Climate Change

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Were you part of the Dunning-Krueger study which proved that amateurs irrationally believe they are more knowledgeable than EXPERTS?

Believing that SCIENCE is a charade indicates you were. ?

^The song of the ignorant luddite. LMAO

I've seen your "experts" in action. Your "science" as well.

I think I'll pass on them.

[robosmith]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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

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?

 

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

 

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

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.

Not having perfect models does NOT negate the physics of GHG warming, nor CO2 being the MAIN contributor due to the HUGE GIGA-TONS per year VOLUME.

[Rebound]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

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

America and Canada should be building solar and wind farms as fast as possible.  Yes, of course we will still burn petroleum for decades to come, but we will reduce the amount of petroleum we burn. And that means we won’t be held hostage by Arab Sheiks ever again. Which means less, and hopefully no, Mideast wars. It’s all good. Oil companies should transition their businesses to solar and wind; and add those offerings to their portfolios. 
 

Will we stop using gas? No.  We’ll just use less. 

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

I've seen your "experts" in action. Your "science" as well.

I think I'll pass on them.

Really? What have you "seen" from CLIMATOLOGISTS, that leads you to believe that fossil fuel GHG are NOT warming the planet?

Or are you just happy it MIGHT give Canada more prime farmland? LMAO

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

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.

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

Lol...you care about mob mentality and hating Trump.!

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

America and Canada should be building solar and wind farms as fast as possible.  Yes, of course we will still burn petroleum for decades to come, but we will reduce the amount of petroleum we burn. And that means we won’t be held hostage by Arab Sheiks ever again. Which means less, and hopefully no, Mideast wars. It’s all good. Oil companies should transition their businesses to solar and wind; and add those offerings to their portfolios. 
 

Will we stop using gas? No.  We’ll just use less. 

Now this is at least semi-rational.

Yet...both of our nations have more than enough fossil resources for ourselves and then some. Just get Joe and Pixie-Dust the hell outta the way.

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Really? What have you "seen" from CLIMATOLOGISTS, that leads you to believe that fossil fuel GHG are NOT warming the planet?

Or are you just happy it MIGHT give Canada more prime farmland? LMAO

Lol...go home Sally.

[Nationalist]

13 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

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

@Michael Hardner how about you Mike? Willing to impose on all so you can feel good?

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, robosmith said:

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

ROFLMAO - YOU posted the evidence kiddo    

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

America and Canada should be building solar and wind farms as fast as possible.  Yes, of course we will still burn petroleum for decades to come, but we will reduce the amount of petroleum we burn. And that means we won’t be held hostage by Arab Sheiks ever again. Which means less, and hopefully no, Mideast wars. It’s all good. Oil companies should transition their businesses to solar and wind; and add those offerings to their portfolios. 
 

Will we stop using gas? No.  We’ll just use less. 

Sure. Makes good sense.  And we should be putting cash into developing energy storage, which would make wind and solar a billion times more useful.

But instead we got a carbon tax.

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

Oh no, smoking does cause cancer and sugar is actually linked to diabetes. 

What isn't real is Climate Change.

Based on what? All three cases are an overwhelming-- nearly unanimous --consensus of scientists in their respective fields telling you about things you can't see and that you aren't capable of investigating on your own. 

So, rationally, why do you believe just 2 of 3? Are you flipping a coin?

[SpankyMcFarland]

 

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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

Science produces explanations to explain the evidence collected and then tests those hypotheses. Even in labs such evidence is never perfect. On an ongoing global problem like climate change the observational data will always be flawed. If we wait until we are much more confident about this, how much damage could be done in the meantime? Let’s bear in mind that if things go really sideways and positive feedback loops kick in, we don’t have another planet to fly off to. Thus it seems prudent to pay attention to the imperfect evidence gathered so far given the risks involved in ignoring it. 

 

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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?

Is that a rhetorical question? At the best of times, all governments are ponderous beasts responding to a myriad of priorities. Change is extremely difficult. Look at the problems JT has in doing anything on this file in Canada. China’s leader can focus a great deal of national energy on his glorious place in history. Why would he care about something as trivial as the welfare of the world? 

[reason10]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

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. 
 

WRONG ALL AROUND.

I present facts. You don't.

During the ICE AGE there was MORE CO2 than today. During the time of the Dinosaurs, there was MORE CO2 than today.

We account for less than a percentage point of all GREENHOUSE GASSES. TERMITES CREATE MORE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 THAN HUMANS. So human activity is not influencing ANYTHING.

The CFC bullshit was based on junk science from people who wanted to patent a new coolant, since the patents on Freon lapse.

The whole OZONE HOAX was a big NOTHING.

Oh, and it wasn't in the 70s. Back then the idi0ts were worried about global cooling.

The ozone LIE came about around 1990.

[herbie]

5 minutes ago, reason10 said:

The CFC bullshit was based on junk science from people who wanted to patent a new coolant, since the patents on Freon lapse.

The patents lapsed so the CFC molecules simply disappeared, it's your newly discovered atomic binding of Enterprise Force Theory!

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Based on what? All three cases are an overwhelming-- nearly unanimous --consensus of scientists in their respective fields telling you about things you can't see and that you aren't capable of investigating on your own. 

