I'm opposed to giving billions to foreign countries for bad reasons. Being concerned about the planet does not require giving billions, per the Paris pact.
I'm opposed to giving billions to foreign countries for bad reasons. Being concerned about the planet does not require giving billions, per the Paris pact.
1.)
Hockey stick data that is fake
2.)
Don't believe lies
Trump wins
John 3:16
Romans 10:9
Engineer wrote:
Way Better Engineer wrote:Well, the names of the folks who contribute to the serious study of this topic at NASA and IPCC are not exactly top secret. Feel free to question them directly.
Be sure to check back in here and let us know how your conversations went.
Should I point out they need to remove to 10000 degree temperature measurements in the data sets?
Feel free to point out anything you wish. Now, do be sure to check back in here after you have had your conversations to let us know how they went.
Do humans have an impact on climate-without a doubt.
Is it directly related to the levels of Carbon Dioxide--quite possibly.
Are the atmosphere and ocean systems among the most complex in creation?-Absolutely
Can global average temperatures over many decades be correlated to atmospheric CO2 levels-It has not yet been demonstrated.
Are the effects of climate change universally negative? No
Absent nuclear power, can current global energy usage be transformed to carbon free sources in the next 50 years.-Unlikely.
Since we have only so much mojo--I'd propose that spending several trillion dollars would save more lives if it were used to develop clean drinking water supplies for everyone on earth. This is a measurable and attainable goal. Decarbonizing energy is neither obtainable-nor is the benefit measurable. Tens of thousands of people die every day from water borne diseases. That is a problem that can be fixed.
Forever, despots have attempted to convince the masses that the simple is complex, and that the complex is simple. There are lots of reasons to not burn coal like a maniac--I'm not convinced climate change is one of them. I'd rather spend the money that inexpensive energy provides on environmental problems that are real, and far cheaper to fix than in decarbonizing energy for a nebulous goal.
As a young engineer, I was a big supporter of nuclear energy. After a quarter century of working with human beings--I'm not sure the disposal will ever be safe. Dispersed CO2 in the atmosphere is less dangerous than high level radioactive waste sitting in hundreds of water pools spread throughout a country too afraid and ignorant to dispose of it in a non-temporary manner.
Nope.... wrote:
I'm opposed to giving billions to foreign countries for bad reasons. Being concerned about the planet does not require giving billions, per the Paris pact.
Cool story, bro. Once you get the Fox stick that is shoved up your @ss out, I think you'll reconsider this carefully crafted junk you consume without thinking.
its_baddude wrote:
Well, according to the data you just posted there is a 5% chance that there is no global warming.
It is that simple. People are not dumb and are not wrong. There is a 5% chance of no global warming.
In 100 years, if it was all a hoax, some people will say it was all a hoax and the scientists were way off. People like you will say: well there is a 5% chance that is was wrong, the scientists were not wrong.
By the way there are way more than 3 possibilities. You suffer from the same issues you criticize the "ones that know better than the scientists". You make up a simple explanation of a complex problem to explain it to yourself.
There is absolutely no difference between
"Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1"
and
"Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3"
Fat hurts wrote:The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeGiven that fact, there are three possibilities:
1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.
2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.
3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"
Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.
5% or 95%... which side should I pick? Hmmm.....
wejo wrote:
I was alerted to this thread because the OP called and wanted it restored and it seems like a reasonable thread to be up.
I think the real issue with climate change is no one has an honest debate about it or discuss the nuances of it, but that's not what you're really asking.
theold geezer wrote:I see so many posts on Letsrun from Trumpsters /Republicans who believe that climate change is a hoax, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary
I think your question only addresses part of climate change. I see three main points for discussion:
1) How much is the earth warming?
2) How much is man causing the warming?
3) Should we/can we do anything to stop #1 and what should it be?
Your statement only addresses #1 and #2.
I think the bigger question is #3, but to answer that you need some agreement on #1 and #2.
