Climate Change

[reason10]

17 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^MORE logical fallacies. The physical characteristics of water VAPOR are very different from CO2.

You are getting DUMBER by the minute.

GREENHOUSE GASSES.

WATER VAPOR NINETY SEVEN PERCENT.

If you are STUPID enough to try to say that Carbon Dioxide has a DIFFERENT characteristic from WATER, present some PROOF.

Or admit YOU ARE A LIAR WHO JUST TRIED TO MAKE THIS LIE UP.

HOW THE HELL CAN SOMETHING LESS THAN A PERCENTAGE POINT HAVE MORE OF AN EFFECT THAN SOMETHING THAT IS NINETY SEVEN PERCENT?

 

You are CLEARLY BLUE STATE STUPID.

[Nationalist]

9 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Given a choice between believing Deluge or the late Professor Hawking, I'll choose Hawking.

That being said, the transition off fossil fuels to nuclear power is a tremendous business opportunity. We would be fools not to go all in on it. 

Won't happen...unfortunately.

[Michael Hardner]

Put your hands up if you think that stating a scientific idea in all caps is helpful?

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Given a choice between believing Deluge or the late Professor Hawking, I'll choose Hawking.

 

I rather doubt that's the choice

Quote

That being said, the transition off fossil fuels to nuclear power is a tremendous business opportunity. We would be fools not to go all in on it. 

A point we can agree on. The tech is mature and still has lots of room to grow, it's clean and safe and efficient. If it were widely adopted we'd see costs come down further and it's a 100 year solution to buy us lots of time to explore even better sources of energy, perfect energy storage, etc etc.

But the environmental types will never go for it.  They've been hating on nuclear tech for a generation now and they still rail against it. We will still see some limited deployments but it's just not going to be embraced.

[Michael Hardner]

If anybody can cite anything in climate publications that contradicts the consensus, that has been published this century and is receiving support (cites) please do so.

The rest of you that are flailing about, writing in all caps, calling people names... you're not fooling anybody and you're only engaging people who have nothing better to do than poke at you.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

If anybody can cite anything in climate publications that contradicts the consensus, that has been published this century and is receiving support (cites) please do so.

 

Well one of the reasons concerns still persist is that scientists who have stated that man may not be the biggest contributor  have been attacked viciously in the science community and their evidence seriously repressed.  Remember when the head of panel researching this stuff got caught excluding and deleting the works of scientists who were in dissent back as far as the late 90's early 2000's?  I do

There were a number of very well respected scientists who came forward with legitimate issues with the 'man primarily' or carbon models and some who noted that there were solar cycles which appeared to be in play. I remember the one headline "idea that sun may be warming planet has some merit"   But - he got shot down and told to shut up, which he complained about but that just made it worse.

Additionally the models have proven wrong in the short term. Now if you look at the RESERCH rather than the headlines you see a LOT of them cast such a wide range of possible outcomes it goes from 'you wouldn't even notice' to 'the earth will become a melted ball of mostly iron".

I don't think there's any doubt man plays a significant role in global climate.  I also don't think that there's much dispute that it would be in our interests for MANY reasons to move forward as fast as reasonably possible to reduce and eliminate pollution and emmissions.   But the idea that this means canada should have a carbon tax is ludicrous. 

[robosmith]

33 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I'm not ignoring this. I see your panic and I see the results of your panic. World wide.

You Libbies talk a great game about "caring" for others. But the truth is...ya don't care at all unless it can be used as a club.

I care about reducing the long-term costs of climate change by taking reasonable steps NOW.

Even though I likely won't be around to pay the long-term costs, nor have children (like you) who incur them.

So, it is YOU who is selfish.

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO - so what happened, you heard about this term and you were SOOOO impressed with it you just decided to use it everywhere?

Sadly you THINK you know what the study said, but it turns out you got it wrong and you didn't know as much about dunning krueger as you thought you did.

Which is F^$^ HILARIOUS!!!

Nope. I use the term because it so applicable here. Esp to YOU cause you are the most ignorant. LMAO

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Nope. I use the term because it so applicable here. Esp to YOU cause you are the most ignorant. LMAO

Nope - you think it's applicable but you don't understand it.  I hope you can appreciate the irony there  

[robosmith]

32 minutes ago, reason10 said:

You are getting DUMBER by the minute.

GREENHOUSE GASSES.

WATER VAPOR NINETY SEVEN PERCENT.

If you are STUPID enough to try to say that Carbon Dioxide has a DIFFERENT characteristic from WATER, present some PROOF.

Or admit YOU ARE A LIAR WHO JUST TRIED TO MAKE THIS LIE UP.

HOW THE HELL CAN SOMETHING LESS THAN A PERCENTAGE POINT HAVE MORE OF AN EFFECT THAN SOMETHING THAT IS NINETY SEVEN PERCENT?

 

You are CLEARLY BLUE STATE STUPID.

 

Repeating your logical fallacies does not make them true nor relevant.

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Put your hands up if you think that stating a scientific idea in all caps is helpful?

I think it makes it harder to gloss over and IGNORE.

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But the idea that this means canada should have a carbon tax is ludicrous. 

Carbon tax is the MARKET SOLUTION. Mandates would likely be more effective, but possibly less efficient because they would not account for varying COSTS of compliance.

[reason10]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Repeating your logical fallacies does not make them true nor relevant.

I think it makes it harder to gloss over and IGNORE.

I have presented SCIENCE. You haven't simple as that. Human activity is NOT putting that much CO2 into the atmosphere.

http://iloveco2.com/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than/

The public has been led to believe that increased carbon dioxide from human activities is causing a greenhouse effect that is heating the planet. But carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035% of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas. Although it is widely blamed for greenhouse warming, it is not the only greenhouse gas, or even the most important. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas and accounts for at least 95% of any greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about 3%, with the remainder due to methane and several other gases.

Not only is carbon dioxide’s total greenhouse effect puny, mankind’s contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere comes from nature, not from man.
 

You have LOST this argument.

 

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nope - you think it's applicable but you don't understand it.  I hope you can appreciate the irony there  

Unlike you, I know what the Dunning-Krueger study revealed.

It revealed that typical amateurs believe they are more competent than EXPERTS in a field.

[reason10]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Carbon tax is the MARKET SOLUTION. Mandates would likely be more effective, but possibly less efficient because they would not account for varying COSTS of compliance.

Excuse me? A TAX is a market solution?

Are you the DUMBEST HUMAN OF ALL TIME?

Taxes are GOVERNMENT, you MOR0N .

And humans don't even put that much CO2 into the atmosphere.

http://iloveco2.com/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than/

The public has been led to believe that increased carbon dioxide from human activities is causing a greenhouse effect that is heating the planet. But carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035% of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas. Although it is widely blamed for greenhouse warming, it is not the only greenhouse gas, or even the most important. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas and accounts for at least 95% of any greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about 3%, with the remainder due to methane and several other gases.

Not only is carbon dioxide’s total greenhouse effect puny, mankind’s contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere comes from nature, not from man.

Like I said, you're BLUE STATE STUPID.

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, reason10 said:

I have presented SCIENCE. You haven't simple as that. Human activity is NOT putting that much CO2 into the atmosphere.

http://iloveco2.com/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than/

The public has been led to believe that increased carbon dioxide from human activities is causing a greenhouse effect that is heating the planet. But carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035% of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas. Although it is widely blamed for greenhouse warming, it is not the only greenhouse gas, or even the most important. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas and accounts for at least 95% of any greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about 3%, with the remainder due to methane and several other gases.

Not only is carbon dioxide’s total greenhouse effect puny, mankind’s contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere comes from nature, not from man.
 

You have LOST this argument.

 

Reposting another logical fallacy only proves that you don't understand the science.

Biological sources of CO2 are continuously RECYCLED which is WHY we see a SEASONAL ripple in the graph of atmospheric CO2 concentrations imposed on the continual upward trend from fossil fuel CO2 sources.

But go ahead and keep digging your Dunning-Kruger hole.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Unlike you, I know what the Dunning-Krueger study revealed.

 

no you don't,  You just THINK you're an expert   LOL - which is why it's so hilarious  

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Reposting another logical fallacy only proves that you don't understand the science.

Ummm - that wasn't a logical fallacy.  You might disagree with it but a logical fallacy isn't just an argument you disagree with .

You don't know what a fallacy is do you.

Quote

But go ahead and keep digging your Dunning-Kruger hole.

Says the person  who believes he's an 'expert' on dunning-kruger LOLOLOL

Honestly - even seinfield couldn't write stuff this good  

[SpankyMcFarland]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well one of the reasons concerns still persist is that scientists who have stated that man may not be the biggest contributor  have been attacked viciously in the science community and their evidence seriously repressed.  Remember when the head of panel researching this stuff got caught excluding and deleting the works of scientists who were in dissent back as far as the late 90's early 2000's?  I do

That’s more anecdote than strong evidence. Scientists viciously attacking each other means nothing in itself. They’re always doing that, mostly behind closed doors. Newton attacked Leibniz but they were both correct about calculus. 

Cite what you are talking about and show how it casts doubt on the theory of AGW. The experts on this topic nearly all seem to be on one side of this argument in their peer-reviewed scientific papers which tells me something. Unless compelling evidence emerges to the contrary, I’m going to stay with the consensus. 

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[Rebound]

44 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Won't happen...unfortunately.

It definitely won’t happen because nuclear power is a proven money-loser.  Toshiba lost over $1 billion on nuclear plants.  Besides that, I don’t think any Canadian or American regional governments can get enough local approval to permit one. 

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

That’s more anecdote than strong evidence. Scientists viciously attacking each other means nothing in itself. They’re always doing that, mostly behind closed doors. Newton attacked Leibniz but they were both correct about calculus. 

Cite what you are talking about and show how it casts doubt on the theory of AGW. The experts on this topic nearly all seem to be on one side of this argument in their peer-reviewed scientific papers which tells me something. Unless compelling evidence emerges to the contrary, I’m going to stay with the consensus. 

 

Oh you know, that story that circulated on the Internet? There was that meme about it? 

[Rebound]

13 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Excuse me? A TAX is a market solution?

Are you the DUMBEST HUMAN OF ALL TIME?

Taxes are GOVERNMENT, you MOR0N .

And humans don't even put that much CO2 into the atmosphere.

http://iloveco2.com/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than/

The public has been led to believe that increased carbon dioxide from human activities is causing a greenhouse effect that is heating the planet. But carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035% of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas. Although it is widely blamed for greenhouse warming, it is not the only greenhouse gas, or even the most important. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas and accounts for at least 95% of any greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about 3%, with the remainder due to methane and several other gases.

Not only is carbon dioxide’s total greenhouse effect puny, mankind’s contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere comes from nature, not from man.

None of the factors which you mention matter. It is irrelevant. 
 

Humans have evolved on a planet which has a specific balance. The problem we face is not that the atmosphere contains CO2. The problem we face is that the amount of atmospheric CO2 has been drastically increasing since the 1950’s, and we see measurable average temperature increases as a result.  
 

The Earth is 70% covered by oceans which act as a heat sink and are a massive insulator. As atmospheric temperatures rise, Antarctic glaciers melt, dropping ice into the ocean. This raises sea levels but also offsets the warming of the oceans. Unfortunately, at some point this insulator will raise in overall temperature and it won’t easily fall back down, even if we stop all carbon producing activity.

In the 70’s, we faced a similar crisis with CFC, but we didn’t face the opposition of the oil and coal companies. As a result, we halted CFC use and production nearly 100% worldwide. 
 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

That’s more anecdote than strong evidence.

 

It's strong evidence that other opinions were repressed.  And that casts doubt. And that's all you need to screw things up when you're talking about a subject like this.

There is strong evidence that scientists who didn't toe the line were repressed, discounted, and their work unfunded or defunded.

Which leaves a lot of people to conclude that there are alternate explinations for what's happening that we didn't get to hear about.

The conspiracies almost write themselves at that point   And there's enough truth there to give them real validity as possibles.

So it's not invalid for people to say that they feel the evidence of climate change has been heavily skewed and may not be the whole picture or even the actual consensus.  Is it? Isn't it? Do you know for sure? You can't - so how can we be sure? etc etc

There's a lot of that. Think of this - if the global warming people are correct, OR if the conspiracy types are correct - things would look EXACTLY as they do now either way.

One thing i know for sure is that carbon tax doesn't work and the gov't knows it.  So... given that, if the climate change data is SOOOO certain that horrific things will happen. why aren't teh gov'ts of the world taking it seriously? China isn't - the us isn't, trudeau isn't.  They do a bit of virtue signalling and that's it.  Sooo - if the data is so damning, why aren't they caring?

2 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The Earth is 70% covered by oceans which act as a heat sink and are a massive insulator.

The ocean is an insulator?

[Rebound]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's strong evidence that other opinions were repressed.  And that casts doubt. And that's all you need to screw things up when you're talking about a subject like this.

There is strong evidence that scientists who didn't toe the line were repressed, discounted, and their work unfunded or defunded.

Which leaves a lot of people to conclude that there are alternate explinations for what's happening that we didn't get to hear about.

The conspiracies almost write themselves at that point   And there's enough truth there to give them real validity as possibles.

So it's not invalid for people to say that they feel the evidence of climate change has been heavily skewed and may not be the whole picture or even the actual consensus.  Is it? Isn't it? Do you know for sure? You can't - so how can we be sure? etc etc

There's a lot of that. Think of this - if the global warming people are correct, OR if the conspiracy types are correct - things would look EXACTLY as they do now either way.

One thing i know for sure is that carbon tax doesn't work and the gov't knows it.  So... given that, if the climate change data is SOOOO certain that horrific things will happen. why aren't teh gov'ts of the world taking it seriously? China isn't - the us isn't, trudeau isn't.  They do a bit of virtue signalling and that's it.  Sooo - if the data is so damning, why aren't they caring?

If the global warming “people” are correct… we’d be facing the hottest summer on record. Which we are.  
 

We’d have unprecedented hurricanes, with higher frequency. Which we are.  
 

We’d have less overall Arctic Ice. Which we do. 
 

We’d have unprecedented forest fires… and we are.  
 

I’d be much happier if the scientists were wrong, but they aren’t. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

If the global warming “people” are correct… we’d be facing the hottest summer on record. Which we are.  
 

Nope, we'd have faced it several years ago and it would have been worse than now.

Quote

We’d have unprecedented hurricanes, with higher frequency. Which we are.  

Nope, sorry but there's nothing 'unprecedented' about the current hurricanes.  We have ALWAYS had periods of unusual weather.  And our records don't go that far back.  Is this year worse than, say, 1777?

 

Quote

We’d have less overall Arctic Ice. Which we do. 

We have more than they said we would. So something's wrong there.

 

Quote

We’d have unprecedented forest fires… and we are.  

Nope, there have been worse forest fires. We are having a bad season but once again - not predicted by any of their models.
 

Quote

I’d be much happier if the scientists were wrong, but they aren’t. 

Well they were. Period.  their models have not successfully predicted the outcomes we're having.  Hell  anyone can say the climate of the planet will get hotter or colder, it has for 4 billion years now.  If you claim to know the mechanics involved then you should be able to make accurate predictons, not just 'there will be storms' or 'there will  be warmer weather sometimes".

And they have failed. They cannot accurately predict how the weather will change precisely.

Which means we cannot even begin to be sure  they've got the right causes OR what would have to happen in order to correct the problem or even how severe the problem is.

That's just how science works. If the science is real it can make accurate predictions.  And so far the climate science hasn't been able to do that. So we know there's problems with the science. We just don't know what the problems are.

[robosmith]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

no you don't,  You just THINK you're an expert   LOL - which is why it's so hilarious  

You're laughing at yourself, cause you post NO EVIDENCE for ^these OPINIONS.

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

Which means we cannot even begin to be sure  they've got the right causes OR what would have to happen in order to correct the problem or even how severe the problem is.

 

The causes are known and the IPCC temperature predictions have been pretty accurate.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You IGNORING the problem will only MAKE IT WORSE by increasing the COST.

So the current level of cost and suffering is ok with you? Why how very presumptuous of you.