I am amused that you think you are doing well.
Dunning Kruger is a powerful effect.
Climate Change
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
Dunning Kruger is a powerful effect.
What an excellent example of your intellect and knowledge.
Sadly the author and you have no idea what science is about.
There is a bit of a crisis of science in some aspects of theoretical physics because aspects have gotten so far from evidence based conclusions that we can't tell if conclusions are based on reality or simply just a mathematical adjustment to get the data to fit but that has absolutely nothing to do with the solid science behind climate science. The only issues in climate science is what exact percent of climate change is due to the various greenhouse gases and how much we can prevent climactic change at a level catastrophic to our current society.
Oh, I know. You have a good grasp of science. You showed it, time and again, in the Covid threads.
There is no science to refute, just ramblings and stupid opinions about masks and crap that has nothing to do with the debate.
I know you think reading actual scientific studies is a waste of time when you can just read people's retweets but that's not how science works.
Science of climate change is subservient to politics. At any rate
climate science is of little to no use in finding solution to carbon
emission reduction. Common sense is what it takes to save Earth
from ecological crisis. The folly of the thinking of government and
corporate action being the solution has led climate activism
playing into the hands of the ruling and elite class. Looking into
the rear mirror in one to two decades will reveal that the issue of
climate change is a cover up of policies aimed for continuing economic
growth which translate to increasing fossil fuel demand and in turn
rising carbon emission. Climate policies are never about fighting
climate change for real.
climate science is of little to no use in finding solution to carbon
emission reduction. Common sense is what it takes to save Earth
from ecological crisis. The folly of the thinking of government and
corporate action being the solution has led climate activism
playing into the hands of the ruling and elite class. Looking into
the rear mirror in one to two decades will reveal that the issue of
climate change is a cover up of policies aimed for continuing economic
growth which translate to increasing fossil fuel demand and in turn
rising carbon emission. Climate policies are never about fighting
climate change for real.
No, the science is just the science.
Its just the oil&gas industry that tries to control politics.
Hey larue, we are talking the greenhouse effect and adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Answer again, is adding more CO2 to the atmosphere a chemical change or a physical change?
You say adding alcohol to blood levels is a chemical change.
You say adding taking an aspirin is a chemical change to blood.
As is arsenic.
So why do you think adding CO2 to the atmosphere isn't a chemical change?
I might have crossed path with more climate and atmospheric scientists
than anyone on this board. I too observed that none of them seemed to care
whether people believe in climate change or not. This is very much unlike
the religious I encountered. Christians even the non-evangelical ones take
pleasure in seeing people accept Christ as the lord knowing they are to
be saved. Climate scientists OTOH don't seem to worry about not bringing
more people to the attention of their scientific findings.
A chap I talked to recently who has a PhD in the field of climate modelling
confirmed to me the general consensus among climate scientists that is
the climate tipping point is to be breached unless global carbon emission
is halved in a decade.
I got to know him many years ago. Never did I notice from him
any hint of impending climate catastrophe. Amazingly he poked fun at
my remarks on the urgency of conservation of Earth's remaining fossil
fuel resources. He is a happy man living in a nice house and driving a gas
guzzler.
Anyway based on facts of climate science as related to us by the
likes of Greta Thunberg and judging from the climate action taken by
climate scientists I surmise that climate is indeed and will be changing
in the world as mimicked in climate modelling; And the process of change
will reach the point of no return within a decade absent the scenario of
rising carbon emission halted immediately today and halved by around
2030. Impact of climate change beyond the tipping point is in all likelihood
tame at least to those in the know--people like Dr Joseph Romm author
of the book telling what every one needs to know about climate change.
Just drive a hybrid car and buy an energy efficient house and life will be
cozy in your retirement years.
Climate science doesn't care whether you believe in climate change.
Our politicians do care. The more idiots buying into climate warning
the more liberal politicians are pleased. Climate sheeple are easier
to herd than climate skeptics.
Dr Romm had $1 billion in green energy products under his management
back in 1997. Solutions suggested in his climate change book might have
earned him a lot more money since then. The climate change issue has
enriched the lives and pocket books of many people. Just remember it is
the politics not the science that you should care more and reap the benefits.
govt subsidized & no benefit
co2 concentrations continue to increase
just more unsustainable govt debt
solutions ?
believing man-kind can alter our constantly evolving dynamic, non-linear chaotic climate system is delusional
the cost will be retarding the progress of scientific discovery and the public trust in science
unless irrational climate alarmism is checked, it will produce a lowering of living standards, billions pushed back into abject poverty , famine and a shift in global power to authoritarian regimes
there are no benefits to irrational , uncompromising climate alarmism
This is like playing chess with a pigeon, but...
"believing man-kind can alter our constantly evolving dynamic, non-linear chaotic climate system is delusional"
In your lifetime, you've seen smog days in Ontario peak, then reduce through both government policy and individual action. The same is true for L.A. You've also seen the Montreal Protocol work. Google the Plasticine Epoch. We are absolutely changing the earth and water on a global scale, and we are absolutely changing the atmosphere on a global scale. Why can't you understand that the experimentally-reproducible greenhouse effect of CO2 can happen on a global scale, when we can measure the increase in atmospheric CO2?