But in terms of people being "vehemently opposed to the notion of global climate change" I don't think there are a lot of people like that. Much of the US used to be covered by glaciers right? so pretty much anyone would say the climate is changing. Climate change isn't really the issue, it's really how much should man do to keep the climate as is or even at some point in the last couple of decades? I think if it was free to keep the climate as it, you wouldn't have any debate.
Now sometimes instead of debating #1, #2, #3, climate change is presented as an imminent global catastrophe that is coming with no nuance so when it's presented as a black or white issue some of these Trump supporters as you call them just sort of fall into, "hey you can't prove #1 or #2" . Some may not care what the science is as it becomes an emotional debate of us vs them and it's presented as there are only 2 sides to this issue.
Wejo, why was this thread ever taken down? And by whom? Shouldn't you be looking at your moderators, and their worthiness?
Shouldn't there be a moderator czar, Jonathan Gault, who moderates the moderators? The message board is what pilots this ship. Renegade moderators are worse than renegade posters.
Ke7 wrote:
I'm a Trump supporter and I am not "vehemently opposed to the notion of climate change". The problem is people like you who have no idea what they are talking about.
For starters,
1) Being a Trump supporter does not mean you are opposed to the notion of climate change.
2) In my experience, very few people reject the idea that the climate is changing. It has been changing for a long time. The issue is whether or not humans are significantly affecting it.
3) There is no overwhelming scientific evidence. The evidence is mostly statistical from what I've seen.
4) The number of researchers that support the notion of man-made climate change is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. Democracy is based on popular opinion. The truth is not. Something is either true or it isn't.
5) The notion of man-made climate change needs more actual scientific support instead of statistical and democratic support.
#3 the scientific community 100% disagrees with you. Look I get it, some people don't care about climate change and don't want their money going towards addressing it. Fine. But let's stop disagreeing with facts and the scientific community. Just admit that you're selfish and don't care about the planet instead of saying humans aren't contributing to it.
Let's also make sure we have a representative debate on this instead of this back and forth, pretending like there are two sides. Scientists are 97-3 on it so we should be too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsgThat was an elegant wordy dodge Wejo that right leaning educated southern GOP do when they do not want to piss of people on the left who want to make steps to address global warming; at the same time that wordy nonsense won't overly piss off the loyal opposition to address global warming.
Why do you want to study why more storms are roaring of the western coast of Africa heading east? Many or most of the storms brewing off the western coast of Africa fade away before the western hemisphere. Some storms make it here. More powerful storms are making it to the US. Forget how the storms are getting here, climatologists and meteorologists state they are coming. Texan politicians and too many Texans decided to dismiss this analysis. Storm walls on the coast would have helped and will help going forward. Storm levies updated would have helped and will help going forward.
Solution and prevention will change life as is known in Texas. Texans will have to incur state income tax to pay for the modern updates. The debate is over Wejo!
MS in Engineering wrote:
Do humans have an impact on climate-without a doubt.
Is it directly related to the levels of Carbon Dioxide--quite possibly.
Are the atmosphere and ocean systems among the most complex in creation?-Absolutely
Can global average temperatures over many decades be correlated to atmospheric CO2 levels-It has not yet been demonstrated.
Are the effects of climate change universally negative? No
Absent nuclear power, can current global energy usage be transformed to carbon free sources in the next 50 years.-Unlikely.
Since we have only so much mojo--I'd propose that spending several trillion dollars would save more lives if it were used to develop clean drinking water supplies for everyone on earth. This is a measurable and attainable goal. Decarbonizing energy is neither obtainable-nor is the benefit measurable. Tens of thousands of people die every day from water borne diseases. That is a problem that can be fixed.
Forever, despots have attempted to convince the masses that the simple is complex, and that the complex is simple. There are lots of reasons to not burn coal like a maniac--I'm not convinced climate change is one of them. I'd rather spend the money that inexpensive energy provides on environmental problems that are real, and far cheaper to fix than in decarbonizing energy for a nebulous goal.
