Global Warming

D4fan

Well-known member
Anyone can get on here and lie. I’m pretty sure I am much better educated than you.
How do you define "better educated"? Is it more years in academia, GPA attained, course level and complexity?

I have offen pondered just what it means to be better educated? My mother graduated high school, Dad dropped out in the 7th grade because his dad killed himself and the family needed the money so he went to work. He was an extremely intelligent man, and self educated through reading a minimum of 3 hours every morning before going to work. So was he better educated or was mom?

Then you have kids who score at the maximum level on college entrance tests, attain National Merit recognition, and pursue difficult academic disciplines but may have a lower GPA than the basketweaver major. Which is better educated?

One student attends a low performing state university and graduates top of class while another attends an Ivy league school and graduates barely. Who is better educated?

Is that really an answerable question, or does it come down to variables that need to be applied situationally?
Does it even matter?
 

D4fan

Well-known member
There is so much potential knowledge available, one can either scratch the surface on many areas or dig deep into a few. Either way the end result is too soon old, too late wise.

Acquired knowledge or being "better educated " is relevant to the person only so long as they have the function to utilize said knowledge.
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
Anyone can get on here and lie. I’m pretty sure I am much better educated than you.
Well yeah, one can lie. But overtime that lie becomes exposed. You actually come across as someone who is young, and not well informed. You exposed some of your ignorance when you mentioned automatic weapons. It was clear you were weighing in on a subject that you didn’t know a lot about. Funny thing about ignorance is that you didn’t know, what you didn’t know. But that didn’t stop you from weighing in. That’s what young people do.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
If Global Warming alarmists can post non science articles to support their panic then I can post this gem from a few years back:




BTW, "hide the decline" is the charge that skeptics made against some leading Global Warming alarmists based on some rather incriminating emails that got released to the public. It seems like they were "adjusting" temperature readings to cover up a drop in global temperatures that seemed to be happening early in the 21st century.
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
If Global Warming alarmists can post non science articles to support their panic then I can post this gem from a few years back:




BTW, "hide the decline" is the charge that skeptics made against some leading Global Warming alarmists based on some rather incriminating emails that got released to the public. It seems like they were "adjusting" temperature readings to cover up a drop in global temperatures that seemed to be happening early in the 21st century.
Tony Heller has done numerous videos on this subject. Exposing their fraud wrt temperatures.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Tony Heller has done numerous videos on this subject. Exposing their fraud wrt temperatures.

One of the worst things some climate scientists do is use their computer modeling to go back and ADJUST direct temperature readings from the late 19th and early 20th century's. Of course the adjustments always drop the temperatures making the current slight warming look worse.

In science there are rare times when you can adjust an instrument reading rather then simply throwing the bad data away. This is when you know exactly what went wrong and you can demonstrate that the readings were off by a KNOWN and REPEATABLE value. Even then, changing direct instrument readings that were taken years ago is ill advised.

Think about what these so called scientists are doing. They are using their flawed models to change a temperature reading made in 1910 Boston. The arrogance to do this is astonishing.

And there is no doubt in my mind that these scientists in fact tried to hide the observations that global temperatures were either dropping or at most holding steady over the last 25 years. Global Warming is advocacy science at it's worse.

Now cue the links to "science" articles claiming there never was a temperature decline. Read them closely and you'll see how weak they are.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
This is a stunning factoid!


China generated 53% of the world’s total coal-fired power in 2020, nine percentage points more that five years earlier, despite climate pledges and the building of hundreds of renewable energy plants, a global data study showed on Monday.

Can we all agree that entering into any agreement that doesn't hold China to account is useless?
 
  • Like
Reactions: y2h

lotr10

Well-known member
An alternative theory to why the climate is changing.


Scientists who assume recent global warming is due to rising CO2 concentrations have simply argued “there is no viable alternative explanation”. So they assume every change, warming or cooling, drought or flood, is due to rising CO2 concentrations. But atmospheric physicists have shown that CO2 concentrations in the lower atmosphere are now saturated, and the increased “competition” between greenhouse molecules greatly attenuates any additional greenhouse effect imparted by rising CO2 concentrations. At higher altitudes CO2 is not saturated, but because the stratosphere warms with increasing altitude, any increasing stratospheric CO2 will enhance the export of infrared to outer space and cool the earth. To attribute any global warming to rising CO2, the warming effect of redistribution of heat around the world must be precisely measured and factored out. How the calculation of the global average is affected by heat redistribution must be accurately ascertained. Until then, climate dynamics appear to be the better climate control knob and offer the best explanation for both a warming climate and episodes of extreme weather. And natural oscillations suggest a human caused climate crisis is highly unlikely!
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
An alternative theory to why the climate is changing.


