Climate continues to change.

[Que]

What Tryfail fails to include in his "summation" is that while we don't have a clear historical record of how far the polar ice melts every year, we DO have a clear idea of how high the sea level is along coast lines, and that's at historic highs.

But of course, Tryfail wouldn't acknowledge that, since his oil company handlers would fire his lazy ass.

Those historic High sea level lines along coastlines is probably why New York City as we speak is under water as predicted.

 

[William_James]

Why would it matter? Both are evidence of climate change.

You know that already though, right?

Probably more climate-changing carbon dioxide on the pole with the actual climate change going on and not so much on the pole where it's just cold weather.

Apparently not.

 

[trysail]

...One-sided media reporting is a striking feature of the climate and energy debate. “Climate denier” and “tool of malign fossil-fuel interests” are epithets used to delegitimize dissent and quash diversity of opinion. “Climate change is a fact,” President Obama declared in his 2014 State of the Union address. As philosopher Stephen Hicks argues in Explaining Post-Modernism, the post-modern Left uses language primarily as a weapon to silence opposing voices, not as an attempt to describe reality. To close the debate down, science masquerading as impartial judge is deployed as lead prosecutor. Dissenters and skeptics are derided as Flat Earthers and scientific ignoramuses. Yet the most stupid utterance on the science of global warming goes without a breath of criticism from scientists who regularly furnish the media with hostile quotes on skeptics’ views. “This is simple. Kids at the earliest age can understand this,” Secretary of State John Kerry told an audience in Indonesia in 2014. For someone who confessed that he’d found high-school physics and chemistry a challenge, climate science was easy. The science was “absolutely certain.”

It’s something that we understand with absolute assurance of the veracity of that science. No one disputes some of the facts about it. Let me give you an example. When an apple separates from a tree, it falls to the ground.​

Fact conflated with theory; certainty where there is pervasive uncertainty and lack of understanding; simplicity where there is unfathomable complexity; climate-model predictions of warming elevated above observations. The biggest distortion of climate science is unscientific in its premise and authoritarian in its consequence: “The science is settled. We must act.” When systemic media bias is purposed as a tool of state manipulation and social control, a democracy extinguishes its democratic culture...​

— Rupert Darwall
Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex​

​

 

[Que]

Apparently not.

Why don't you explain it in your own words without using Rob's handy dandy cheat cheat of pre-made refudiationablisms?

Phrodo is missing that page in his congregational hymnal. He only posts 'teh' warm temperature anomalies; he never is interested in the cold ones.

 

[Que]

Oh come on don't be shy now. You acted like you had something to actually say in the thread. Here let me get you started the polar vortex that normally reside over the North Pole is being disrupted by human-caused global warming...

 

[William_James]

Why don't you explain it in your own words without using Rob's handy dandy cheat cheat of pre-made refudiationablisms?

Phrodo is missing that page in his congregational hymnal. He only posts 'teh' warm temperature anomalies; he never is interested in the cold ones.

Why don't you just read thor's link to a discussion from an atmospheric scientist, instead? (We both know you either won't, or won't acknowledge it.)

 

[phrodeau]

Why don't you explain it in your own words without using Rob's handy dandy cheat cheat of pre-made refudiationablisms?

Phrodo is missing that page in his congregational hymnal. He only posts 'teh' warm temperature anomalies; he never is interested in the cold ones.

I posted about cold temperature anomalies a few weeks ago. You responded to it, if you can remember back that far. You asked me for a weather forecast.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=88499326#post88499326

 

[trysail]

The Pentagon released a National Defense Strategy that for the first time in more than a decade does not mention manmade global warming as a security threat.

An 11-page summary of the new National Defense Strategy makes no mention of “global warming” or “climate change”. The document makes no mention of “climate,” “warming,” “planet,” “sea levels” or even “temperature.” All 22 uses of the word “environment” refer to the strategic or security landscape...​

Finally— some fucking sanity.


​

 

[phrodeau]

Would you like me to post in your thread every time I post in mine?

 

[William_James]

What's the over-under on whether he reposts in the blurt thread?

 

[mayflr]

Why would it matter? Both are evidence of climate change.

Well said

 

[William_James]

Data shows solar energy really is a leading American job creator

The rapid expansion of solar energy over the past few years has created hundreds of thousands of well-paying American jobs. The most recent National Solar Jobs Census published by The Solar Foundation, a nonprofit organization I lead, found there were 260,077 solar workers in the United States as of 2016. That year, one in 50 new U.S. jobs were in solar, and the industry added jobs 17 times faster than the overall economy.

 

[trysail]

...The New York Times likes to say that more people work in the solar power generation industry than in the coal power generation industry. This sounds great until you realize that in 2016, according to EIA, solar produced 0.9% of our electricity with 373,807 people, versus coal which produced 30% of our electricity with 160,119 people. Productivity growth is where our standard of living comes from, switching to solar is going in the wrong direction. It's apparent that the NY Times is ignorant of basic economic principles... it takes 83 solar workers to produce the same amount of electricity as 1 coal worker. This only makes economic sense if the solar workers are paid 1.2% of a coal worker’s pay...

-Andy May
​

​

 

[William_James]

How many workers does it take to operate a utility-scale solar plant compared to a comparable hydrocarbon plant?

 

[trysail]

Why Invocation of The "Precautionary Principle" in Climate Is Misleading and Irrational

...On examination, this new form of the principle doesn’t fit well with our common-sense ideas of how to deal with risk. For in thinking about risk, we recognize two kinds: risk to ourselves, and risk to others. As far as risk to ourselves goes, each of us must make our own decisions. We do it all the time; just about everything in life involves some degree of risk. We judge, rationally or otherwise, whether a particular risk is justified for us. And we decide either to take the risk, or not. For example, every time we go in a plane, there’s a risk it may crash and kill us. We weigh this up, consciously or not, against the gain we expect from making the journey. We look, and then we leap; or not. And most of us come out with the same decision: We get in that plane.

Today’s version of the precautionary principle is worse than useless in assessing risk to ourselves. For it would have us either avoid risks altogether, or focus on minimizing them. But a life without taking risks is, at best, the life of a vegetable. And a life spent focusing on risks is a paranoid one.

Risk to others is a more difficult subject. Sometimes our actions may have negative impacts on others; on their property, on their health, even in extreme cases on their very lives. Now, all individuals are responsible for the consequences of their actions to others, unless those actions were coerced. And it may be that in a particular case the harm, which an action causes others, exceeds what reasonable people will bear in a spirit of mutual tolerance. In such cases, in a sane world, we should be required to compensate those we have harmed. In environmental terms, that’s the basis of the idea of “polluter pays” – one with which I heartily agree.

There are, therefore, good reasons to invest in minimizing risk to others. I gave already the example of a company putting a new product on the market. In making decisions on such risks, particularly if the damage caused may be great, it makes sense to assess the risks, and their consequences and costs if things go wrong, as objectively as possible.

Rationally, we will invest in minimizing such a risk as long as the likely gain from the reduction of risk exceeds the cost involved in reducing it. Beyond that point, we have only two options; we either go ahead and face the consequences, or we scrap the whole thing. If we tried to use the precautionary principle as often interpreted today, however, we would have to spend forever more and more to allay less and less likely, or less and less serious, risks...​

more...

​

 

[Que]

According to Bobs' link:

~snip~ Crackpot Index.

Phrodeaux is high-scoring crackpot.

 

[William_James]

According to James' link:



Que is high-scoring crackpot.

FYP, bitch.

 

[Que]

FYP, bitch.

~shrug~

It was a good link.

I figured you would want the credit. If you want "Fagman" to have the credit, that's fine too.

 

[Queefer]

I posted about cold temperature anomalies a few weeks ago. You responded to it, if you can remember back that far. You asked me for a weather forecast.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=88499326#post88499326

The meth has the little guy rattled.

 

[richard_daily]

Those historic High sea level lines along coastlines is probably why New York City as we speak is under water as predicted.

You don't understand civic engineering, either? I guess we should just add it to the list of things you don't understand.

Water is pumped out of NYC at a rate of about 8 millions gallons a day. Without it being pumped out, much of NYC would already be underwater.