As a young engineer, I was a big supporter of nuclear energy. After a quarter century of working with human beings--I'm not sure the disposal will ever be safe. Dispersed CO2 in the atmosphere is less dangerous than high level radioactive waste sitting in hundreds of water pools spread throughout a country too afraid and ignorant to dispose of it in a non-temporary manner.
Good thing you know better than the folks at NASA and IPCC.
Oh wait, I almost missed it - you have an MS in Engineering! Oooh, most impressive. I guess that totally trumps the thousands of folks studying this thing - heck they probably never even graduated from high school.
////////////////////////
Honestly folks, it is absolutely hilarious how so many come on here and appear to actually believe that they have all the answers.
"Hey, I've got an engineering degree. And I've spent a good 15 minutes thinking about this thing. No way these NASA clowns have ever considered all this good stuff that my brilliance has shed on this topic!"
The ONLY person who really knows his shit here on LRC on the topic of climate change is Citizen Runner.
Ke7 wrote:
I'm a Trump supporter and I am not "vehemently opposed to the notion of climate change". The problem is people like you who have no idea what they are talking about.
For starters,
1) Being a Trump supporter does not mean you are opposed to the notion of climate change.
2) In my experience, very few people reject the idea that the climate is changing. It has been changing for a long time. The issue is whether or not humans are significantly affecting it.
3) There is no overwhelming scientific evidence. The evidence is mostly statistical from what I've seen.
4) The number of researchers that support the notion of man-made climate change is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. Democracy is based on popular opinion. The truth is not. Something is either true or it isn't.
5) The notion of man-made climate change needs more actual scientific support instead of statistical and democratic support.
"The evidence is mostly statistical..."
This may be the stupidest statement I have ever heard... Please never vote.
Why are they so vehemently opposed? Simple, really. Group-think and they don't want to admit they're wrong and will only slowly shift their position on this issue so that they never have to.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
A disciplined, educated mind is eager to throw away bad ideas and wrong assumptions, but a weak mind has never been taught the right lessons.
Hats 2 B Shed wrote:
MS in Engineering wrote:Do humans have an impact on climate-without a doubt.
Is it directly related to the levels of Carbon Dioxide--quite possibly.
Are the atmosphere and ocean systems among the most complex in creation?-Absolutely
Can global average temperatures over many decades be correlated to atmospheric CO2 levels-It has not yet been demonstrated.
Are the effects of climate change universally negative? No
Absent nuclear power, can current global energy usage be transformed to carbon free sources in the next 50 years.-Unlikely.
Since we have only so much mojo--I'd propose that spending several trillion dollars would save more lives if it were used to develop clean drinking water supplies for everyone on earth. This is a measurable and attainable goal. Decarbonizing energy is neither obtainable-nor is the benefit measurable. Tens of thousands of people die every day from water borne diseases. That is a problem that can be fixed.
Forever, despots have attempted to convince the masses that the simple is complex, and that the complex is simple. There are lots of reasons to not burn coal like a maniac--I'm not convinced climate change is one of them. I'd rather spend the money that inexpensive energy provides on environmental problems that are real, and far cheaper to fix than in decarbonizing energy for a nebulous goal.
As a young engineer, I was a big supporter of nuclear energy. After a quarter century of working with human beings--I'm not sure the disposal will ever be safe. Dispersed CO2 in the atmosphere is less dangerous than high level radioactive waste sitting in hundreds of water pools spread throughout a country too afraid and ignorant to dispose of it in a non-temporary manner.
Good thing you know better than the folks at NASA and IPCC.
Oh wait, I almost missed it - you have an MS in Engineering! Oooh, most impressive. I guess that totally trumps the thousands of folks studying this thing - heck they probably never even graduated from high school.
////////////////////////
Honestly folks, it is absolutely hilarious how so many come on here and appear to actually believe that they have all the answers.
