet. Letting your ability to produce oil atrophy could be a massive mistake.

Not producing the dirtiest oil does not let production "atrophy." 

48 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Means sweet FA to you though, you think small all the time. 

Leftists don't think at all, they're f-tards.

Thanks for your stupid and IGNORANT OPINION. NOT.

48 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There ya go, I'm an expert. 

Far from it. Just a BIG MOUTH.

48 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Guess ffs.

I opted not to answer a stupid question. Don't ask me why I chose that one from the multitude.

You're just SCARED.

48 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Stop what? Alberta mining coal? Burning it domestically? Selling it to China?

Selling to China, of course.

48 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Right. It's no skin of your nose, so why not just shut it all down? What could be a possible reason?

There's something wrong with being stupid enough to think that a stupid plan is a good plan. Guess what that is...

You believing tech progress is stupid just means that you're stupid. Or working in the industry and using it to pad your pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

It says " a NASA scientist using a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen" predicted an ice age would occur within 50-60 years."  So... this is deceptive at best: "James Hansen did the climate models for ice ageists. "

Moving on... 

How does a NASA scientist stack up against Prof. Hawking? 

What should I be freaking out about - global warming or an ice age? 

FREEZINGQ796QSn.gif HEAT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You do know that there are mechanisms in the WTO that can block sales of patent infringing products, don't you?

Part II — Standards concerning the availability, scope and use of Intellectual Property Rights

CHINA.

Do you believe that China does not engage in industrial espionage on a massive scale?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We don't have to stop the planet. We have to change our source of energy. Why are you so resistant to transitioning to nuclear power. It is a win-win for western Canada. We should have been doing this 40 years ago when global warming was established as the threat it is. 

When you were in your physics and chemistry classes, you learned that one of the properties of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases, is that they inhibit the re-radiation of energy. If the level of these GHG's drops, the earth cools. If it rises, the earth warms. This process occurs naturally and the change in levels normally occurs over thousands of years. What happened to cause the current situation is the industrial revolution and the explosion of the human population which has increased the levels of GHG's are a far more rapid pace than the earth can accommodate. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed the chemistry of the oceans, reducing the organisms in the ocean that consume CO2. The earth has warmed enough to begin melting the permafrost which is now releasing methane stored over thousands of years. As a GHG, methane is far worse than CO2. We are nearing the point of no return, if we haven't already passed it. Did you sleep through your physics and chemistry classes? 

For Canada, the fight against climate change is an incredible economic opportunity. We should be exporting nuclear reactors and fuel around the world. Along with it, we need to export all the new EV, rail and marine technology that goes with it.

Great post, but you give WCM far too much credit when you claim he learned ANYTHING in physics and chemistry classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Because it's "the mystical, unnamed 97%".

2. The number of people who freaked out when the violent criminal known as Michael "Gentle Giant" Brown was shot for trying to steal a cop's gun was mysteriously high.  The number of people who think that the BLM riots were "mostly peaceful" and that Jan 6th "was a dangerous act of treason which will be remembered alongside Pearl Harbour and 9/11" is pretty high. The number of people who say "covid vaccine" and "Santa Claus" is just as high as the number of people who say "MANMADE CWIMUT CHANGE Q796QSn.gif". Almost identical ?

3. The number of people who believe something matters less and less to me all the time. 

 

1. Lots of them are named.  Start with Michael Mann and thousands of cites to his 1998 paper.  
2. Unrelated, kitchen sink stuff... please try to focus.
3. Because you and your ilk are failing to convince people of conspiracy theories.  As the internet matures, people are starting to realize that there are so many trolls telling us that we shouldn't believe our eyes that we should ignore them (ie. you).  Science means something.  The cover of OMNI magazine or some other tripe does not.

Again - try not to get upset reading this.  Just give some facts.  You provided a real new magazine - Forbes - as evidence but seem to be ignoring what they themselves said about STRONG consensus.  So be it.

This was a good conversation, I hope you learned something.  Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It says " a NASA scientist using a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen" predicted an ice age would occur within 50-60 years."  So... this is deceptive at best: "James Hansen did the climate models for ice ageists. "

Moving on... 

Moving on? Hardly.

You could also use the other article where they say this:

Quote

a NASA scientist using a “computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen” predicted an ice age would occur within 50-60 years. According to Hansen’s computer model, “they found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere.”

That's also true. OK it's more "James Hansen did the climate model used by Ice Ageists to support their theory" but basically, Potayto, Potahto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Popular Now

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,764
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    robretpeter42
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...