He makes as much sense on one side of the question as you do on the other side. Maybe more."Earl J. Ritchie is a retired energy executive and teaches a course on the oil and gas industry at the University of Houston."
Oh, great, the retired oil industry guy, writing for Forbes, "debunked" it. Very compelling.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Yappi
- Start date
Guillotine
Well-known member
I don't respect your opinion* enough to bother. ?
It's like a lunatic asking me to prove the dragon isn't there.
*I use the word "opinion" loosely. I suspect that for many of you, your attitude is entrenched in a childish "gotta own the libs" foundation that dictates what "must be so". It's tempting to think that the denial crowd is just "stupid", and much of what it says is rather stupid, but I think the bigger problem is that many of you are just simply intellectually dishonest for the sake of your own pride and emotions.
Wow.
This hyper-ventilation from the poster Yappi cuddles released more ozone damaging gas than a herd of farting cows.
I will say this is an accurate representation of the attitude held by the climate hysteria crowd. Little wonder why the "movement" isn't gaining followers.
lmao.
Hammerdrill
Well-known member
But you see that is exactly what you have with the people who are paid to tell us man is warming the globe. You just refuse to see it. It's all right there in front of you.
It seems pretty obvious that you just lack the requisite scientific back ground to understand what has been linked here. This is physics. Logarithmic scales just don't happen to conform to your uninformed view. But that is the science behind why CO2 is not the boogie man you think it is. That isn't convenient to the sales job of needing to destroy the fossil fuel industry. You've been duped.I don't respect your opinion* enough to bother. ?
It's like a lunatic asking me to prove the dragon isn't there.
*I use the word "opinion" loosely. I suspect that for many of you, your attitude is entrenched in a childish "gotta own the libs" foundation that dictates what "must be so". It's tempting to think that the denial crowd is just "stupid", and much of what it says is rather stupid, but I think the bigger problem is that many of you are just simply intellectually dishonest for the sake of your own pride and emotions.
Yappi
Go Buckeyes
But you have it backwards. Most of the current bridges work just fine. Now you have a large group of engineers that is telling everyone that those bridges were built with materials that are failing and they have to change everything at an enormous cost. And everytime there is a minor fender bender on the bridge, the media is blaming it on the way the bridge was constructed.
Seems there are three groups of climate change people:
1. Those who believe we have doomed the Earth.
2. Those who think man has contributed to some climate change but not sure it's a bad thing. (wide range of how much man-made impact)
3. Those who believe all climate change is cyclical and man has nothing to do with it.
I hope the first group is wrong and I believe they are. If they ARE right, they are doing a terrible job trying to get people to believe what they know. Shame on them for not being more convincing. That includes Greta Thunberg who has alienated far more people than she has enlightened.
Hammerdrill
Well-known member
A bridge, and its ultimate success is measurable, climate cannot be measured in the same way, so it really isn't analogous. And I will point out too that we have had many engineering failures over the course of our history. To what would you attribute that? .
They aren't random fringed crack pots. Many if not most are more learned than the people you currently worship. You feel that way simply because they aren't saying what you want to hear. These people are not making things up.
...because even without having children, I still understand and value the idea of respecting the fate of future generations. ?
You will help future generations by doing what today?
Hammerdrill
Well-known member
And you can choose your sex, but you can't choose your sexual orientation.
I didn't say sea levels aren't rising. However, this problem in Venice was caused by storm surge from the Adriatic Sea. The contention is that it is unprecedented in it's intensity and ascribed to man-made climate change. However, a comparable, maybe worse, event occurred in 1966, which, in terms of climate cycles, is yesterday. They say Venice is flooding more frequently, which is something I couldn't verify. However, Venice has always flooded from Oct thru late winter.
But to your point, before you can tell me that a rise in sea levels represents a radical change in historical conditions, you have to tell me what the sea level should be - historically. And once you do that, you have to tell me precisely how man has caused it to rise and fall vs. it being due to factors outside of, or those that far exceed, human activity.
I was on the Gulf coast over New Year's. Water level was the same as the last time I was there.
Well it was Alabama. Maybe they don't allow climate change there.
Racists.
eastisbest
Well-known member
I presume you mean "you" generically as opposed to me because I didn't mention anything about that. I don't give a rat's . I'd just move. I'll be dead long before the poop hits the windmill, if indeed poop is being thrown. I was simply thanking you for the new information. BTW: now the canals are empty. Tide giveth and the tide taketh away.
I figured it out. Oil platforms in the Gulf have sucked out so much oil that the bottom of the Gulf has sunk. The water level on top is in the same relationship to docks. piers, and beaches that it was years ago, but the bottom is now deeper, so there is more water in the Gulf.
Either that or "globalized data" is just more manipulated BS.
eastisbest
Well-known member
Conclusions you mean? Data is not proven or disproven. It is just data collected correctly or not. Otherwise, I would not disagree but the globalized data comes from localized "anecdotes" so I would say IVC's information is pertinent. And if not, I still found it interesting.
Crusaders
Moderator
Crusaders
Moderator
Or the Gulf coast is not the end-all when it comes to oceanic water expansion due to warming.
Maybe the problem is that so much water is taken from the Rio Grande for irrigation, virtually 100%, that the outflow of the Mississippi River by itself is not sufficient to replenish the amount which exits the gulf via the Gulf Stream. That would balance out the inflow from melting glaciers in the region.
eastisbest
Well-known member
if you consider the difference between data and conclusions to be pedantic, ok, noted for future conversations. SMH
eastisbest
Well-known member
OK.. Noted for future conversations.
Since warm water evaporates faster, shouldn't the oceans be getting shallower?
Crusaders
Moderator
The effects do not work that way no. The increase in evaporation does impact weather patterns, however.