So, rationally, why do you believe just 2 of 3? Are you flipping a coin?

If I may...

I remember "nearly unanimous" scientific consensus that The Rona came from anywhere but the Wuhan lab. That the vaxx was safe. That gain of function was not gain of function.

So much for "science".

[herbie]

Here's one you can run with. A headline I saw this morning:

Opinion: Earth is about to reach its farthest point from the sun. So why is it so hot?

apparently the tilt of the Earth and more land mass in the Northern Hemisphere are mere 'opinions'.

[robosmith]

44 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...you care about mob mentality and hating Trump.!

Nothing "mob mentality" about acknowledging how despicable Trump is.

Of course, that requires FACING reality, unlike the MAGA CULT who still believe that pathological LIAR.

43 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...go home Sally.

So, you got BUPKIS, as USUAL. You really should stop posting your gratuitous EMPTY claims.

[robosmith]

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO - YOU posted the evidence kiddo    

I posted NOTHING which corroborates your OPINION. Stop LYING.

30 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Based on what? All three cases are an overwhelming-- nearly unanimous --consensus of scientists in their respective fields telling you about things you can't see and that you aren't capable of investigating on your own. 

So, rationally, why do you believe just 2 of 3? Are you flipping a coin?

He doesn't believe anything; just parroting what he heard on FOS LIES. AKA, Just TROLLING.

[robosmith]

20 minutes ago, reason10 said:

WRONG ALL AROUND.

I present facts. You don't.

During the ICE AGE there was MORE CO2 than today. During the time of the Dinosaurs, there was MORE CO2 than today.

We account for less than a percentage point of all GREENHOUSE GASSES. TERMITES CREATE MORE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 THAN HUMANS. So human activity is not influencing ANYTHING.

The CFC bullshit was based on junk science from people who wanted to patent a new coolant, since the patents on Freon lapse.

The whole OZONE HOAX was a big NOTHING.

Oh, and it wasn't in the 70s. Back then the idi0ts were worried about global cooling.

The ozone LIE came about around 1990.

Your gish gallop of BULLSHIT contains ONLY OPINIONS and logical fallacies without ANY EVIDENCE.

[SpankyMcFarland]

There’s an entire field of science, paleoclimatology, devoted to estimating global temperatures before thermometers were used. The results show that, of course, climate has always varied but that something dramatically different has happened over the last few centuries. 
 

Quote

Although there are differences between various large-scale temperature reconstructions, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 2,000 years. Most clearly, these reconstructions show a rapid global warming over approximately the past 150 years that is unprecedented in both rate and spatial coherence over at least the last 2000 years. 

https://repolitics.com/forums/topic/45327-climate-change/page/7/#comment-1615264

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

If I may...

I remember "nearly unanimous" scientific consensus that The Rona came from anywhere but the Wuhan lab. That the vaxx was safe. That gain of function was not gain of function.

So much for "science".

So much for ^your SPECULATION that you've proven the "scientific consensus" wrong.

Your suggestion proves NOTHING.

[Hodad]

25 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

If I may...

I remember "nearly unanimous" scientific consensus that The Rona came from anywhere but the Wuhan lab. That the vaxx was safe. That gain of function was not gain of function.

So much for "science".

Again, you discount actual science in favor of internet rumors and speculation. How does this seem like a reasonable way to conduct your life, simply disregarding all expertise?

 

[herbie]

If I may:

The Rona is a flag indicating any further text should be taken as utter gibberish.

[Nationalist]

20 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Again, you discount actual science in favor of internet rumors and speculation. How does this seem like a reasonable way to conduct your life, simply disregarding all expertise?

 

Rumors? It's no rumor that the first Rona case was a Wuhan lab worker ON the covid gain of function project.

The vaxx has been found to anything but safe.

And I watched that bastion of "science" Fauci say the gain of function work his agency funded, was not gain of function.

So ya...so much for "science".

BTW...why won't a "scientist" like Peter Hotez.com, debate a mere politician like RFK?

Edited July 6, 2023 by Nationalist

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Rumors? It's no rumor that the first Rona case was a Wuhan lab worker ON the covid gain of function project.

The vaxx has been found to anything but safe.

And I watched that bastion of "science" say the gain of function work his agency funded, was not gain of function.

So ya...so much for "science".

BTW...why won't a "scientist" like Peter Hotels.com, debate a mere politician like RFK?

IF ^these weren't just "Internet rumors" you could provide a cite from a legitimate source instead of just posting your OPNIONS. ?

Edited July 6, 2023 by robosmith

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

IF ^these weren't just "Internet rumors" you could provide a cite from a legitimate source instead of just posting your OPNIONS. ?

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

America and Canada should be building solar and wind farms as fast as possible.  Yes, of course we will still burn petroleum for decades to come, but we will reduce the amount of petroleum we burn. And that means we won’t be held hostage by Arab Sheiks ever again. Which means less, and hopefully no, Mideast wars. It’s all good. Oil companies should transition their businesses to solar and wind; and add those offerings to their portfolios. 
 

Will we stop using gas? No.  We’ll just use less. 

The main components for green energy tech all come from China, and they have the lion's share of all the rare earth elements used to make batteries. Soon Afghanistan will be in their hot little hands as well. 

If the current green tech is the future, the future is China.