Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?

[jomar]

We're outta there.

Halle-fucking-lujah !!!

Thank god.

The Paris climate "accord" was just plain stupid.

The entire Paris climate fiasco was based on pseudoscience, superstition, hysteria, crap data and worse.

​

What's wrong with voluntarily working on alternatives to fossil fuels?

Trump pulling out has nothing to do with a "bad deal for the USA" or climate change.

 

[Ghostee]

Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade? (1 of 2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plr-hTRQ2_c&feature=youtu.be&hd=1

Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade? (2 of 2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSNW0LC32wU&hd=1


Both videos well worth the time it takes to view them.

Yes Global Warming, Climate Change and other Eco scary stories are 100% Man made up aka LIES and just something the power hungry can use to scare the stupid into surrendering their freedoms and pay more taxes while a problem that doesn't exist is never solved!

Wake Up people all this Eco stuff is a Lie !
30 Years and no proof just computer models and fake news reports about fake science !

 

[adrina]

Yes Global Warming, Climate Change and other Eco scary stories are 100% Man made up aka LIES and just something the power hungry can use to scare the stupid into surrendering their freedoms and pay more taxes while a problem that doesn't exist is never solved!

Wake Up people all this Eco stuff is a Lie !
30 Years and no proof just computer models and fake news reports about fake science !

Hey maybe we can breed more too, squeeze more bodies onto the marble. Move 'em out to the desert. There's plenty of room. And cars that get 10mpg, maybe we can go back to leaded gas too! And leaded paint while we're at it. A hummer for everyone - but not the blowjob. Just the car sorry. Can't waste sperm on a blowjob. Gotta impregnate all the women so we can make sure we have plenty of people running around having all these freedoms to be absolutely the most irresponsible and shortsighted fucks I've had the displeasure of seeing come down the pike in a long time.

 

[oggbashan]

What's wrong with voluntarily working on alternatives to fossil fuels?

Trump pulling out has nothing to do with a "bad deal for the USA" or climate change.

More US people are employed in alternative energy industries than in coal. President Trump may have destroyed more jobs than he has 'saved'.

 

[phrodeau]

Another Repube-lickin' fit for the looney bin:

He should know that God helps those who help themselves.

 

[Hard_Rom]

More US people are employed in alternative energy industries than in coal. President Trump may have destroyed more jobs than he has 'saved'.

Chances are they never voted for him anyways so what does he care. Probably all a bunch of lefty liberal tree huggers.

 

[Hard_Rom]

China is by far the worst emitters. But it is under extreme pressure from it's own people to do something. This won't happen overnight. I suspect that the US just delivered the world into China's hands when it comes to battling global warming. China will eventually get it's shit together. Them and India. When they do the US will become a country on the outside of what is going on.

China is poised to become the world's leader and all without a massive military in respect to it's population.

China, India and the EU have the populations to reduce the US the 4th as a buying power. Maybe not today but eventually. Military might only gets you so far, Ask Russia.

Luckily much of this is all long term. Trump will be long gone. Hopefully sooner than later.

 

[jomar]

More US people are employed in alternative energy industries than in coal. President Trump may have destroyed more jobs than he has 'saved'.

I don't think he really cares. He's just playing to his base and undoing Obama whatever.

 

[Conager]

More US people are employed in alternative energy industries than in coal. President Trump may have destroyed more jobs than he has 'saved'.

And a net productivity loss. You cannot grow the wealth of a nation to a greater degree by missallocating resources and capital.

All of that labor required per (minimal) KWH produced cost money. That raises the cost of production. That either requires capital be taken from the available capital markets and squandered on subsidies, or the electricity must be priced higher.

Either consequence makes the climate for business in general and energy-intensive manufacturing to be less hospitible, which costs jobs.

..and those numbers like everything else to do with climate change scam are highly inflated. They are taking everybody who possibly touches a solar panel into consideration but not taking into consideration everybody who might touch a lump of coal.

 

[Sean]

Only in America is climate change a partisan issue.

 

[KingOrfeo]

And a net productivity loss. You cannot grow the wealth of a nation to a greater degree by missallocating resources and capital.

Subsidies to alternative energy industries are certainly no misallocation of resources.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Why bother throwing money at alternate energy. Best just burn cheap dirty fossil fuels. Only need to worry about alternatives when the fossil fuels run out. Then there will be money to be made as they become profitable. Money drives many of the regressive policies. They don't think ahead. All the answers lie in the past. Except that have a nasty tendency to not learn from the mistakes of history. So when fossil fuels run out and any energy source can be exploited for large bucks by an energy starved world will the regressives and hard core capitalists think about alternatives.

Liberalism is the philosophy for our time, because it does not try to conserve every tradition of the past, because it does not apply to new problems the old doctrinaire solutions, because it is prepared to experiment and innovate and because it knows that the past is less important than the future. P.E.T.

 

[trysail]

More US people are employed in alternative energy industries than in coal. President Trump may have destroyed more jobs than he has 'saved'.

Mainly because solar and wind are colossally inefficient methods of getting electrons.


​

 

[trysail]

Only in America is climate change a partisan issue.

Because the rest of the world is a bunch of sheeple who are too dumb to look at how astoundingly lacking the purported evidence underlying the anthropogenic global warming conjecture is.



​

 

[trysail]

What's wrong with voluntarily working on alternatives to fossil fuels?

Trump pulling out has nothing to do with a "bad deal for the USA" or climate change.

There ain't a damn thing wrong with people putting their own capital at risk to produce energy.


What's wrong is the goddamn government and bureaucrats and cronies and subsidies and corruption and kickbacks.

In my state, every utility customer will now have an extra $1.00 per month added to their bill because the frickin' politicians have mandated that utilities purchase offshore wind-generated electricity. That $1.00 amounts to hundreds of millions that will line the pockets of their campaign contributors.

This is all the result of propaganda, pseudoscience, superstition, manipulation, hysteria and far too many cases of scientific fraud.

​

 

[trysail]

Ignoramus.

" ...only the terminally gullible could believe that human beings could ever program a computer that would accurately simulate the climate system’s response to a change in a single variable, on any time scale.

We can’t conduct a controlled experiment on the Earth to measure the response to CO2. We don’t have multiple Earth’s in alternate realities with varying CO2 emissions, to do something akin to an epidemiological study. All of the known scientific techniques of actually measuring the response of the climate to CO2 changes aren’t available. Since scientists’ expertise is only in the scientific procedure, or method, there is no reason to believe that any scientist, no matter how intelligent, has any innate ability to somehow predict or offer judgments as to values that can’t be measured or observed scientifically. (The phrase “scientific opinion” is an oxymoron – there’s nothing scientific about a person’s opinion, and if it was reasonable for a scientist to just offer an expert judgment on the amount by which a change in X changes the output Y of a system, then what is the purpose of a double blind study where researchers are kept in the dark so as to avoid the possibility of confirmation bias?)

Climate scientists now say that climate changes can only be observed over multi-decadal scales. We’ve put our satellites in orbit in the late 1970’s. We have no reliable measurements of ocean temperatures, except maybe at a few defined depths in recent years, or even surface temperatures outside of a relative small sample of populated areas that haven’t been torn apart by war or famine or other things that distract scientists from diligently collecting data. Instead we seem to be relying solely on proxy data to reconstruct the historical data needed as input for climate models, proxy data for which its reliability can’t possibly be confirmed or measured, but only inferred. (Who has a time machine to send an army of graduate assistants back 500 years to take readings?) Outside of temperature, I’m not sure we have any reliable measurements of any climate variable that go back more than a couple decades. Cloud cover? Precipitation amounts? How do we know whether or to what extent the patterns of the jet stream or ocean currents flowed prior to say 1960? I can’t imagine that fluid systems like air or water preserve that information and its hard to imagine trusting any indirect proxies to give us precise measurements in changes to either of these patterns.

In short, we haven’t been observing the Earth’s climate system, in the sufficient detail that would be required, and for long enough, to ever believe that any mathematical model of the climate would be remotely accurate. If I hypothesize a relationship between the length of a bear’s hibernation and the amount of berries it eats in the fall, then watch a single bear eat a bunch of berries from September to November, and go to sleep in December, I can’t possibly be ready to model the hypothesized response the following February while the bear is still sleeping. No one would trust my results even after one, or two, or even 10 years – the number of samples are too small."

-"Kurt"
​

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/25/climate-models-dont-work/


​

 

[Conager]

Subsidies to alternative energy industries are certainly no misallocation of resources.

If the aim is growth in employment, as suggested by Ogg, then it certainly is. You're entitled to your ill-informed opinion about what's better for the environment or what sells better politically, but you don't get to pick what the alternative facts are for what is economically sounder.

You can argue that the economic trade-off is, perhaps, worth it, but you cannot argue that it's better for economic growth because it is not.

 

[jaF0]

Mainly because solar and wind are colossally inefficient methods of getting electrons.

But they're getting better and they're the only thing a homeowner can install and use on their own property.

What I have a problem with is electric utilities that want to charge a homeowner a monthly fee even if no kilowatts are used. In some cases, even if they're not connected to the utility at all.

 

[about_average]

ROTFLMFAO

you've obviously never worked in a coproration with 100's of thousands of employees, much less millions like government.

What's wrong is the goddamn government and bureaucrats and cronies and subsidies and corruption and kickbacks.

Apparently you're also ignorant of the fact that every energy producing company in the US gets government subsidies.

 

[trysail]

GISS Global Temperature Series ( 1880- )

https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/image69.png


​

 

[about_average]

Another Repube-lickin' fit for the looney bin:

Tim Walberg needs to read this

A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.

Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."

The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."

So the rowboat went on.

Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."

To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."

So the motorboat went on.

Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."

To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."

So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.

Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"

To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"

- http://truthbook.com/stories/funny-god/the-drowning-man

 

[jaF0]

Climate scientists now say that climate changes can only be observed over multi-decadal scales. We’ve put our satellites in orbit in the late 1970’s. We have no reliable measurements of ocean temperatures, except maybe at a few defined depths in recent years,

Instead we seem to be relying solely on proxy data to reconstruct the historical data needed as input for climate models, proxy data for which its reliability can’t possibly be confirmed or measured, but only inferred.

My position is that we need at LEAST 75 years to determine 'normals', rather than the current 30 year period they use. I'd rather see 100 years since most locations have that much data.


For most uses, I say we need at least 500 years of reliable data to determine any change on a global scale.

Anybody that graduated High School should know that Earth is a living thing and has undergone a significant number of cyclical changes in climate before and during the periods of Humans, and will continue to do so long after Humans are gone.

But we also know that we're taking too much out of the Earth, burning it or altering it in other ways and spewing it into the air and water. THAT has to stop. The era of coal has passed and the era of oil is coming to an end.

Putting on my contradictory hat, I admit I burn wood for supplemental heat in the winter largely due to the price of electricity to keep the furnace pushing air heated by propane which is also costly.

 

[trysail]

you've obviously never worked in a coproration with 100's of thousands of employees, much less millions like government.

Uh, huh. I always wanted to grow up to be a mindless drone.

Is that what you aspire to? Big Brother needs brain-dead automatons.


​

 

[magicalmoments]

If the aim is growth in employment, as suggested by Ogg, then it certainly is. You're entitled to your ill-informed opinion about what's better for the environment or what sells better politically, but you don't get to pick what the alternative facts are for what is economically sounder.

You can argue that the economic trade-off is, perhaps, worth it, but you cannot argue that it's better for economic growth because it is not.

Research and development is a legitimate investment for both private and govt capital and essential for economic growth, at least in the free market consumer society that is the western world. You can argue that this or that R&D is, or is not, worthwhile but you cannot argue that is is bad for economic growth.

 

[about_average]

Uh, huh. I always wanted to grow up to be a mindless drone.

Is that what you aspire to? Big Brother needs brain-dead automatons.

At least you admit you have no clue how large corporations work, so I'll give you points for that.