Riposte to the Darla climate thread

Mott the Hoople said:
Tom that's because you're kicking a dead horse and that feeds into the hands of science deniers. You know as well as I do that "Global Warming" is a lay term not used by climatologist who use the term "anthropogenic climate change".

You also know as well as I do that though the scientific data is behind ACG is vast, compelling and has a large consensus of the scientific community supporting the conclusion that human activity is impacting climate. You would also, I assume, believe in Occums razor, that if we are wittnessing climatic changes that the fact that humans are annually dumping billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere that is pretty much common sense that there's a causal relationship there.

But by kicking the "Global Warming" dead horse you're feeding the ideology and scientific illiteracy of neophites and scientifically illiterates like Tinhat, SF, Nova and the other science deniers whose views are based upon political ideology and not objective evaluation of the scientific data.
Click to expand...

I don't deny that there is a link between CO2 and AGW, I have already said that on many occasions. However it has now pretty much been proved that a doubling in CO2 results in a 2 degree C rise at most. I really think the answer is to find ways to mitigate the CO2 levels by sequestration, I acn't help thinking that it would be far cheaper than spending hundreds of billions on windmills. As for Tinfoil, he is actually quite well read on the subject, the others well not so much.
 
Thing1 said:
You've started approximately a gazillion threads on AGW. I don't think I've seen one thread from you on big oil and it's much larger impact on our policy & our tax bill.
Click to expand...

So you don't think that Big Oil is hedging its bets and receiving subsidies for renewables?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
So you don't think that Big Oil is hedging its bets and receiving subsidies for renewables?
Click to expand...

I don't really care what their strategy is. I don't even think there should be lobbying on Capitol Hill. I don't think policy should be decided by whoever has the most free cash to spend.
 
Thing1 said:
"Warming", particularly in the short-term, is a moot argument with me. I'm not an AGW guy, or even a warming guy.

I'm a guy who realizes that fossil fuels are a finite resource, which we rely in way too heavily, and which pollute the planet relentlessly regardless of their effect on "warming." It's 2013, and we are a technologically advanced species. If not for the money spent by big oil, we would easily have viable alternatives for all of our energy needs that are renewable & that pollute minimally. And we're going to need that one day anyway, likely soon, and instead of making a reasonable, gradual transition, it will probably be crisis-mode when that day comes.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right if you factor in nuclear energy but I'm not sure you are for that either??
 
Thing1 said:
You've started approximately a gazillion threads on AGW. I don't think I've seen one thread from you on big oil and it's much larger impact on our policy & our tax bill.
Click to expand...

that's because you don't read the posts. i've said that AGW is used by crony capitalsist to get government subsidies on alternative energy products and make profitable all the "green" technology that would otherwise be too expensive to compete with more efficient and more portable energy. It's a scam to use government to get taxpayer funds into the hands of crony capitalists.

Just like the IRS agents, government scientists work towards an agenda.

James Hansen quit so he could persue his real agenda of being a climate alarmist and AGW advocate.

So, you are totally wrong, asshole. Take your strawman arguments and stick 'em up your ass
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Tom that's because you're kicking a dead horse and that feeds into the hands of science deniers. You know as well as I do that "Global Warming" is a lay term not used by climatologist who use the term "anthropogenic climate change".

You also know as well as I do that though the scientific data is behind ACG is vast, compelling and has a large consensus of the scientific community supporting the conclusion that human activity is impacting climate. You would also, I assume, believe in Occums razor, that if we are wittnessing climatic changes that the fact that humans are annually dumping billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere that is pretty much common sense that there's a causal relationship there.

But by kicking the "Global Warming" dead horse you're feeding the ideology and scientific illiteracy of neophites and scientifically illiterates like Tinhat, SF, Nova and the other science deniers whose views are based upon political ideology and not objective evaluation of the scientific data.
Click to expand...