"unless irrational climate alarmism is checked, it will produce a lowering of living standards, billions pushed back into abject poverty , famine and a shift in global power to authoritarian regimes"
What do you think is happening now? What happens when the Colorado river system collapses? What happens when the equatorial regions expand and displace Africans and South Americans? Guess where those people are going to start walking? Coastal towns along the eastern seaboard are already disappearing. What happens when millions of Americans lose their property?
"there are no benefits to irrational , uncompromising climate alarmism."
33 years ago, you could go to a gas station, put lead in your tank, and spray particulate lead into neighborhoods. This absolutely lowered the IQ of the population. People who raised the alarm benefitted those around them. As did those who raised the alarm about the link between diesel particulates and lung cancer. If you can't see the benefit of clean air and water, reliable crop yields, stopping mass migrations, preventing war over dry land and fresh water, not lighting most of Alberta on fire every summer, being able to harvest fish for food, just to name a few, well then, I don't know what to tell you.
"believing man-kind can alter our constantly evolving dynamic, non-linear chaotic climate system is delusional"
In your lifetime, you've seen smog days in Ontario peak, then reduce through both government policy and individual action. The same is true for L.A. You've also seen the Montreal Protocol work. Google the Plasticine Epoch. We are absolutely changing the earth and water on a global scale, and we are absolutely changing the atmosphere on a global scale. Why can't you understand that the experimentally-reproducible greenhouse effect of CO2 can happen on a global scale, when we can measure the increase in atmospheric CO2?
"unless irrational climate alarmism is checked, it will produce a lowering of living standards, billions pushed back into abject poverty , famine and a shift in global power to authoritarian regimes"
What do you think is happening now? What happens when the Colorado river system collapses? What happens when the equatorial regions expand and displace Africans and South Americans? Guess where those people are going to start walking? Coastal towns along the eastern seaboard are already disappearing. What happens when millions of Americans lose their property?
"there are no benefits to irrational , uncompromising climate alarmism."
33 years ago, you could go to a gas station, put lead in your tank, and spray particulate lead into neighborhoods. This absolutely lowered the IQ of the population. People who raised the alarm benefitted those around them. As did those who raised the alarm about the link between diesel particulates and lung cancer. If you can't see the benefit of clean air and water, reliable crop yields, stopping mass migrations, preventing war over dry land and fresh water, not lighting most of Alberta on fire every summer, being able to harvest fish for food, just to name a few, well then, I don't know what to tell you.
Also worth mentioning acid rain and how listening to the scientists the government enacted legislation that forced polluters from emitting sulphur and causing acid rain.
We changed the climate, listened to the scientists and fixed the problem.
Same with the ozone hole.
If larue were alive during the Roman era he'd be wearing lead makeup and using it as a sweetener and calling everyone else kooks.
I can see the benefit of clean air and water etc associated with
reduction of fossil fuel burning. But can you point to me some
examples of climate alarmism leading to significant contribution
to global green house gas reduction? I can think of Norway as
a nation driven by climate change to go green but only if its exports
of 1.4 million barrels of oil per day and its venture into Arctic sea
oil drilling are not counted.
That's a straw man.
How does change happen without people talking about it? One man's climate alarmism is another man's call to action.
Two things can be true at the same time: Re-creating the global energy system is difficult and expensive. The cost of not doing it is higher.
However, one side of the discussion is funded by the largest corporations on earth, and the other side isn't. That's the reason a percentage of the population is willing to put their hands over their ears and eyes and ignore the changes they've seen in their living memory.
I'm down with Norway's plan: Socialize oil and gas, use it to build a war chest. When the war chest is self sustaining (i.e. interest from the fund exceeds expenditures), turn off the taps and pay your citizens to live lives of leisure, and/or fund projects around the world to lift others out of poverty.
Extracting, processing, and burning fossil fuel negatively affects the entirety of a population. Thus, that population should receive 100% of the benefit of said industry. Otherwise we are privatizing the benefits and socializing the harms.
And I know, that's a crazy socialist dream, which is why Alberta has the same fund, even if they don't like to talk about it.
Can you be more specific about what changes are ignored?
That percentage of the population is insignificant. Outside TERB climate
change is accepted by not only the general population but the world's largest
oil corporations including Norway's Equinor and most if not all of the major
multinational oil companies. Even Saudi Arabia has set its zero emission
target as did China and India. In the world of politics other than Trump
and his Republican supporters pretty much all politicians on either side of
left and right have their idea of climate policies although liberals tend to be
bolder and more ambitious with their emission reduction targets. At any
rate there is no sign of carbon emission going down under climate alarmist
Biden who has granted more approvals of oil drilling than climate denier Trump.
Climate alarmism does not not necessarily translate to green house gas
emission reduction.
Norway with its small population and abundance of renewable hydro
power reserve can eventually turn the oil tap off after they squeeze
oil fields in North Sea and Arctic Sea to the last drop without unduly
pain. Oil industries are also nationalized in countries like Saudi and
Venezuela. I can't see how nationalization will affect climate change
any differently from privatization. It is not like if our oil resources were
nationalized Steven Guilbeault and Jonathan Wilkinson would put an end
to oil drilling in the more ecologically fragile regions like the Flemish
Pass Basin 500 km offshore Newfoundland. Private and national oil
companies alike will continue drilling for oil until resources are fully
depleted.
Last edited:
