Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I love the "extinction event" BS. You see? You are doing the Armageddon thingy.
Your ignorance does not change the meaning of words. There are six extinction level events in earths history that is fact it is not Armageddon let alone an "Armageddon thingy". Please read a book.
Quote:
You would never even think to look for the positives in AGW. Why? Because envirofascists are essentially haters that want to: stop, halt, conserve, block, obstruct, and destroy material human progress. The essential motivation behind all this: Envy.
Why would anyone listen to anything you say? You are wildly uniformed and willfully ignorant. If you want to discuss positives of anthropogenic climate change (which is the correct term btw) that take a little bit of time to actually learn some science instead of make up terms like "armaggedon thingy"
Quote:
But I'm calling you out.
You couldn't call me out with a megaphone.
Quote:
I don't care about sea level rise. That will provide opportunity to rebuild our aging seaboard cities inland, creating new jobs for generations. I don't care if the climate gets warmer. New areas of the northern Plains, southern Canada, and even Alaska and Siberia will become more conducive to agriculture. Net gain for food production. Will some species perish? Of course, that's natural, correct, and expected. All species eventually perish, including us. But while we are here, we need to be free. That comes before the environment.
Who carse what you care about? The above paragraph is an example of why basic scientific literacy is so important. Most of the areas you talk about are permafrost. You seem to imagine they will thaw out and make farmland. They won't. Seriously. Even ten minutes on Wikipedia will show you the typical depth of soil in these areas is can't, and in the area of significant depth, the lack of microbes means the organic content is low, and much of it innundated with methane.
And the natural, and expected also has a term, it is called the background rate of extinction and it is calculable.
Want to be free, you are free to go swim in the Passaic, why don't you do that?
Quote:
So figure out a way to make this thing work for us.
I am supposed to take advice from a guy who has the nerve to criticize my career for taking welfare payments when he opens doors, and talks about open concept for a living?
Quote:
Because guess what? Envirofascists are out of the picture now, at least domestically. You are going to be on the sidelines for the next 8 years. Keystone is coming. NDPL is coming. American energy independence is coming. Fossil fuel production and expansion is coming. All of this is coming. And you can't stop it. And you won't stop it. And you shouldn't stop it. And you aren't going to stop it. So figure out a way to make it a positive. Get on board with progress. There have to be positives to all this, so DISCOVER THEM.
You think fossil fuel dependence equate to energy independence? Do you even know what the words you use mean? Wait why do I ask questions I already know the answer too.
You don't get it, the majority of Americans don't agree with you, you don't get to decide any of the above. You're not in charge. And even your guy is only there for a tiny fraction of time. But maybe go back to showing houses and let the women get back to the science.
They will do and say ANYTHING to get MORE FED MONEY.
Do you know how the agencies get the money for their "programs"?
The will "create" programs just to get the money.
I worked for the fed in different agencies and they are all the same.
"show me the money"
Exactly, and this practice has seeped into the state-run science community. "Publish or perish" dictates that armageddonism is the only way to assure definite grant money for the next term. So armageddonism is what we get.
Climate scientists are basically welfare recipients, and when they see that the money is going to stop, they realize that it is time to pre-heat the oven, go into the scientific refrigerator and pull out the pyrex dishes with the leftover "facts", and cook up new forms of armageddonism and "right now" panic points.
This is what happens when Big Government creates Big Science. Which is another reason to get rid of Big Government and ignore Big Science.
I feel pretty good about Trump doing something like that over the next 8 years.
You're both so right on this. If you read the New York Times, a liberal "newspaper" you see stories all the time about coastlines about to get submerged, glaciers and ice fields melting, droughts and/or floods in California. Parenthetically both of those are causred by global warming, apparently so global warming is not provable or disprovable. That makes it religion, not science.
In a New York Times issue in the last couple of days, there was extensive coverage of a major threat to Mexico City's viability. Mexico City and suburbs have 21 million people so this could be serious. See Crisis in Mexico - Culprit, Climate Change; Evidence - None (please comment on that thread). In this article, Mexico City, Parched and Sinking, Faces a Water Crisis,Mexico City is said to be dying of thirst as a result of climate change. Yet the article makes not a single reference to any untoward changes in Mexico City weather. And I'd expect records to go back a long time there.
While I am sure there is a real threat to Mexico City's population it's not from climate change. It's from a population boom to an unsustainable level. The climate change aficionados are nothing a bunch of politicians basking in media approval can do.
I love the "extinction event" BS. You see? You are doing the Armageddon thingy. You would never even think to look for the positives in AGW. Why? Because envirofascists are essentially haters that want to: stop, halt, conserve, block, obstruct, and destroy material human progress. The essential motivation behind all this: Envy.
But I'm calling you out. I don't care about sea level rise. That will provide opportunity to rebuild our aging seaboard cities inland, creating new jobs for generations. I don't care if the climate gets warmer. New areas of the northern Plains, southern Canada, and even Alaska and Siberia will become more conducive to agriculture. Net gain for food production. Will some species perish? Of course, that's natural, correct, and expected. All species eventually perish, including us. But while we are here, we need to be free. That comes before the environment.
So figure out a way to make this thing work for us. Because guess what? Envirofascists are out of the picture now, at least domestically. You are going to be on the sidelines for the next 8 years. Keystone is coming. NDPL is coming. American energy independence is coming. Fossil fuel production and expansion is coming. All of this is coming. And you can't stop it. And you won't stop it. And you shouldn't stop it. And you aren't going to stop it. So figure out a way to make it a positive. Get on board with progress. There have to be positives to all this, so DISCOVER THEM.
Your ignorance does not change the meaning of words. There are six extinction level events in earths history that is fact it is not Armageddon let alone an "Armageddon thingy". Please read a book.
Why would anyone listen to anything you say? You are wildly uniformed and willfully ignorant. If you want to discuss positives of anthropogenic climate change (which is the correct term btw) that take a little bit of time to actually learn some science instead of make up terms like "armaggedon thingy"
You couldn't call me out with a megaphone.
Who carse what you care about? The above paragraph is an example of why basic scientific literacy is so important. Most of the areas you talk about are permafrost. You seem to imagine they will thaw out and make farmland. They won't. Seriously. Even ten minutes on Wikipedia will show you the typical depth of soil in these areas is can't, and in the area of significant depth, the lack of microbes means the organic content is low, and much of it innundated with methane.
And the natural, and expected also has a term, it is called the background rate of extinction and it is calculable.
Want to be free, you are free to go swim in the Passaic, why don't you do that?
I am supposed to take advice from a guy who has the nerve to criticize my career for taking welfare payments when he opens doors, and talks about open concept for a living?
You think fossil fuel dependence equate to energy independence? Do you even know what the words you use mean? Wait why do I ask questions I already know the answer too.
You don't get it, the majority of Americans don't agree with you, you don't get to decide any of the above. You're not in charge. And even your guy is only there for a tiny fraction of time. But maybe go back to showing houses and let the women get back to the science.
Sorry dear, the Northern Plains and southern Canada are permafrost? I didn't notice that when I drove through. Maybe because they're not. Want to try again?
No agriculture in the permafrost, that's impossible right? You said that right?
And this is just one guy. We CAN FIGURE OUT agricultural possibilities for the permafrost. We're smart enough.
And yes, fossil fuel dependence ABSOLUTELY equals energy independence in today's world. We need to pump, dig, and frack and USE IT ALL UP. In about 75 years or so, it will start to run out. And get expensive. Then more expensive. Until solar, nuclear, wind, wave, geothermal, what-have-you is cheaper than fossil fuels. Then, and only then, we can transition to these other modalities. But until then, we will be energy independent from Islamic oil and Russian oil. And that's a good thing.
Finally, dear, and embarrassingly, you pull out the appeal to consensus, lecturing me on what "most Americans" think. As if that has any logical weight.
I think you should post more carefully. If you keep getting schooled by a lowly real estate agent you are not going to be able to include these posts in your curriculum vitae. And God forbid a waitress decides to weigh in...
Last edited by Marc Paolella; 02-25-2017 at 02:48 PM..
By the way, in that last post I mentioned nuclear power in the alternative list. One big problem has always been the waste. But now, as we move into an era where we will have cost effective space travel and private companies launching rockets on a regular basis and at lower cost, perhaps nuclear waste can be jettisoned out of orbit and into space. Lots of technological hurdles I am sure such as containment in the event of a crash or explosion, but I am sure these problems can be overcome. Something to consider.
Bull manure. Nice dodge attempt though, which is typical when posters like you make statements they cant back up.
Your claim that scientists are in the tank for global warming isnt by any means obvious. What IS obvious is that the Earth is warming, and that humans are pumping chemicals into the air that are known warming agents.
Actually, the release of the emails from ClimateGate made it crystal clear that many of the top climate scientists (including Herr HockeySchtick himself, Dr. Michael Mann, Phill Jones and Keith Briffa who incidentally investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong) driving this nonsense scare were colluding and conspiring to misrepresent the truth (LIE) with their "hide the decline" comment referencing a "trick" they used to ALTER (cover up actual data) the actual measured decline with the models used as well as MANY other breathtaking revelations about how they MANIPULATED the science to fit their agenda.
Source: ClimateGate: The Fix is In | RealClearPolitics
Add to it Dr James Hanson, an utterly rebuked and discredited climate scientist and now full time global warming advocate, formerly of NASA (where over 50 climate scientists and former astronauts demanded of their administrator that his fraudulent work not be released under NASA's official name or on its official website due to the harm it would create for NASA) was caught spreading his fraudulent data. Hanson's work took actual measured and well, here's a quote from an article in the Daily UK:
Quote:
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.
I've noticed that most of the people who believe in anthropological global warming know next to nothing about data. When you ask them why they believe in AGW they almost always just say "because 97% of scientists believe we are warming the planet". Putting aside that this 97% figure is a lie that traveled around the world (actually 2/3 of "scientists" of all kinds of different backgrounds have no opinion), saying "because scientists say so" is not data. It's a logical fallacy (fundamental attribution error).
And when you confront believers in AGW about the Vostok / Greenland ice core data they say "Huh?" Never heard of it.
Or if you ask them what they think of the Danish Meteorilogical Institute that demonstrated a direct correlation between sun spots and earth temperature, they've never heard of that either.
Or if you confront them about the short, cherry picked time period that AGW supporters use to create their "hockey stick", they have no answer. They usually just get defensive.
Good points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
You missed the memo declaring that AGW is now climate change since AGW has been disproven.
Yeah, there's always that.
As the evidence shows, if the average global temperature increases another 10.4°F, the only thing that can be demonstrated is that it is as warm as it was in the previous Inter-Glacial Period.
It really does not matter if AGW is true or false. Freedom and liberty are more important than AGW, even if it means the planet will cease to exist. The old line used to be better dead than Red. That line holds true today also. We should react to the climate by moving cities inland and utilizing all fossil fuels until they run out and are rendered economically infeasible. We should not knuckle under to environmental taxes that redistribute wealth from the first world to the third world to influence their behavior.
Adjust to the new climate, do not try to control it. We are smart enough to do that. And we also have to investigate the possibility that a warmer climate will HELP the planet with new biodiversity, newly available arable lands to produce food for higher populations, and many other positive factors. Rising oceans might provide excellent new opportunities.
I nominate this post for Most Batshit Crazy City Data Post of 2017.
I nominate this post for Most Batshit Crazy City Data Post of 2017.
Anyone want to second my nomination?
I will second that...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
