What Do You Think About Climate Change?

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
@aquaman, this is all true for real environmental problems. Man made climate change is not a real problem. Wasting precious resources on trying to solve that means less resources for real issues. Separating CO2 from power plant exhaust and piping it to underground storage caverns has to be the stupidest waste of money and resources ever devised.
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
Yeah, well, maybe we should start a thread on a more important environmental topic.

Is there a thread on Monsanto?
 

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA

zztr

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
295
a false dichotomy with the environment on one hand and the nebulous "economy" on the other.

Our way of life is totally and inextricably non-renewable. Nothing like the current global population could be sustained without fossil fuels and phosphates. It's not a false dichotomy at all. The choices at this point are basically massive global population reduction or massive decreases in standard of living. And yes, everyone would consider a return to farm hand labor a downgrade in living standard.

Environmentalists are selling a bill of goods when they try to present an ecologically sustainable future that is both prosperous and "green." The world we live in an oil powered machine, there are no viable substitutes for oil, and as oil declines we will be much poorer by any measure.
 

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA
Visualizing Government Arctic Sea Ice Fraud | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

From article responses:

"So NOAA specifically show ice records cherry picked from 1979 because ice extent was unusually high, but despite having previously published 70’s data they ignore the 1970’s when ice extent was lower, and then also ignore the 50’s and 40’s when they were even lower than the already low 1970’s. You just have to laugh otherwise you’d cry. Meanwhile the Guardian, UK MO, IPCC, NASA, NOAA and Uncle Tom Cobley and all claim this is legitimate ‘settled science’. Lol.

It’s so wilful it can only be a deliberate intention to mislead, there can be no other explanation for such blatant ignoring of earlier data simply because it f*cks their theory. On the back of this misdirection hangs Green Blob jobs paying suitably vast salaries, research grants worth millions and government policies worth $billions. RICO indeed. You can’t say there’s not dark humour in this level of world class criminality, it’s brilliant. Al Capone will be spinning in his grave with envy."
 

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA
"Tucker then asked Nye a simple question about climate science. He asked how much of the warming is caused by human activity. Nye’s entire ego depended on knowing whether human activity is contributing to climate change in a big way, a medium way, or a small way. Tucker wanted some details. How much difference do humans make? After all, Nye had said this was settled science. Tucker just wanted to know what that settled science said."

"Look for Nye to go totally mental in the last minute of the clip, changing the topic to political leaks for no apparent reason. That’s your tell. His brain just sort of broke right in front of you."

"Nye didn’t know. And by not knowing that simple answer about the percentage of human contribution to warming – the only issue that really mattered to the topic – he proved in public that his opinions on science are not based on facts or knowledge."

More at link:
Scott Adams' Blog

 

nikolabeacon

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
326
Best explanation how really humans can affect global weather is described by Victor Schauberger.
In chapter 9 .(Hydrological Cycle) in book Living Energies....it has everything to do with atmosphere and earth itself and its equlibrium and proper function ....Not the Sun.....see explanation

Because he explained in book that Sun is ''cold'' and electric in nature( cold fusion and cold electricity) and interaction of atmosphere and earth' crust and vegetation makesthe Sun rays a warm rays of life. There is a simple proof that when astronouts leave atmpsphere it is enormoudly cold in space regardless of sun' s rays ....or there is also other proof that more further you go towards atmposphere( or the higher the altitude) the colder it is...so sun' rays are electric in Nature( cold fusion in nature)...not warm as many believe

http://i-uv.com/the-sun-is-not-a-nuclear-furnace-raging-at-millions-of-degrees/


..And this is why atmosphere and earth itself are so precious to save from damage( and thus forests and full hydrological cycle...because those are the things that are making life possible out of Electric Sun' s rays

https://www.google.rs/url?sa=t&sour...ggYMAA&usg=AFQjCNHrLWzMx4WJOWKvQYTnR4r6a3B_ug

In history there are lot of examples of how humans with destruction and burning of forests or too much livestock and methane induced droughts followed with small ice ages, and extreme weather fluctuations and even volcanic eruptions....for example most famous is medieval little ace age in 1645-1715 ( or middle of 19 th century) by cutting incresdibly vast areas of forests for making ships and other things....but therr are lot older examples of this....for example why India is barren as Africa and so on....

Some quotes but best to read in full....

''
Unfortunately this alarming disturbance
of the natural cycles is already far advanced.
The increasingly chaotic weather patterns we
presently experience are merely the legitimate
consequence of an ever more disorderly and
fragmented distribution of water vapour. In
some areas there is an excessive concentration,
resulting in an over-accumulation of heat, a
sharp rise in temperature, massive downpours
and flooding, while in others there is virtually
no water vapour at all, producing both severe
drought conditions and premature, local cool-
ing. The combined effect of both these
processes is to provoke increasingly frequent
and violent storms as these two extremes of
temperature clash together in the process of
restoring Nature's equilibrium.

A further horrific consequence of the half
cycle is that there is no groundwater
recharge, the groundwater table sinks and
the supply of nutrients to the vegetation from
below ceases. This is what Viktor Schau-
berger called a 'biological short-circuit', for
apart from the rapid transfer of substanceless
then rises,
while the oxygen sinks. Worst of all, all
that was once water has effectively been
removed altogether. It has gone, and gone for
good.
This initiates a process, in which the atmos-
phere is first forced to get warmer due to the
overcharge of water vapour, but then, as the
water rises higher, it is dissociated and disap-
pears, and the atmosphere cools, because the
amount of heat-retaining water vapour has
diminished. What follows is a new ice age. All
this was elaborated in detail in Viktor Schau-
berger's writings some 60 years ago.

Clearly, the hitherto unrecognised differ-
ence between the half and full hydrological
cycles is extremely important. Only when
this has become known and generally
understood by the public at large and suffi-
cient economic and political pressure
applied, can appropriate remedial action be
taken to counter the inevitable outcome. It is
in our urgent interest to restore the full
hydrological cycle as quickly as possible, for
the full cycle means life and continuing exis-
tence, whereas the other signifies death and
extinction.
 

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872
How much climate science have you read? If you go to the center for industrial progress website, click on the podcast, and look at the list of guests (working scientists) that discuss this and related issues, that is a good start for reading the large amount of literature that fairly well smashes the larger amount of literature that reads like grade school in comparison.

You linked to some private website which offers for seminars and courses on how to persuade people (for $$$$$) rather than to actual journal articles.

And you are arguing on the basis of volume, which is dumb. Ten thousand crap articles on a certain subject don't carry as much weight as three good ones.

I point you to the same website, there are dozens of scientists that have been on that podcast alone that are working and publishing this controversial information. Some of them have lost their jobs, or been passed over for promotions, for what they believe are related political considerations.

publishing it where? in scientific journals or on websites that shill for the coal industry?

Now I have a question for you, did you come up with that list based on an exhaustive search of all of the skeptic literature and view point, finally reaching the conclusion that it's fairly surface-level, or did you just look at or hear a few things and decide you'd like to formulate your opinion without putting in the work?\h of all of the skeptic literature and view point, finally reaching the conclusion that it's fairly surface-level, or did you just look at or hear a few things and decide you'd like to formulate your opinion without putting in the work?

I'm yet to see any of the 'skeptic' arguments published in anything other than tabloid rags, conservative magazines and comments sections of news sites.
 

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872
Your digressions don't interest me, neither does any trotting out of your credentials or questioning of mine.

I'll take your answer as being no, these 'published' papers have not made their way into journals and exist solely on private websites, shall I?
 
Last edited:

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Your digressions don't interest me, neither does any trotting out of your credentials or questioning of mine.

I'll take your answer as being no, these 'published' papers have not made their way into journals and exist solely on private websites, shall I?
Well at least you are consistent in both your abilities to do your own research and your defense of the party line.
this took me 2 minutes to find
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#213159a24c7c
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,” Says Harvard Astrophysicist!
Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm
 

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Your digressions don't interest me, neither does any trotting out of your credentials or questioning of mine.

I'll take your answer as being no, these 'published' papers have not made their way into journals and exist solely on private websites, shall I?

My point is that if you haven't been exposed much to that world, you might hold some naive views about the honesty of the process for producing and publishing what you are arguing is the only "legitimate" scientific information on the subject. If you browse the list of guests on Alex Epstein's podcast "Power Hour," you will find a dozen or so legitimate academics who are or have been published in "real journals" during their career, who are exposing this field. Some of them are still working, some of them have been pushed out because of their unorthodox views and communications.

A simple thought experiment would show that your argument, transcribed 100, 200, 300 years ago etc., would make the earth not being the center of the universe, the earth being round, bacteria only coming from divisions of existing bacteria, hand washing during surgery reducing patient mortality, stomach ulcer being produced by H. Pylori, and countless other discoveries all illegitimate ideas because they weren't published in the main stream analogs of today's peer reviewed journals at the time of the inception of those ideas.
 

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872
My point is that if you haven't been exposed much to that world, you might hold some naive views about the honesty of the process for producing and publishing what you are arguing is the only "legitimate" scientific information on the subject. If you browse the list of guests on Alex Epstein's podcast "Power Hour," you will find a dozen or so legitimate academics who are or have been published in "real journals" during their career, who are exposing this field. Some of them are still working, some of them have been pushed out because of their unorthodox views and communications.

I don't really want to go digging through hours of podcasts in order to pluck references out of them. I'm sure they are mentioned else where, given the volume of 'skeptic' websites there out there. It's probably a given that you would peruse those sites more than I would so surely it couldn't be too hard for you to provide them?

