Global Warming Is A Scam Pushed By Dishonest "Progressives"

[ok doser]

Anyone else see something suspicious about that chart?

it was published in Science in 2005, therefore something?

 

[ok doser]

Yup, and I remember McCain mocking Obama with tire pressure gauges.

:chuckle:

i'd forgotten all about that

[video]http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ts3set/the-colbert-report-obama-s-energy-plan---tire-gauges[/video]

 

[ok doser]

Even if we could influence temperatures, have you ever seen what happens when a canoe is rocking and someone panics and so they stand up to try to correct the balance themselves? It doesn't always end well. Lots of examples of people getting stupid trying to "correct" the environment and they mess things up because they didn't understand it well enough to begin with.

i used to marvel at the plans to adjust global temperatures that would make the cover of Popular Science or the like

:think:

do they even make magazines anymore?

 

[ok doser]

Converting your Lithosphere into your Atmosphere is going to have consequences.

it doesn't stay in the atmosphere

it comes out as acid rain! :banana:





(very dilute carbonic acid)

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Pollution bad.
The debate he's having isn't even if pollution is bad or how bad.
The point of the OP is that Climate change is used a cash grab, and said cash grab doesn't change anything other than moving cash around.

Really there is money to be made on either side of the argument which is sort of a reality with most politics. That in and of itself does not mean the issue is not real.

 

[ok doser]

personally, i'd like to see a lot more recognition that nuclear is the best path forward

and a lot more funding for research on fusion

 

[Kit the Coyote]

i used to marvel at the plans to adjust global temperatures that would make the cover of Popular Science or the like

:think:

do they even make magazines anymore?

Geoengineering is really the same science as Terraforming but on the Earth itself. Being a big fan of the idea of colonizing other planets, it is fascinating to note that if we could Terraform Mars and Venus we can fix the Earth easily.

 

[ok doser]

Geoengineering is really the same science as Terraforming but on the Earth itself. Being a big fan of the idea of colonizing other planets, it is fascinating to note that if we could Terraform Mars and Venus we can fix the Earth easily.

that's a big if, and the risk doesn't involve making the only world we know uninhabitable

 

[Kit the Coyote]

it doesn't stay in the atmosphere

it comes out as acid rain! :banana:





(very dilute carbonic acid)

And then what becomes of it?

 

[Kit the Coyote]

personally, i'd like to see a lot more recognition that nuclear is the best path forward

and a lot more funding for research on fusion

Truth! With Gen 4 Fission Plants and eventually fusion combined with the amazing progress we are seeing in renewables, we could completely eliminate fossil fuel use in energy generation.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

that's a big if, and the risk doesn't involve making the only world we know uninhabitable

True which is the reason why geoengineering is frowned upon as a solution unless some of the real worst-case scenarios start to look likely. Of course, by the time everyone agreed on that, it would probably be too late.

 

[Stripe]

With Gen 4 Fission Plants and eventually fusion combined with the amazing progress we are seeing in renewables.

"You don't believe all this cold fusion mumbo-jumbo, do you?"

We could completely eliminate fossil fuel use in energy generation.

What's wrong with coal?

 

[JudgeRightly]

"You don't believe all this cold fusion mumbo-jumbo, do you?"



What's wrong with coal?

They want nothing to do with the evidence for the Biblical flood of Noah's time.

 

[Jonahdog]

They want nothing to do with the evidence for the Biblical flood of Noah's time.

Thanks for the morning laugh.

 

[Stripe]

:troll:

 

[Kit the Coyote]

"You don't believe all this cold fusion mumbo-jumbo, do you?"

No, that turned out to be a completely scientific dead end when the research failed to stand up to evaluation and could not be duplicated. It was as you say mumbo-jumbo.

What's wrong with coal?

1. It is an extremely dirty fuel source. Arguably, the dirtiest with the highest rates of environmental pollution and related deaths as any fuel source out there.
2. It one of the least safe energy sources. The global averages for deaths per trillion kilowatt hours for energy sources are:
Coal - 100,000
Oil - 36,000
Natural Gas - 4,000
Biofuels - 24,000
Solar - 440
Wind - 150
Hydro - 1,400
Nuclear - 90

Note: The US by the application of heavy government regulation has lower figures than the average on some of these:
Coal - 10,000
Hydro - 5
Nuclear - 0.1
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

3. It is a finite resource compared to the alternatives available.

4. And then there is the Climate Change/Global Warming issue. While the seriousness of the issue is debatable, it is not something that should be ignored. For example, if you took all the water currently sequestered in land-bound glaciers and ice fields in Antartica, Greenland, Siberia, Canada, Alaska, etc. and dumped it into the oceans, the resulting sea level rise would destroy most of the coastal infrastructure of the world with a significant economic and life cost.
Rapidly dumping massive amounts of carbon that has been sequestered under the Earth into the biosphere is likely to have some impact.

 

[Stripe]

Rapidly dumping massive amounts of carbon that has been sequestered under the Earth into the biosphere is likely to have some impact.

It all came from the biosphere.

 

[fool]

It all came from the biosphere.

We don't want to see what the biosphere looks like with it all back in circulation.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

It all came from the biosphere.

Yes, and all the water that is locked up in the Antartic ice fields came from the oceans. That doesn't alter what happens if you release that water back into the oceans.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, that turned out to be a completely scientific dead end when the research failed to stand up to evaluation and could not be duplicated. It was as you say mumbo-jumbo.

1. It is an extremely dirty fuel source. Arguably, the dirtiest with the highest rates of environmental pollution and related deaths as any fuel source out there.

So let's find ways to make it cleaner?

2. It one of the least safe energy sources.

Let's find ways to make it safer.

3. It is a finite resource compared to the alternatives available.

Then let's use it up and be done with it!

4. And then there is the Climate Change/Global Warming issue.

Don't forget "Global cooling".

While the seriousness of the issue is debatable, it is not something that should be ignored. For example, if you took all the water currently sequestered in land-bound glaciers and ice fields in Antartica, Greenland, Siberia, Canada, Alaska, etc. and dumped it into the oceans, the resulting sea level rise would destroy most of the coastal infrastructure of the world with a significant economic and life cost.

And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud;and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.” - Genesis 9:12-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis9:12-17&version=NKJV

:think:

Rapidly dumping massive amounts of carbon that has been sequestered under the Earth into the biosphere is likely to have some impact.

See Stripe's response.