1) you are an idiot
2) I support the move to cleaner energy
3) The data behind AGW or climate change is not vast. It is highly inaccurate. It is idiots like you who ignore the data that are the problem.
4) Saying 'humans impact the climate' is a like saying 'we breathe'... it is a 'no shit' comment. Everything interacts with nature and thus has an impact.
5) Stop pollution as much as possible... but quit making up bullshit claiming CO2 is a 'pollutant' and focusing on that. It is nonsense and given the steady rise in CO2 without subsequent rises in temps over the last 15 years... maybe, just maybe idiots like you will actually stop trotting along behind the fear mongers and wake up to what the data is actually saying. You claim you are a scientist, yet on every one of these threads you ignore the scientific method. You don't simply create a computer model, say 'Consensus' and then keep pointing to the computer models long after they have been proven wrong. You calling people science deniers should be quoted in the dictionary under the term 'ironic'
 
Superfreak said:
I agree with you in general, however it is the non-stop pretending that it is a 'big-oil' conspiracy to keep away alternatives. It is economic viability. The same as it was for shale oil or for nat gas that we could not previously get to. We should indeed continue investing in viable alternatives. Continue expanding R&D until we find a way to make them economically viable. Solar isn't too far off. The tech there is essentially where PC's were in the late 80's early 90's. Not sure what it will take to get them over that final hurdle to see a similar explosion in growth that the PC universe saw in the early to mid 90's... but I don't think we are too far off.

My opinion: Inject a requirement into the building code for all office/manufacturing etc... buildings to be 'off the grid' or at least maximizing the use of solar power within the next ten years. My guess is that can be worked into the rents of the buildings and in the end become a cash flow if the buildings are able to produce over 100% of needed power. A guess... and not necessarily true for every building (sky scrapers would not have that occur)

Transportation: Convert to nat gas. Invest now in the infrastructure to get pumps up and running throughout the country. We have the tech to convert. Nat gas burns far cleaner and it is a viable option today. While this may not be the ideal long term solution, it will certainly provide us with a step in the right direction and a good interim solution until something cleaner becomes viable.

Nuclear technology: Obviously no one wants a nuclear power plant in their back yards, but tech today allows us to build nuke plants in a far safer manner than we did in the 60's.

Just a couple of ideas... but of course we have to get over this blame game so many on the left want to play. Pretending it is 'man's fault' when computer models 'proving' that have failed is silly. Pretending that it is a big oil conspiracy is equally silly.
Click to expand...

We have LPG in many petrol stations now in the UK but the big problem is that the cars are more expensive and the tanks are bulky.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I don't deny that there is a link between CO2 and AGW, I have already said that on many occasions. However it has now pretty much been proved that a doubling in CO2 results in a 2 degree C rise at most. I really think the answer is to find ways to mitigate the CO2 levels by sequestration, I acn't help thinking that it would be far cheaper than spending hundreds of billions on windmills. As for Tinfoil, he is actually quite well read on the subject, the others well not so much.
Click to expand...


LOLers.
 
I want to know what the pompous greenies drive how often they fly and how big their house is!
Otherwise I'm calling faux outrage and fuck you and the shit science you diarrhea'd in with.
I scuba dive and am anti pollution, other than that keep your berkenstocks out my face.
 
Dungheap said:
LOLers.
Click to expand...

Most of the fantastic claims are predicated on there being a positive feedback mechanism which acts in tandem with CO2.

Very few people disagree with the basic fact that the greenhouse gas CO[SUB]2[/SUB] warms the climate, but without some kind of positive feedback mechanism, it doesn't add very much: around 1°C-1.2°C per doubling of CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. (See this discussion on no-feedback sensitivity). The global warming "crisis" emerged from a belief that small rises in CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentrations result in large knock-on effects, or strong positive feedbacks. These remain conjectural, as the forcings and feedbacks are poorly understood. Just how much of an effect does a rise in CO[SUB]2[/SUB] have - a little, or a lot? Hence the importance of new and better studies in the area of climate science dealing with "attribution".

Lewis finds that in recent years neither the global temperature nor ocean heat uptake have changed very much, while CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentrations have continued to rise. Therefore, the climate sensitivity must be lower.
Click to expand...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/22/climate_sensitivity_down_down/
 
Dungheap said:
Dude, the high end of the 90% confidence range of the primary study on which that article relies is higher than 2C. So the "at most" bit is really silly. Like, really really silly. Like, who you trying to kid silly.
Click to expand...

I know what silly is and I'm looking at it, you claiming to have won some massive debating point over .2 degree?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I know what silly is and I'm looking at it, you claiming to have won some massive debating point over .2 degree?
Click to expand...

Truth matters, Aox. Your statement is bullshit. I was simply pointing out that even the study most favorable to your statement doesn't support it. It's not that the top end of sensitivity models max out at 2.2. They don't. Rather, 2.2 is the lowest point of the top end range.
 
Dungheap said:
Truth matters, Aox. Your statement is bullshit. I was simply pointing out that even the study most favorable to your statement doesn't support it. It's not that the top end of sensitivity models max out at 2.2. They don't. Rather, 2.2 is the lowest point of the top end range.
Click to expand...
.
Lewis finds mode and median climate sensitivity of 1.6°C, with 90 per cent confidence in a range of 1.2°C to 2.2°C.
Click to expand...

The previous year NASA studies suggested 1.64°C for a doubling. Terje Berntsen at the University of Oslo has suggested only 1.2°C-2.9°C with 1.9°C as a mean. Another Bayesian analysis by Magne Aldrin [source - discussion] posited 1.2°C to 3.5°C at 90 per cent confidence.
Click to expand...
 
Thing1 said:
"Warming", particularly in the short-term, is a moot argument with me. I'm not an AGW guy, or even a warming guy.

I'm a guy who realizes that fossil fuels are a finite resource, which we rely in way too heavily, and which pollute the planet relentlessly regardless of their effect on "warming." It's 2013, and we are a technologically advanced species. If not for the money spent by big oil, we would easily have viable alternatives for all of our energy needs that are renewable & that pollute minimally. And we're going to need that one day anyway, likely soon, and instead of making a reasonable, gradual transition, it will probably be crisis-mode when that day comes.
Click to expand...

Well....if we would easily have viable alternatives for all of our energy needs that are renewable & that pollute minimally, by all means, let us in on it....

I didn't realize we could do that so "easily".....

Look Pinhead, man has been looking for alternate energy sources since he first walked upright, and when he comes up with one that is viable, we'll put it to good use...
you think it will come soon,....I think we're good for another 2000 years or more with the various forms we use today....
As the need becomes apparent, we'll adapt or discover something new....so YOU have no immediate need to lose sleep over any of it.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
.
Click to expand...

What's the 90 percent confidence range, again? Right. 2.2C, which is higher than 2. And that's the low point on the top end range, like I said.

Let's review your bullshit statement again: "However it has now pretty much been proved that a doubling in CO2 results in a 2 degree C rise at most." Unless "at most" means something different on your side of the pond than over here, your statement is unmitigated bullshit of the highest order and is not supported by the very sensitivity study you cite in support of it.
 
Dungheap said:
What's the 90 percent confidence range, again? Right. 2.2C, which is higher than 2. And that's the low point on the top end range, like I said.

Let's review your bullshit statement again: "However it has now pretty much been proved that a doubling in CO2 results in a 2 degree C rise at most." Unless "at most" means something different on your side of the pond than over here, your statement is unmitigated bullshit of the highest order and is not supported by the very sensitivity study you cite in support of it.
Click to expand...

The median is 1.6 C as you know very well, but as is your wont you are indulging in your usual game of nitpicking.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
We have LPG in many petrol stations now in the UK but the big problem is that the cars are more expensive and the tanks are bulky.
Click to expand...

The cars should not be more expensive, the kits for conversion are not that expensive. Not sure what tanks you are referring to... SUVs? or actual tanks? Cause if it is actual tanks... I am coming to London to drive one. :)
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
The median is 1.6 C as you know very well, but as is your wont you are indulging in your usual game of nitpicking.
Click to expand...


Median is different from "at most." That ain't nitpickery. I mean, to make your statement truthful you have to change it to "However, one recent study showed that the median tempeartue increase resulting from a doubling of CO2 is 1.6C." And that's completely different from "However it has now pretty much been proved that a doubling in CO2 results in a 2 degree C rise at most."

And we're not even beginning to talk about the long tail outside of the 90 and 95 percent confidence intervals, which we really should if we're talking the most severe impact of a doubling in CO2. You know, the "at most" temperature increase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top