SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Climate Change. You buying it?
Page 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Climate Change. You buying it? Login/Join 
186,000 miles per second.
It's the law.




posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by nhtagmember:
The single largest driver of weather on this planet, and hence the global climate is the sun

you know, that bright thing in the sky

if you want to control the weather, you're gonna have to learn to control the sun

good luck with that

as for the 'Yes climate change has always occured. The difference this time is how quickly it is happening. The speed of the current change is unprecedented.'

you need to provide a legitimate source for this because I call bullshit, and just about everything that has come out of a non-biased non-agenda driven source says there is almost immeasurable changes, some barely at the detection limits of currently used monitoring stations.


Feel free to disregard science. I don't care what people want to believe. Facts are facts. We simply disagree. I have no problem with that.

The bottom line will be how our capitalist system adapts. The insurance industry is already planning for it, as is our military, as I said. Again, why is Greenland all of a sudden of interest, and why is China (who plays the long game) very interested in buying land in north Iceland?

https://news.stanford.edu/news...ge-speed-080113.html

https://www.insurancejournal.c...019/06/13/529201.htm
 
Posts: 2342 | Registered: August 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
Stanford University? Leftist City, man. Do you have another source? I wouldn't trust Stanford to forecast the weekend weather.
 
Posts: 88080 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
186,000 miles per second.
It's the law.




posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
Stanford University? Leftist City, man. Do you have another source? I wouldn't trust Stanford to forecast the weekend weather.


I will work on a few more sources.
 
Posts: 2342 | Registered: August 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
And that article is six years old
 
Posts: 88080 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
186,000 miles per second.
It's the law.




posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
And that article is six years old


I will work on some more current sources.
 
Posts: 2342 | Registered: August 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by FishOn:
quote:
Originally posted by nhtagmember:
The single largest driver of weather on this planet, and hence the global climate is the sun

you know, that bright thing in the sky

if you want to control the weather, you're gonna have to learn to control the sun

good luck with that

as for the 'Yes climate change has always occured. The difference this time is how quickly it is happening. The speed of the current change is unprecedented.'

you need to provide a legitimate source for this because I call bullshit, and just about everything that has come out of a non-biased non-agenda driven source says there is almost immeasurable changes, some barely at the detection limits of currently used monitoring stations.


Feel free to disregard science. I don't care what people want to believe. Facts are facts. We simply disagree. I have no problem with that.

https://news.stanford.edu/news...ge-speed-080113.html


Not sure, but after a quick reading your source is counting on a climate change model as of yet untested and unverified. I get the history part but this is total bullshit...

quote:

Although some of the changes the planet will experience in the next few decades are already "baked into the system," how different the climate looks at the end of the 21st century will depend largely on how humans respond.


Unless these ass hats can cite the model, source code, and forcing parameters of said model they're full of shit.
 
Posts: 6054 | Registered: October 31, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
186,000 miles per second.
It's the law.




posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bytes:
quote:
Originally posted by FishOn:
quote:
Originally posted by nhtagmember:
The single largest driver of weather on this planet, and hence the global climate is the sun

you know, that bright thing in the sky

if you want to control the weather, you're gonna have to learn to control the sun

good luck with that

as for the 'Yes climate change has always occured. The difference this time is how quickly it is happening. The speed of the current change is unprecedented.'

you need to provide a legitimate source for this because I call bullshit, and just about everything that has come out of a non-biased non-agenda driven source says there is almost immeasurable changes, some barely at the detection limits of currently used monitoring stations.


Feel free to disregard science. I don't care what people want to believe. Facts are facts. We simply disagree. I have no problem with that.

https://news.stanford.edu/news...ge-speed-080113.html


Not sure, but after a quick reading your source is counting on a climate change model as of yet untested and unverified. I get the history part but this is total bullshit...

quote:

Although some of the changes the planet will experience in the next few decades are already "baked into the system," how different the climate looks at the end of the 21st century will depend largely on how humans respond.


Unless these ass hats can cite the model, source code, and forcing parameters of said model they're full of shit.


https://www.usni.org/magazines...range-climate-change
 
Posts: 2342 | Registered: August 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
186,000 miles per second.
It's the law.




posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 2342 | Registered: August 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
186,000 miles per second.
It's the law.




posted Hide Post
I should say that Trump's idea to buy Greenland is brilliant. There are a ton of rare earth minerals in Greenland, as well as many other valuable minerals. Eventually when the ice melts, they will be easily mined. Too bad it is not for sale.
 
Posts: 2342 | Registered: August 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:


What model are they using, how accurate has it been (none have been accurate), and what forcing parameters? I'll bet the sun is not included.
Those are a really big deal. Sorry if it seems like I'm throwing down on you because I'm not. Take care FishOn.
 
Posts: 6054 | Registered: October 31, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
186,000 miles per second.
It's the law.




posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 2342 | Registered: August 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
186,000 miles per second.
It's the law.




posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bytes:
quote:


What model are they using, how accurate has it been (none have been accurate), and what forcing parameters? I'll bet the sun is not included.
Those are a really big deal. Sorry if it seems like I'm throwing down on you because I'm not. Take care FishOn.


I do not know, and no offence taken!
 
Posts: 2342 | Registered: August 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
186,000 miles per second.
It's the law.




posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 2342 | Registered: August 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
186,000 miles per second.
It's the law.




posted Hide Post
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u...te-change-1509749436

Note the WSJ is owned by Murdoch. Same as Fox news. This is a conservative source. Sorry for the paywall. One must subscribe to the WSJ to read the entire article.
 
Posts: 2342 | Registered: August 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
quote:
What is that supposed to mean?

On second thought, never mind. I don't want to try to decipher clues, or non-clues, articles about China, etc. You believe that changes are "unprecedented", then you go ahead and believe it.
 
Posts: 88080 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
Please don't spam this thread. Put it all in one post. You're gonna believe that stuff one way or another, so have fun.
 
Posts: 88080 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
186,000 miles per second.
It's the law.




posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
Please don't spam this thread. Put it all in one post.


Sorry. I should have put all of the links in one post. My apologies.
 
Posts: 2342 | Registered: August 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fourth line skater
Picture of goose5
posted Hide Post
Much of climate science is computer modelling. Now the very nature of the model is flawed because these things (according to Dr. Roy Spencer) are programmed on the assumption that nature doesn't cause climate change. They are also over sensitive. We have observed temperature fluctuations in the past, but these fluctuations are not in any modelling I've seen. Just a steady rise from now until forever. Because a small error is compounded farther and farther out the model goes. Really do we want our scientists spending 90 percent of their time writing computer code? Models are just fine for something that has limited variables, or where most variables are know quantities. But, our planet is a very large non linear system with more variables that you can shake Michael Mann at, and plenty of things we just simple don't know about yet.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goose5,


_________________________
She's into malakas, Dino!
 
Posts: 5717 | Location: Pueblo, CO | Registered: July 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Experts and Current Eco-Crisis: We’ve Heard All of This Before

Underpopulation, overpopulation. A cooling planet, a warming planet. Either way, presented as a looming crisis, catastrophising the future for upcoming generations. The pendulum of fear swings back and forth, as self-righteous experts prime research funding streams: there is money as well as virtue in saving humanity.

Back in 1968 Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University made his name with the book Population Bomb. After decades of worry about falling birth rates in the West, Ehrlich revived the 18th-century thesis of Thomas Malthus. Infinite global population growth and finite resources would lead to disaster, unless we acted urgently. Yet the 1960s was the dawn of the contraceptive pill, alongside expanding opportunities for young women. Advances in education and standards of living were reducing maternal burden. Higher progeny in the poorer parts of the world would eventually tail off (although ‘woke’ alarmists Harry and Meghan don’t mention Africa when imploring parents to stop at their second child).

Ehrlich’s warning had limited impact. With declining school rolls in many areas (before the floodgates were opened to mass immigration), the idea of a population emergency was not persuasive to teachers or education authorities. So Ehrlich, to this day professor of population studies at Stanford, turned his attention to a more explosive bomb.

In 1984, as Ronald Reagan escalated the arms race with the Soviet Union, a parallel conference of American and Russian scientists was held. Carl Sagan spoke on the ‘nuclear winter’ that would envelop us after an atomic crossfire. Next at the podium was Ehrlich, who pulled no punches: –

‘Blast alone, according to one estimate, would be expected to cause 750 million deaths. As many people as existed on the planet when our nation was founded would be vaporized, disintegrated, mashed, pulped, and smeared over the landscape by the explosive force.’

This carnage, however, would merely be the tip of the iceberg. Far more destruction would arise from the shattering of ecosystems, mainly due to lasting cold and dark. The biological impact, Ehrlich speculated, would threaten the existence of Homo sapiens. ‘Biologists can agree to that as easily as we all could agree that accidentally using cyanide instead of salt in the gravy could spoil a dinner party’.

Of course, nobody doubts that nuclear war would be ruinous, to be avoided at all costs. But the Chernobyl accident suggests that the presumed long-term impact of radiation is exaggerated. A member of the audience challenged Ehrlich on his cataclysmic conjecture: –

‘Shortly after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I remember reading the newspapers quoting scientists as saying that during the next 75 years nothing can grow in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. History proved them wrong because a year later the harvest – melons and other vegetables and other kinds of plants – grew fertile. So how accurate are your findings?’

Ehrlich responded: ‘I think they are extremely robust….we are presenting at least a consensus of a very large group of scientists’.

A very large group of experts foretell an ecological disaster due to manmade global warming. A very large group of economists predicted a deep recession if the British voted to leave the European Union. But science should be based on objectivity, not group-think. And scientists should be particularly aware of the dangers of orthodoxy, or what Thomas Kuhn named ‘normal science’. While dissent or contradictory evidence is quashed, group-thinkers compete for publicity by stridently pushing the favoured narrative. A few writers such as James Delingpole have courageously stood up to the bullying climate change lobby, but sceptical scholars tend to air their opinions in private, for the sake of their careers.

The language of the nuclear Holocaust is very similar to that of today’s eco-hysterics. Millions will be displaced by desertification or drowned by rising sea levels. People who don’t succumb first to drought and famine will be afflicted with raging skin cancer. This relentless talk of Armageddon is probably a factor in the reported mental health crisis in youth.

But all this scaremongering is counterproductive, with ever-decreasing returns and increasing cynicism among the common people. We saw this with ‘Project Fear’, the political establishment’s alliance with big business to stop Brexit. Consider the reaction to the Extinction Rebellion protests in London, with week-long roadblocks and bridge closures, and a planned use of drones to close the runway at Heathrow. Public opinion, initially sympathetic to a well-marketed campaign, rapidly turned against the demonstrators. The hypocrisy doesn’t help, with Emma Thompson flying from California to preach against use of fossil-fuels. That’ll be Harry and Meghan too.

Saving the planet is fashionable. But what happened to the feared nuclear war, and the once-prominent campaign by CND? The weapons have not been decommissioned. Several more countries have a precarious button now than during the Cold War, with leaders less predictable than in the Kremlin or Beijing. Why so little fuss about Iran developing a nuclear arsenal? Should we dismiss its stated desire to wipe Israel off the map as bluster? Should we sit back and wait for the Saudis to get their hands on weapons of mutually-assured destruction? There have been no marches in Sydney, Paris or London against nuclear proliferation in volatile lands. Instead, we are warned that cows are killing the planet with methane.

We descendants of Adam and Eve are not taking good care of the Garden of Eden. But reluctance of ordinary folk to believe that the end is nigh forces ecological zealots into more extreme claims, publicised by brazenly disruptive stunts. Meanwhile, an anti-imperialist narrative in Western society allows the leaders in Tehran and Beijing a free pass for military aggression and totalitarianism. Is eating red meat really more of a threat than an Iranian nuclear strike?

Peddlers of eco-hysteria speak with absolutism, supported by scholars who should know better. Ironically, it is the humble lay person rather than the average scientist who is more likely to convey the true stance of science: doubt.

Link
 
Posts: 1931 | Location: San Francisco, CA | Registered: February 16, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I have not yet begun
to procrastinate
posted Hide Post
The whole current “climate change” mantra is based on “We should have polar ice caps and glaciers”.
What “science” is this crap based on? Because they’ve been there as long as we can remember?

Under the so called “permafrost” there are trees and grass. It was a freaking swamp!!
That it might return to a swamp in God only knows how many years is hardly cause for concern.
So the temps go up, oceans may rise and flood low areas. This will not happen overnight while you sleep.
PEOPLE WILL JUST MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND! If it gets hot enough you could grow corn and soybeans in areas that are currently WAY too cold today. Big deal.

What concerns me more is the air being poisoned and the oceans being used as a dumping ground, ESPECIALLY by Asia. The amount of various crap that is already there is bad enough but Asia isn’t about to stop in our lifetimes. It just isn’t profitable for them to do otherwise.
The current lefty push if for CONTROL, not climate.


--------
After the game, the King and the pawn go into the same box.
 
Posts: 3347 | Location: AZ - West side of the valley | Registered: October 26, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Climate Change. You buying it?

© SIGforum 2019