 

[jaF0]

It's apparent that the NY Times is ignorant of basic economic principles... it takes 83 solar workers to produce the same amount of electricity as 1 coal worker.

What's ignorant is that Solar is in the infancy of development and deployment while coal is long in the tooth. 'New' always takes more effort to get wider acceptance. It also ignores the immense damage done by the entire coal industry, from mining to waste disposal.

 

[richard_daily]

...The New York Times likes to say that more people work in the solar power generation industry than in the coal power generation industry. This sounds great until you realize that in 2016, according to EIA, solar produced 0.9% of our electricity with 373,807 people, versus coal which produced 30% of our electricity with 160,119 people. Productivity growth is where our standard of living comes from, switching to solar is going in the wrong direction. It's apparent that the NY Times is ignorant of basic economic principles... it takes 83 solar workers to produce the same amount of electricity as 1 coal worker. This only makes economic sense if the solar workers are paid 1.2% of a coal worker’s pay...

-Andy May
​

​

Cool story bro.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

Hydro electric costs 1/4 of what a coal plant does to run for the same output.

Solar was coming down until your boy Trump levied tariffs on parts of the solar industry. Renewable either are cheaper now, or would be cheaper without interference from an anti-renewable administration.

Which is better for us in the long run? Energy that is clean and non-polluting, or filling your pockets at the expense of the environment?

If you can't even be honest with yourself about your motivations and how you benefit from the stuff you're arguing for, why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[richard_daily]

Cheapest energy sources by MwH?

Hydro, Geothermal, and wind... by a long shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Fuck your "coal is cheaper" argument. It's bullshit.

 

[phrodeau]

Yesterday's high in Sydney was 117 degrees, with more extreme heat in the forecast.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-42595180

The Hume Highway in Victoria, Australia is melting in the heat.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/01/05/17/00/hume-highway-melts-victoria?ocid=Social-9NewsS

The weather system that brought heat waves across Australia last week persists, and is now descending on Adelaide for the weekend. Australia Day events are being canceled, and temps of 42C (107.6F) are predicted.

https://thewest.com.au/news/weather/south-australia-set-to-swelter-again-ng-s-1822264

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ay-events-cancelled-heatwave-hits-region.html

 

[trysail]

Junk Science >>> Media Gullibility & Malpractice >>> Government Promulgation >>> Really, Really, Really Stupid Actions >>> Colossal Waste & Misallocation of Scarce Resources




Another Candidate For The Stupidest Litigation In The Country
by Francis Menton ("The Manhattan Contrarian")

...The Oregon children's lawsuit explicitly asks for an injunction doing away with all use of fossil fuels in the U.S. How about demanding that, New York City, at least as to your own residents? Don't worry, New Yorkers will never miss the light, heat, air conditioning, refrigeration, transportation, computers, etc., etc., etc. You won't be surprised to learn that the City has stopped short of demanding that relief. They do ask for an injunction, but only "to abate the public nuisance and trespass that would not be effective unless Defendants fail to pay the court-determined damages for the past and permanent injuries inflicted" (whatever that means).

In other words, this lawsuit makes no sense whatsoever on its own terms...

...There could not be any more discredited piece of work in climate science than the Michael Mann "hockey stick" of 1998. They wouldn't really try to rely on that as proof of global warming, would they? Absolutely! There it is prominently featured in paragraph 36. Hey, it's from "peer reviewed literature." Is there any mention here that no one has been able to reproduce Mann's work without access to his data and code, which have never been produced in 20 years? Any mention that Mann has refused multiple times to produce the data and code underlying this paleoclimate reconstruction, and currently is being held in contempt by a Canadian court for failing to produce same in defiance of a court order? Any mention of the mathematical flaws in the methodology uncovered by Canadian auditors McIntyre and McKitrick? Any mention that the reconstruction relies for critical periods almost entirely on a couple of tree ring cores from trees that have been demonstrated not to reflect actual temperatures in recent years? Of course not. This is pseudoscience of the most transparent, and only intended for the most uninformed and gullible as its audience...


more...



​

​