LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Climate continues to change.

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's pronounced Misery, because I'm from KANSAS...

The northern Arkansas types that have settled in here say Missourah.

Only in Kansas City and Columbia is it pronounced Missouri.
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
It's pronounced Misery, because I'm from KANSAS...

The northern Arkansas types that have settled in here say Missourah.

Only in Kansas City and Columbia is it pronounced Missouri.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, I love southeastern Missouri. Used to camp and canoe in that area a lot. Current River, especially.
 
Oh yeah.


The closer you get to KANSAS, the nicer it is!

I'm surrounded by Arkansas, Tennessee and Illinois. Feels like hell! :D
 
toubab said:
I clicked on it.
Click to expand...

Splendid! Your site navigation skills are unsurpassed. Now, let's work on reading comprehension.. :D

Dances With Falsehoods™ said:
Chief Lit Science Officer ThrobDownSouth fresh off his acceptance speech for his Darwin Award.


;) ;)
Click to expand...

With your various documented illnesses ("walking pneumonia", "atrial fibrillation", cirrhosis and chronic obesity), I think the odds are prohibitive that'll I will outlive you, Chief.
 
query said:
REALLY?

What catastrophic change have we "already had" that we need to adapt to? You talking about that 38% chance that we had the hottest year on record by 3/10ths of a degree? That scorcher?

I tell you what I hope for. That we don't head into another mini-ice age in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...
Spare me your bullshit, and learn the topic already.

http://www.edf.org/climate-change-impacts

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2013/sotc-2013-webinar-briefing-slides.pdf
 
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

"Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic"

"I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about."

"Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it."
 
Stewart Brand and Patrick Moore have become nuclear energy supporters because it is clean. Those that wave their arms around and talk about solar and wind have zero credibility with me. We cannot go back to a world where we use very little energy. It is not an option. Taxing and regulating ourselves completely out of manufacturing only means more fossil fuel will be burned elsewhere.

The entire argument exists so the left can have something to bludgeon the right with claiming "antiscience" while in this very thread you see the leftists parroting nonsense and claiming it is "science." No concept of scale, no concept of cost benefit, no concept about what can and cannot be done.

I swear there are a lot of PhDs without an an ounce of common senses. Some of these conclusions you can work out the numbers to on the back of an envelope.

Patrick Moore helped found GreenPeace. It takes him quite a while to realize that you cannot be against dams, nuclear and fossil fuels. It is a "pick one or more" choice. Period.

So in this article 8 years ago he has long since figured that out and was advocating nuclear: http://archive.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/moore_qa

He is correct of course. Except in the article one of the reasons that he cites (but doesnt explicitly endorse) that the wrold is headed toward nuclear power is "Climate change."

Finally he is saying in the article Touab cites above that "Climate Change" as it is presented and the idiotic ideas to prevent it advocated by the alarmists, is BS.
 
Last edited:
query said:
Stewart Brand and Patrick Moore have become nuclear energy supporters because it is clean. Those that wave their arms around and talk about solar and wind have zero credibility with me. We cannot go back to a world where we use very little energy. It is not an option. Taxing and regulating ourselves completely out of manufacturing only means more fossil fuel will be burned elsewhere.

The entire argument exists so the left can have something to bludgeon the right with claiming "antiscience" while in this very thread you see the leftists parroting nonsense and claiming it is "science." No concept of scale, no concept of cost benefit, no concept about what can and cannot be done.
Click to expand...

Any scientist who isn't a skeptic about the AGW hypothesis is not a true scientist, in my view.
 
toubab said:
Any scientist who isn't a skeptic about the AGW hypothesis is not a true scientist, in my view.
Click to expand...

I am engaged in a bitter argument with one of my best friends. His father is a prominent physicist. My friend has a masters in physics, a BS in computer science, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering. Notice none of that involves studying Frodo's weather reports.

He actually does read the abstracts does know the actual science, not the Frodo version. He is convinced that the non-liberals are somehow not believing the actual science, because those with the nonsense science (like frodo) keep hollering that skeptics are anti-science, and it is after all the family business.

When I take him point by point through what frodo believes, he of course sees that as nonsense, but he is still convinced the the skeptics are not actually looking at the science.

For example we have talked about the how we know for a fact what the Co2 concentration was at various intervals from ice cores. He thinks skeptics do not believe that Co2 is higher. Of course it is and I tell him so. He thinks skeptics do not believe that man is the primary source for this increase. I tell him skeptics do know that. He thinks skeptics do not know that Co2 can trap heat in the upper atmosphere...

I try to explain to him it is "The sky is falling" aspect that skeptics have a problem with. He very much understands that there is no practical way that solar and wind are the answer. He himself lives off the grid, makes all his own energy that way, but understands actual numbers that go right over frodo's head because, math. You cannot power NYC, Chicago, and LA with solar. Not is you covered the US. So he understands that the idiotic things the alarmists want is not possible, and yet he is not a skeptic of the "movement" because the alarmist are all "sciencey" and love all the research and grant money which is the life blood of a lot of people he knows and respects.

Never mind ruining our society by pushing manufacturing to places that ARE capable of doing a cost benefit analysis, we spend BILLIONS of dollars studying something that we can at the MOST impact MINIMALLY.

It is madness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
NOAA: Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere Reaches Highest Level in Millions of Years
Replies
5
Views
112
Saint_Ann
Saint_Ann
P
Trump administration set to shutter iconic research center in New York
Replies
1
Views
146
Politruk
P
Rightguide
“Climate Change” Hoax Needs to Be Removed From All U.S. Education Books
7 8 9
Replies
216
Views
4K
Politruk
P
P
Trump causes scientists to flee the U.S.
2 3
Replies
59
Views
2K
MajorRewrite
M
SugarDaddy1
The next big climate scare: Counting climate change deaths
Replies
1
Views
239
Fuzzy1975
F
Back
Top