Yes, journals engage in censorship. I've seen it. But I've also seen career-ending, controversial things get published and the authors didn't shy away from trying to disseminate their work in them.

A simple thought experiment would show that your argument, transcribed 100, 200, 300 years ago etc., would make the earth not being the center of the universe, the earth being round, bacteria only coming from divisions of existing bacteria, hand washing during surgery reducing patient mortality, stomach ulcer being produced by H. Pylori, and countless other discoveries all illegitimate ideas because they weren't published in the main stream analogs of today's peer reviewed journals at the time of the inception of those ideas.

Can you say with all seriousness that if people 100,200,300 years ago enjoyed a scientific culture that was free from interference from religious authorities and monarchs and had the sorts of journals we had, that those ideas would not have been published in them? And if scientists had been reluctant to submit their work to them without a good enough reason, would you have wondered why?

It's a strawman anyway. I didn't argue the only truths are the ones that exist in journals. The point I'm making that if somebody wants to avoid having their work scrutinised by people with the requisite understanding and knowledge of the technicalities of a certain field, then it says a lot about their confidence in the validity of their own ideas.What scientist doesn't want to convince their peers in order to advance their ideas in their given field? I don't think you believe that all claims should carry equal weight regardless of how and where they are published, otherwise you wouldn't bother having your own work published.
 

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872

Forbes is a scientific publication? lol

As for the other sites you posted, it's clear from reading titles of these publications (and about a dozen or so abstracts I read)that the authors of those papers are not of a 'skeptic' view. These articles are being interpreted by other people as supporting the skeptic position. It's these interpretations that are not being published for the most part, apart from on private blogs and websites.

The few titles I saw that do clearly argue from a skeptics point of view are in very obscure journals. Some are open access. All of these journals I saw had impact factors that were so low it probably wouldn't be too much of a challenge for me to get a paper on the 'moon landing as a hoax' past their peer-review process. Some of them have letters from other researchers that poke a lot of holes in their arguments. You shouldn't think they aren't being challenged.
 

schultz

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
2,653
If we can get the CO2 level to 1,000 PPM we would have a 50% increase in photosynthesis and a 5-10% reduction in growing time. More plant growth = more CO2 being taken up by plants. More CO2 means higher temperatures and plants can take up more CO2 as temperatures rise and plants can also tolerate higher temperatures when there is also an increase in CO2. Higher CO2 means healthier humans as well.

Maybe we should be planting a lot more trees on unused land? Everybody who is worried about CO2 should plant trees all over their entire property. "But then I won't have my pretty lawn that I need to mow every week with my gasoline powered lawn mower!!"

KIM GREENHOUSE: What does that mean?

RAY PEAT: That we don't have to worry about increasing the atmosphere because it’s stimulating life at all levels.

KIM GREENHOUSE: Can you tell that to the EPA because the EPA is acting as a police agency and an entire industry is created to decrease CO2?

RAY PEAT: Yeah. But if you think of CO2 as a life supporting, brain supporting thing...


Nailed it Ray!
 
Last edited:

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
I don't really want to go digging through hours of podcasts in order to pluck references out of them.

All you have to do is look at the name of the guest, which is in text on the podcast episodes description, and look up their material. Usually there is a description of that person's work history as well to help guide your search. Here is one that I already posted in this thread earlier, about the physics of heat trapping by CO2: Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect : Denis Rancourt : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Forbes is a scientific publication? lol

As for the other sites you posted, it's clear from reading titles of these publications (and about a dozen or so abstracts I read)that the authors of those papers are not of a 'skeptic' view. These articles are being interpreted by other people as supporting the skeptic position. It's these interpretations that are not being published for the most part, apart from on private blogs and websites.

The few titles I saw that do clearly argue from a skeptics point of view are in very obscure journals. Some are open access. All of these journals I saw had impact factors that were so low it probably wouldn't be too much of a challenge for me to get a paper on the 'moon landing as a hoax' past their peer-review process. Some of them have letters from other researchers that poke a lot of holes in their arguments. You shouldn't think they aren't being challenged.
more changing of the goal posts. You previously claimed that there were no peer reviewed journal articles challenging the man-made global warming fantasy. I gave you access to well over a thousand ones and the best you can do is outright lie about what they are saying. lol
 

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872
All you have to do is look at the name of the guest, which is in text on the podcast episodes description, and look up their material. Usually there is a description of that person's work history as well to help guide your search. Here is one that I already posted in this thread earlier, about the physics of heat trapping by CO2: Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect : Denis Rancourt : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Unless I'm not seeing something on the paper, it wasn't published in a journal. It's just been put on the internet. The peer-review it underwent consisted of an email exchange, which I can't access.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom