Climate continues to change.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The viable solution is to leave the carbon in the ground. Is that as hard for you to understand as it is for you to do?


Up 'til now, I didn't realize we were dealing with the lunatic fringe.

This obvious lack of comprehension of basic mathematics, physics, economics, nutrition, overall human well-being and the consequences that would follow adoption of the above quoted statement is mind-boggling.

In essence, whether consciously or not, it advocates mass murder.


 


Up 'til now, I didn't realize we were dealing with the lunatic fringe.

This obvious lack of comprehension of basic mathematics, physics, economics, nutrition, overall human well-being and the consequences that would follow adoption of the above quoted statement is mind-boggling.

In essence, whether consciously or not, it advocates mass murder.



Principle of Charity.
 
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at those two responses. (Frodo and William, that is)

I pray that neither of you are in any position to have any real effect on policy.

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. Strike that. Nearly.

No, the planet cannot sustain 20 to 30 billion people without devastating the environment. Not even in a dream. For a while I thought I was talking with misguided fools. Now I see you're both simpletons.
 
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at those two responses. (Frodo and William, that is)

I pray that neither of you are in any position to have any real effect on policy.

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. Strike that. Nearly.

No, the planet cannot sustain 20 to 30 billion people without devastating the environment. Not even in a dream. For a while I thought I was talking with misguided fools. Now I see you're both simpletons.

https://vintage.ponychan.net/chan/files/src/139688733205.gif
 
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at those two responses. (Frodo and William, that is)

I pray that neither of you are in any position to have any real effect on policy.

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. Strike that. Nearly.

No, the planet cannot sustain 20 to 30 billion people without devastating the environment. Not even in a dream. For a while I thought I was talking with misguided fools. Now I see you're both simpletons.
Gonna be posting any evidence for your assertion?
 
Figures.

Every other species on earth has managed to survive and thrive without digging up and burning fossil fuels. Are you saying they can do something humans can’t?

Dunno why he would say that, but I wouldn't. I would say that humans can do something animals can't. Specifically burn fossil fuels in order to raise their standard of living.

Without the use of cheap energy to make fertilizer there would be massive starvation as we speak. Why do you want poor people to starve?

Oh, that's right...Less poor people would be less people breathing outcarbon dioxide and eating hamburgers.
 
Figures.

Every other species on earth has managed to survive and thrive without digging up and burning fossil fuels. Are you saying they can do something humans can’t?

Fro, if you can survive, naked, weaponless, in say, the north woods of Maine (or pick your forest) for let's say 90 days, I will buy you dinner and publicly (well, here on lit, anyway) apologize to you. Deal?

(No secret use of technology!!!)
 
Fro, if you can survive, naked, weaponless, in say, the north woods of Maine (or pick your forest) for let's say 90 days, I will buy you dinner and publicly (well, here on lit, anyway) apologize to you. Deal?

(No secret use of technology!!!)
I knew a guy who did that. He was Canadian Special Forces. Final exercise involved being dropped naked and weaponless in wild icy mountains. Survivors graduated. Then Ron ate LSD, became enlightened, and deserted to Los Angeles. Hollywood High School girls welcomed him.

Surviving naked in the North Woods can be done. So can eating a Cadillac, piece by piece. Other activities seem to be a better use of one's time.
 
Fro, if you can survive, naked, weaponless, in say, the north woods of Maine (or pick your forest) for let's say 90 days, I will buy you dinner and publicly (well, here on lit, anyway) apologize to you. Deal?

(No secret use of technology!!!)
Now who wants to take away our guns?
 
Surviving naked in the North Woods can be done. So can eating a Cadillac, piece by piece. Other activities seem to be a better use of one's time.

Surviving in the wild without technology absolutely CAN be done. It just isn't easy and it SURE as hell can't be done when the number of people trying to live off the land number in the billions.


Now who wants to take away our guns?

Who said anything about guns? You said humans are as capable at wilderness survival as any deer or bear:

"Every other species on earth has managed to survive and thrive without digging up and burning fossil fuels.".

We aren't. Not even close. We HAVE to modify our environment to survive.

And if we tried, our numbers would have to drop to a tiny fraction of our current population. You may be willing to write off billions of living beings, but *I'm* not pulling the trigger.
 
I consider myself a pragmatic Green. I expect people will continue to fuck the environment. Fine. When it gets bad enough, humans will have incentive to leave the planet... before the next extinction-event meteorite hit. Global degradation may be the way to save humanity.

Or we may pump more greenhouse gases until Earth goes into Venus mode. Sayonara, motherfuckers.

...

No, that's not the future I want for my grandkids.

Leave the planet for where?
 
Leave the planet for where?
There is no "leave the planet" option in the foreseeable future. There are unsolved technical challenges before humans can even make it to Mars. Anyone surviving the high doses of radiation in space and on Mars would be unlikely to reproduce.
 
Leave the planet for where?
Up Uranus!
_____

That was too easy. But humans have a tendency to emigrate from shithole places to better environs. If anyplace starts looking better than Earth, we're in deep deep deep shit here.

No, leaving Earth won't be easy, and will happen only when motivation (shit level) is sufficiently horrendous. Or maybe breakthroughs will occur. If we understood gravity, we might build antigravity. If we understand dimensions, we might build wormholes. We went from published notes to nuking cities in 40 years. What could we build 40 years from now?
 
Here you go Thor
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html

Fuck...do you know how hard it is to get published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? Fucking almost impossible. Only amazing data can make it there.

Data is data. It's never "amazing". It just is.

What's hard to get published, is your interpretation of that data. And that, is what that paper is about. It's open access and available at http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2018/02/06/1717312115.full.pdf
 
What a nice day. No snow, walking around in New England in my shorts in February! :heart: :heart: :heart:

A welcome change from this time LAST year!
 


Excerpt from:

The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
by Tim Ball, Ph.D.
https://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8



"...Few understand the extent of corrupted science produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Data was altered, or completely ignored and research deliberately directed to prove their claim that humans were causing global warming. A.W. Montford’s book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science is a litany of refusals to disclose information. They all work to prevent other scientists carrying out the most basic test namely, replication of results.

In his report on the hockey stick debacle for the US House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee Professor Wegman wrote; Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible.

People identified in the leaked emails of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were primarily responsible through the Physical Science Basis Report of Working Group I of the IPCC and the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Politics is clearly the motive for some scientists like James Hansen, Stephen Schneider and others, but this is not so clear for most at the CRU. Which begs the question how and why supposedly intelligent people became involved and continued to participate in such corruption?..."
-Tim Ball, Ph.D.




https://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8



 
Follow the money, you say?

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).[1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).[2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.[3]

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.


When will tryfail disclose the source of his income? :confused:
 
Follow the money, you say?

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).[1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).[2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.[3]

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.


When will tryfail disclose the source of his income? :confused:

Arguments are not refudiated by an ad hominem attack on the source of the arguments or the funding of that Source. If that were true then all of Frodo's favorite alarmists would be eliminated from consideration because they got paid for their climaye change in the right up when they applied for the grant for their research.

there's nothing magical about an argument Advance by a an industry shill or a shill for Frodo's church. Either the science holds up to scrutiny or it doesn't. If it doesn't refute it on the merits of the argument itself.
 
Last edited:
Winter finally arrived yesterday here at 4000 ft / 1200 m in the central Sierra Nevada range. We had two days of winter in the prior two months and now we get a few days of snow, hopefully refilling snowpack and reservoirs somewhat. This is definitely not the climate of decades past. Climate change deniers should buy waterfront trailers in Florida.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top