Scientists who assume recent global warming is due to rising CO2 concentrations have simply argued “there is no viable alternative explanation”. So they assume every change, warming or cooling, drought or flood, is due to rising CO2 concentrations. But atmospheric physicists have shown that CO2 concentrations in the lower atmosphere are now saturated, and the increased “competition” between greenhouse molecules greatly attenuates any additional greenhouse effect imparted by rising CO2 concentrations. At higher altitudes CO2 is not saturated, but because the stratosphere warms with increasing altitude, any increasing stratospheric CO2 will enhance the export of infrared to outer space and cool the earth. To attribute any global warming to rising CO2, the warming effect of redistribution of heat around the world must be precisely measured and factored out. How the calculation of the global average is affected by heat redistribution must be accurately ascertained. Until then, climate dynamics appear to be the better climate control knob and offer the best explanation for both a warming climate and episodes of extreme weather. And natural oscillations suggest a human caused climate crisis is highly unlikely!
The simpletons on the left will never accept this. They are convinced that man has to be bad. Any data that suggests otherwise is simply ignored, or vilified.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Here is a different take on what i happening in Greenland. What's important to keep in mind that all of these represent competing THEORIES on climate change. You judge them based on the available data and always keep an open mind for new data that can swing the debate back & forth:


The theory that the NAO and shifting winds create the conditions that drive Greenland’s warming and cooling is supported by all observable evidence. Greenland lost ice in the 1930s then gained ice in the 1970s and 80s. Although Greenland’s ice has been melting extensively in recent decades, that melt rate is now slowing and the shifting NAO suggests the ice will rebound. In contrast, the competing CO2-global warming theory suggests as CO2 continues to rise, Greenland’s ice will increasingly melt and dramatically raise sea levels. That theory has prompted calls to abandon our coastlines and invest in managed retreat. But before you panic, know your climate history and listen to the science. All the science!
 

lotr10

Well-known member
I like Steele here is his site that details how he became a Global Warming skeptic.


Jim Steele's Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist's Journey to Climate Skepticism examines how the inflated catastrophic claims of climate change has been misguiding conservation efforts, and misdirecting critical funding and thwarting attempts to build a more resilient environment. Jim Steele draws on 25 years of research and habitat restoration in California's Sierra Nevada to provide thought provoking analyses that contrast the success of conservation science with the deceptive claims of global warming advocates.
 

TrueEagle

Well-known member
Well yeah, one can lie. But overtime that lie becomes exposed. You actually come across as someone who is young, and not well informed. You exposed some of your ignorance when you mentioned automatic weapons. It was clear you were weighing in on a subject that you didn’t know a lot about. Funny thing about ignorance is that you didn’t know, what you didn’t know. But that didn’t stop you from weighing in. That’s what young people do.
I’m in my 70’s. Automatic or semi automatic was never the issue. Many on here, in typical GOP fashion, look for a diversion from the main point of an argument. Those guns are used solely to kill people and need to be made illegal.
 

jmog

Well-known member
I’m in my 70’s. Automatic or semi automatic was never the issue. Many on here, in typical GOP fashion, look for a diversion from the main point of an argument. Those guns are used solely to kill people and need to be made illegal.
100% wrong but don’t let facts get in the way of your feelings.
 

y2h

Well-known member
This is a stunning factoid!


China generated 53% of the world’s total coal-fired power in 2020, nine percentage points more that five years earlier, despite climate pledges and the building of hundreds of renewable energy plants, a global data study showed on Monday.

Can we all agree that entering into any agreement that doesn't hold China to account is useless?
This is what drives me crazy about the worship of the Paris agreement. A commitment with no enforcement is worthless.
 

gneiss rocks

Well-known member
Life on the planet depends on having enough CO2 for photosynthesis . Plants do best with much much higher CO2 than we have now.
The recent historic lows were downright dangerous for life on the planet...If we could get the numbers to around 5000 we would be doing much better. Do your part get SUV's and private jet's to make your carbon footprint at least 25% of those on the left who are screaming the loudest.
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
I’m in my 70’s. Automatic or semi automatic was never the issue. Many on here, in typical GOP fashion, look for a diversion from the main point of an argument. Those guns are used solely to kill people and need to be made illegal.
You are on the wrong thread. Go over to the ban knives thread and what the video I posted, testomony, describing how an AR is a very good self defense weapon for those who are not experts with weapons.
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
I have always talked about the advantages of Natural Gas (still a fossil fuel but FAR cleaner and efficient than coal) and Nuclear.

The one problem I have with that video is the speaker states that wind is more dangerous than nuclear, shows a picture of a turbine on fire in Europe and says one guy died and moved on. Very disingenuous. Wind has a degree of difficulty because of size and height but it is relatively very safe. I have actually erected these things from being the guy connecting the components to the project management side.