"Hey, I've got an engineering degree. And I've spent a good 15 minutes thinking about this thing. No way these NASA clowns have ever considered all this good stuff that my brilliance has shed on this topic!"
The ONLY person who really knows his shit here on LRC on the topic of climate change is Citizen Runner.
What exactly did "MS in Engineering" post that NASA or the IPCC would disagree with?
HardLoper wrote:
Hats 2 B Shed wrote:Good thing you know better than the folks at NASA and IPCC.
Oh wait, I almost missed it - you have an MS in Engineering! Oooh, most impressive. I guess that totally trumps the thousands of folks studying this thing - heck they probably never even graduated from high school.
////////////////////////
Honestly folks, it is absolutely hilarious how so many come on here and appear to actually believe that they have all the answers.
"Hey, I've got an engineering degree. And I've spent a good 15 minutes thinking about this thing. No way these NASA clowns have ever considered all this good stuff that my brilliance has shed on this topic!"
The ONLY person who really knows his shit here on LRC on the topic of climate change is Citizen Runner.
What exactly did "MS in Engineering" post that NASA or the IPCC would disagree with?
"Do humans have an impact on climate-without a doubt." - Agreed
"Is it directly related to the levels of Carbon Dioxide--quite possibly." - No, the answer is a definitive "Yes"
"Are the atmosphere and ocean systems among the most complex in creation?-Absolutely" - This is gratuitous mush thrown in there for no other reason than to claim, without quite daring to say it directly, that "Oh, but these systems are so complex, who knows what's really going on?" Except that yeah, we do know what's going on.
"Can global average temperatures over many decades be correlated to atmospheric CO2 levels-It has not yet been demonstrated." - Absolutely False.
"Are the effects of climate change universally negative? No" - More gratuitous mush. Nobody ever said they were. So, your classic straw man.
////////////////////////
So, 5 Q&As. 1 correct, 2 incorrect, 2 gratuitous mush included simply to confuse the issue.
Fat hurts wrote:
The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeGiven that fact, there are three possibilities:
1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.
2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.
3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"
Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.
#4) whatever can be said by to cast doubt in the science, formulated by anyone with a lot to lose by the global economy devaluing carbon-based energy
MS in Engineering wrote:
Do humans have an impact on climate-without a doubt.
Is it directly related to the levels of Carbon Dioxide--quite possibly.
Are the atmosphere and ocean systems among the most complex in creation?-Absolutely
Can global average temperatures over many decades be correlated to atmospheric CO2 levels-It has not yet been demonstrated.
Are the effects of climate change universally negative? No
Absent nuclear power, can current global energy usage be transformed to carbon free sources in the next 50 years.-Unlikely.
Since we have only so much mojo--I'd propose that spending several trillion dollars would save more lives if it were used to develop clean drinking water supplies for everyone on earth. This is a measurable and attainable goal. Decarbonizing energy is neither obtainable-nor is the benefit measurable. Tens of thousands of people die every day from water borne diseases. That is a problem that can be fixed.
Forever, despots have attempted to convince the masses that the simple is complex, and that the complex is simple. There are lots of reasons to not burn coal like a maniac--I'm not convinced climate change is one of them. I'd rather spend the money that inexpensive energy provides on environmental problems that are real, and far cheaper to fix than in decarbonizing energy for a nebulous goal.
As a young engineer, I was a big supporter of nuclear energy. After a quarter century of working with human beings--I'm not sure the disposal will ever be safe. Dispersed CO2 in the atmosphere is less dangerous than high level radioactive waste sitting in hundreds of water pools spread throughout a country too afraid and ignorant to dispose of it in a non-temporary manner.
Everyone needs to put all this Climate Change hysteria in perspective and calm the F down.
100,000 years ago much of the Earth was covered in miles thick glaciers. Was this ideal? No. Do we know what caused it in the first place? No. Then significant melt occurred...
10,000 years ago (which is not a long time in the grand scheme of things), the northern US was still covered in glaciers 1-2 miles thick. Was this ideal? No. Do we know what caused it in the first place? No. The melt continued...
5,000 years ago, the northern portion of Canada was still covered in these thick glaciers. Was this ideal? We don't know. Do we know what caused it in the first place? No. The melt continued...
150 years ago was the industrial revolution.
And we blame the melting glaciers on that.
Hahahahaha
At what point should the glacial melt have stopped? What reason would anyone have to believe it would stop at that point? What is the optimal temperature for the planet? Why is that the baseline? What are we shooting for?
Without a rational goal to shoot for, we're really just wasting our time and being used as political pawns.
There has been no peer reviewed study that demonstrates a past temperature correlation to increased CO2 levels with any reasonable statistical reliability. If you disagree--enlighten us. There have been a considerable number of such studies that have attempted this.The equations that model 3 dimensional turbulent flow--Navier Stokes--are unsolvable. Numerical techniques exist to approximate these solutions-but they are numerical techniques used to bridge the discontinuites in the solutions of the equations. The numerical technique most commonly used is to make the fluids more viscous in the model--and--then back it out. Increased viscosity--increase friction--what does friction mean--that's right more heat......... I use these techniques to model single phase air flows in tunnels--and they are only approximations in my very controlled and limited environment. Extrapolating them on a global scale--over many decades--and including the effects of varying humidity and heat transfer from both the sun and the ocean is beyond the ken of current human understanding. Crude approximation is the term I would use in a tunnel ventilation system. Wild ass guess is the term I would use on an atmospheric level. 95% of atmospheric scientists agree (and I with them) that CO2 impacts the climate. Assuming that 95% agree that carbon taxes, and windmills are the solution to the problem is projection. Assuming that 95% agree that it is a problem that threatens the planet is also projection.You've made ad hominem attacks on my credentials-and then used an appeal to authority technique to the International Panel on Climate Change. Would anyone expect a panel with such a name to be an unbiased judge of science? Just out of curiousity, what's your educational and professional background? My suggestion--take a couple semesters of Diffy Q--and then maybe you can solve Navier Stokes and win the Nobel Prize and save the planet. My money's on an engineer to save the planet, not you.
Hats 2 B Shed wrote:
HardLoper wrote:What exactly did "MS in Engineering" post that NASA or the IPCC would disagree with?
"Do humans have an impact on climate-without a doubt." - Agreed
"Is it directly related to the levels of Carbon Dioxide--quite possibly." - No, the answer is a definitive "Yes"
"Are the atmosphere and ocean systems among the most complex in creation?-Absolutely" - This is gratuitous mush thrown in there for no other reason than to claim, without quite daring to say it directly, that "Oh, but these systems are so complex, who knows what's really going on?" Except that yeah, we do know what's going on.
"Can global average temperatures over many decades be correlated to atmospheric CO2 levels-It has not yet been demonstrated." - Absolutely False.
"Are the effects of climate change universally negative? No" - More gratuitous mush. Nobody ever said they were. So, your classic straw man.
////////////////////////
So, 5 Q&As. 1 correct, 2 incorrect, 2 gratuitous mush included simply to confuse the issue.
MS in Engineering wrote:
There has been no peer reviewed study that demonstrates a past temperature correlation to increased CO2 levels with any reasonable statistical reliability. If you disagree--enlighten us.
That is "you opinion." "You" think it is not reliable. Learn to think before you post, MS.
PhD in Engineering wrote:
MS in Engineering wrote:There has been no peer reviewed study that demonstrates a past temperature correlation to increased CO2 levels with any reasonable statistical reliability. If you disagree--enlighten us.
That is "you opinion." "You" think it is not reliable. Learn to think before you post, MS.
I have got some time sitting here while taking a break from engineering stuff. Which peer reviewed paper should I start with?