The problem with nuclear is that it is so regulated that you need 10 permits before you can do anything and rightfully so because of course if anything happens things can be very detrimental (Fukushima and Chernobyl). The newest units in the U.S. since the 80's are being constructed in Georgia right now and are on year 10 of a 4 year project and were original slated to cost 3 billion and today are north of 8 billion. Very costly and laborious to build due to regulation.

Like most 3rd world countries China (even though technically not 3rd world) has cheap slave labor, abundant coal, and coal fired plants are fairly easy to construct (roughly $700 million and 2 year schedule by U.S. standards).

Natural Gas plants are roughly the same cost and schedule, are far more efficient, and should be pushed around the globe.
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
I have always talked about the advantages of Natural Gas (still a fossil fuel but FAR cleaner and efficient than coal) and Nuclear.

The one problem I have with that video is the speaker states that wind is more dangerous than nuclear, shows a picture of a turbine on fire in Europe and says one guy died and moved on. Very disingenuous. Wind has a degree of difficulty because of size and height but it is relatively very safe. I have actually erected these things from being the guy connecting the components to the project management side.

The problem with nuclear is that it is so regulated that you need 10 permits before you can do anything and rightfully so because of course if anything happens things can be very detrimental (Fukushima and Chernobyl). The newest units in the U.S. since the 80's are being constructed in Georgia right now and are on year 10 of a 4 year project and were original slated to cost 3 billion and today are north of 8 billion. Very costly and laborious to build due to regulation.

Like most 3rd world countries China (even though technically not 3rd world) has cheap slave labor, abundant coal, and coal fired plants are fairly easy to construct (roughly $700 million and 2 year schedule by U.S. standards).

Natural Gas plants are roughly the same cost and schedule, are far more efficient, and should be pushed around the globe.
Nuclear is the only answer.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Nuclear is the only answer.

At the risk of being controversial fossil fuels are the other answer for at least the next 50 years. if the skeptical argument is right that humans are not causing damaging climate change by burning fossil fuels then oil, NG & even coal remain the preferred the way to power civilization.

I include coal as a way to provide abundant, reliable and most importantly CHEAP electricity to the 3rd world. It's easy living in the US enjoying first world power luxury to poo poo the desperate need for cheap electricity in the 3rd world but this is the single most important challenge they must overcome to move up the socioeconomic ladder. Coal is the only answer IMO. BTW the Chinese happen to agree with me.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Unsure if useless is the right word but it sure makes it tough.

I would still use the word "useless". Even if the US went back to caveman days China, India, SE Asia and the rest would probably make up the difference in CO2 release in less then 10 years.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Life on the planet depends on having enough CO2 for photosynthesis . Plants do best with much much higher CO2 than we have now.
The recent historic lows were downright dangerous for life on the planet...If we could get the numbers to around 5000 we would be doing much better. Do your part get SUV's and private jet's to make your carbon footprint at least 25% of those on the left who are screaming the loudest.

I would like to see the global atmospheric CO2 level at 1000 ppm. This is a level that the Earth has spent very long periods at and if anyone has visited a commercial green house can attest to the resulting luxuriant plant growth.

We're currently at about 400 ppm.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
More evidence that natural climate change is robust and can happen very fast:


At the end of the last ice age, rising temperatures and rapid ice loss triggered dramatic sea level rise.

Using geological records, scientists were able to detail the scale of the sea-level rise event, as well as pinpoint the ice sheets responsible for such rapid melt rates, publishing the findings Thursday in the journal Nature Communications.

Paleoclimate data suggests that over the course of 500 years, beginning around 14,600 years ago, Earth's seas rose nearly 60 feet.

Five hundred years is very fast for the seas to rise 60 feet. What's the worst case scenario timeline and sea level rise expected from human climate change?

"We found that most of the rapid sea-level rise was due to ice sheet melt across North America and Scandinavia, with a surprisingly small contribution from Antarctica," said Whitehouse, a researcher in the geography department at Durham.

"The next big question is to work out what triggered the ice melt, and what impact the massive influx of meltwater had on ocean currents in the North Atlantic," Whitehouse said.
 

chs1971

Well-known member
I’m in my 70’s. Automatic or semi automatic was never the issue. Many on here, in typical GOP fashion, look for a diversion from the main point of an argument. Those guns are used solely to kill people and need to be made illegal.
You claim to be "better educated" and then post wholly ignorant stuff like this.

Weird.
 

Yorktown

Well-known member
I’m in my 70’s. Automatic or semi automatic was never the issue. Many on here, in typical GOP fashion, look for a diversion from the main point of an argument. Those guns are used solely to kill people and need to be made illegal.

Stupid statement from a leftist in their 70’s.
Guns are designed to kill.... No F—en Sh—
Your on the downhill. Why worry about guns at this point in your life?
 
.
Top