why i am a climate change skeptic
- Thread starter paulbl99
- Start date
Same old misinformation and distortion of the science.
It is warmer today than it has been for at least the last 2000 years. Warmer than the medieval warm period. In addition, there is no evidence that Roman times were warmer than today. Regardless, neither of these periods are known to have been more than regional unlike the global warming today.
Warming from the little ice age has been shown to have been the result in increases in solar irradiance and lessening of volcanic activity. Increases in solar irradiance leveled out in about 1940 and currently is in decline. Most of the warming from 1940 to present can only be attributed to AGW and has nothing to do with the little ice age.
Claim that plants have sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere from 3000 ppm from 150 million years ago to historical lows of 280 ppm today and would continue to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere is absurd. CO2 levels have fluctuated consistently between 180 ppm during periods of glaciation and 280 ppm during interglacials for hundreds of thousands of years and have not been this high in at least 800,000 years.
Ideal levels of C02 for plants is 1500 ppm? Says who? More may be better, but the rapid temperature rise we are seeing has already affected many species as they cannot adapt fast enough. Many won't be around to enjoy all that wonderful CO2.
It is warmer today than it has been for at least the last 2000 years. Warmer than the medieval warm period. In addition, there is no evidence that Roman times were warmer than today. Regardless, neither of these periods are known to have been more than regional unlike the global warming today.
Warming from the little ice age has been shown to have been the result in increases in solar irradiance and lessening of volcanic activity. Increases in solar irradiance leveled out in about 1940 and currently is in decline. Most of the warming from 1940 to present can only be attributed to AGW and has nothing to do with the little ice age.
Claim that plants have sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere from 3000 ppm from 150 million years ago to historical lows of 280 ppm today and would continue to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere is absurd. CO2 levels have fluctuated consistently between 180 ppm during periods of glaciation and 280 ppm during interglacials for hundreds of thousands of years and have not been this high in at least 800,000 years.
Ideal levels of C02 for plants is 1500 ppm? Says who? More may be better, but the rapid temperature rise we are seeing has already affected many species as they cannot adapt fast enough. Many won't be around to enjoy all that wonderful CO2.
It is sad that you actually believe this
Many on the left actually see financial opportunity in climate change, as long as we can build the renewable infrastructure here.
Many on the left actually see financial opportunity in climate change, as long as we can build the renewable infrastructure here.
Most on the left see opps for gaming the system.
The enviro stuff is just a path to $$$, with the pipepaclers making the most.
I'm all for "renewable" energy...if it becomes more efficient than fossil fuels. Ethanol sound familiar?? Windmills lying idle?? Solar panels in Lawrenceville?? When all this treehugger tech replaces fossil fuels, I'll be fine with it. Actually, I'll be dead, as it'll take about 50 years. Meanwhile, let's build the Keystone Pipeline, etc., enjoy the cheap energy & resultant job growth.
The enviro stuff is just a path to $$$, with the pipepaclers making the most.
I'm all for "renewable" energy...if it becomes more efficient than fossil fuels. Ethanol sound familiar?? Windmills lying idle?? Solar panels in Lawrenceville?? When all this treehugger tech replaces fossil fuels, I'll be fine with it. Actually, I'll be dead, as it'll take about 50 years. Meanwhile, let's build the Keystone Pipeline, etc., enjoy the cheap energy & resultant job growth.
Re: Most on the left see opps for gaming the system.
Your post is spot on. Who, other than special interests, wouldn't prefer clean energy over dirty energy if they were equal in cost and efficiency? The problem is they aren't even close. In addition, the capacity of clean energy come close to meeting the world's needs for stationary demand and there is really no alternative at all for mobile demand.
Pipeaclers?
Your post is spot on. Who, other than special interests, wouldn't prefer clean energy over dirty energy if they were equal in cost and efficiency? The problem is they aren't even close. In addition, the capacity of clean energy come close to meeting the world's needs for stationary demand and there is really no alternative at all for mobile demand.
That is just not true.
Most people who support renewable energy actually believe in it as the future, not because they can game the system. I realize that you don't agree, and that is fine, but to suggest that most people are just in in for the financial benefit is absurd. There is a reason why people in that field tend to earn less money, and it isn't because they are looking to game the system, I can promise you that much. It would be like suggesting that folks in social work who helping mentally disabled people are doing it for the money.
Renewable energy will never be more efficient than fossil fuels, but it is renewable and unlimited. I'm not suggesting that we totally stop using oil and gas (is anybody suggesting that?), but we definitely need to be transitioning, and the market alone isn't going to make it happen.
As an aside, our dependence on oil has led to a lot of war and death, so I'm not sure you can say it is cheaper, if accounting for the value human life.
This post was edited on 3/23 11:02 AM by HailtoPitt
Most people who support renewable energy actually believe in it as the future, not because they can game the system. I realize that you don't agree, and that is fine, but to suggest that most people are just in in for the financial benefit is absurd. There is a reason why people in that field tend to earn less money, and it isn't because they are looking to game the system, I can promise you that much. It would be like suggesting that folks in social work who helping mentally disabled people are doing it for the money.
Renewable energy will never be more efficient than fossil fuels, but it is renewable and unlimited. I'm not suggesting that we totally stop using oil and gas (is anybody suggesting that?), but we definitely need to be transitioning, and the market alone isn't going to make it happen.
As an aside, our dependence on oil has led to a lot of war and death, so I'm not sure you can say it is cheaper, if accounting for the value human life.
This post was edited on 3/23 11:02 AM by HailtoPitt
The shills for "alternative energy" schemes DO make $$$$.
The little guys like us don't. Right now, renewable energy supplies about 6-7% of the total.....and we ship NONE of it overseas. Fossil fuels are propping up the economy in many places, and we still don't utilize refinery capacities.
We've had mideast oil on our plate for years, and now the enviros are against us using our own enormous reserves, so don't whine about wars. If Muslims weren't barbarians, the wars wouldn't have happened.
With fracking, etc.,our energy costs have really dropped, making renewable sources even less competitive. So the transition will be slower.
The little guys like us don't. Right now, renewable energy supplies about 6-7% of the total.....and we ship NONE of it overseas. Fossil fuels are propping up the economy in many places, and we still don't utilize refinery capacities.
We've had mideast oil on our plate for years, and now the enviros are against us using our own enormous reserves, so don't whine about wars. If Muslims weren't barbarians, the wars wouldn't have happened.
With fracking, etc.,our energy costs have really dropped, making renewable sources even less competitive. So the transition will be slower.
Re: The shills for "alternative energy" schemes DO make $$$$.
Of course there are people who will make big bucks... but when that happens in an environmental industry, it is somehow a huge issue (f'n Obama, Al Gore flying on a plane, grrrr), but in banking or farming or any other industry the government has its hand in, I don't hear the same folks complaining. Why is that? What is good for the goose is good for the gander... except here, of course.
And let's not pretend that the Muslim world hasn't been totally screwed over by our quest for cheap oil. I'm not supporting or defending us or them... it is just what happened, but we shouldn't diminish their response to "Muslims are barbarians."
I consider myself a supporter of increasing our renewable energy capacity greatly, even if that means government assistance and the use of our tax dollars. I am also fine with fracking, realizing that renewables won't solve all of our issues right away. I am against the Halliburton loophole, which remove part of the process from environmental protection laws that other industries need to follow. Even you were surprised when I first mentioned it years ago.
Of course there are people who will make big bucks... but when that happens in an environmental industry, it is somehow a huge issue (f'n Obama, Al Gore flying on a plane, grrrr), but in banking or farming or any other industry the government has its hand in, I don't hear the same folks complaining. Why is that? What is good for the goose is good for the gander... except here, of course.
And let's not pretend that the Muslim world hasn't been totally screwed over by our quest for cheap oil. I'm not supporting or defending us or them... it is just what happened, but we shouldn't diminish their response to "Muslims are barbarians."
I consider myself a supporter of increasing our renewable energy capacity greatly, even if that means government assistance and the use of our tax dollars. I am also fine with fracking, realizing that renewables won't solve all of our issues right away. I am against the Halliburton loophole, which remove part of the process from environmental protection laws that other industries need to follow. Even you were surprised when I first mentioned it years ago.
Here's the difference you slyly ignore. Obama uses/abuses taxpayers.
who have no choice but to pay. How did the taxpayers get stuck with the cost of his daughter's birthday party?? Shipped the whole party to South Beach (I think it was South Beach.)
Business folks have to answer to shareholders, or their own finances. If Immelt, Obama's pal, gets overpaid by GE.....shareholders can oust him.
As for Gore, the hypocrisy of his histrionics while being a huge overconsumer of energy is what drew the flak. Selling TrueTV to Al Qaeda just revealed his lack of patriotism.
who have no choice but to pay. How did the taxpayers get stuck with the cost of his daughter's birthday party?? Shipped the whole party to South Beach (I think it was South Beach.)
Business folks have to answer to shareholders, or their own finances. If Immelt, Obama's pal, gets overpaid by GE.....shareholders can oust him.
As for Gore, the hypocrisy of his histrionics while being a huge overconsumer of energy is what drew the flak. Selling TrueTV to Al Qaeda just revealed his lack of patriotism.
Re: Here's the difference you slyly ignore. Obama uses/abuses taxpayers.
No, business folks answer to the shareholders who hold the most shares and their ONLY concern is an increase in the stock price... the President answers to all Americans, whose concerns are across the board. If people don't like the President, they can vote him or her out, or Congress can impeach.
No, business folks answer to the shareholders who hold the most shares and their ONLY concern is an increase in the stock price... the President answers to all Americans, whose concerns are across the board. If people don't like the President, they can vote him or her out, or Congress can impeach.
You obviously don't understand how shareholders have started
booting CEO's who don't perform. If the company stock flops, even a low salary won't save you. The big earners have to prove their worth.
As for Obama....he's lied his way to 2 wins with media support. Now that Congress has shifted, he's resorting to exec actions to impose his Marxist takeover. Steal from producers, use the IRS to suppress opposition and give the stolen $$$ to slackers, illegals and party-planners for his family.
He's walking a thin tightrope with this Congress. Frankly, I don't want the mess of impeachment....just stiffarm his every action by defunding. Lame duck confit.
booting CEO's who don't perform. If the company stock flops, even a low salary won't save you. The big earners have to prove their worth.
As for Obama....he's lied his way to 2 wins with media support. Now that Congress has shifted, he's resorting to exec actions to impose his Marxist takeover. Steal from producers, use the IRS to suppress opposition and give the stolen $$$ to slackers, illegals and party-planners for his family.
He's walking a thin tightrope with this Congress. Frankly, I don't want the mess of impeachment....just stiffarm his every action by defunding. Lame duck confit.
I understand perfectly...
The shareholders want an increase in the stock price. That is what matters.
You're going off the rails with borderline conspiracy stuff... like Obama's Marxist agenda, which doesn't exactly go hand in hand with democratic elections, in which Obama just proposed required everyone to participate.
The shareholders want an increase in the stock price. That is what matters.
You're going off the rails with borderline conspiracy stuff... like Obama's Marxist agenda, which doesn't exactly go hand in hand with democratic elections, in which Obama just proposed required everyone to participate.
Of course, implementing voter ID is the first step to tracking the vote
Ever think of that? Hmm?
Ever think of that? Hmm?
Re: Of course, implementing voter ID is the first step to tracking the vote
Well, if O wants everyone to vote, then we need some method of IDing people so that they can be identified for imposing a penalty/tax for not voting.... next step is to convince the Rs to do it nationally and vote for it...
Well, if O wants everyone to vote, then we need some method of IDing people so that they can be identified for imposing a penalty/tax for not voting.... next step is to convince the Rs to do it nationally and vote for it...
Since Patrick Moore has a respected background in ecology as well as PHD, one might say that you are being selective in your appeal to authority.
Beyond that, you still agree that people in authority distort and mislead, meaning it is remains possible for your side to do it too.
Unlike you, I am selective in whom I believe and trust based on their qualifications and reputations in the specific field for which they are making claims and whether or not they have any conflict of interest that would influence what they are stating. And regardless of the source, I also qualify the information provided through a thorough investigation of the prevailing science and what other respected experts are stating.
Usurps states' rights.
There will be enormous pushback from the far left (80% of Dems) who think it'll suppress voting.....and they will claim that, stupidly. Also from most of the right (60-70%) asgov't turning a privilege into an obligation, privacy issues, blah, blah.
This will get no traction when they see what a clusterf*ck collecting Obamacare penalties will be. The SS Admin has literally millions of folks that they show as still alive past age 100. Estimates of erroneous payments from the gov't are around $125 BILLION/year. All financial matters should be outsourced....AMEX?? Amazon?? Direct TV?? (JK)
There will be enormous pushback from the far left (80% of Dems) who think it'll suppress voting.....and they will claim that, stupidly. Also from most of the right (60-70%) asgov't turning a privilege into an obligation, privacy issues, blah, blah.
This will get no traction when they see what a clusterf*ck collecting Obamacare penalties will be. The SS Admin has literally millions of folks that they show as still alive past age 100. Estimates of erroneous payments from the gov't are around $125 BILLION/year. All financial matters should be outsourced....AMEX?? Amazon?? Direct TV?? (JK)
Re: Usurps states' rights.
And turnover Energy to the gubimint too
They are insane
Fraud of SS/Meds is so lucrative the mob has joined it in lieu of other enterprise.....yet the knuckleheads on the Left want to turn our Healthcare into the Meds/VA....
And turnover Energy to the gubimint too
They are insane
Re: Usurps states' rights.
Why don't people get outraged about the fraud? I mean, many folks will focus more on the type of pantsuit Hillary is wearing instead of actual important items, like this.
Why don't people get outraged about the fraud? I mean, many folks will focus more on the type of pantsuit Hillary is wearing instead of actual important items, like this.
Some of the real science of AGW from a peer reviewed creditable source:
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
D. R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Mlawer & T. R. Shippert
Nature (2015) doi:10.1038/nature14240 Received 09 June 2014 Accepted 15 January 2015 Published online 25 February 2015
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth's radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations-the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska-are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1-0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
CO2 Radiative forcing
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
D. R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Mlawer & T. R. Shippert
Nature (2015) doi:10.1038/nature14240 Received 09 June 2014 Accepted 15 January 2015 Published online 25 February 2015
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth's radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations-the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska-are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1-0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
CO2 Radiative forcing
Always good to check out the kook board once in a while.
So far we've got some accountant or widget salesman lauding an ecologist denying climate change who's gone from one extremist organization (Greenpeace) to another (Heartland), NTOP drunk posting again, NC failing to differentiate real science from junk science as usual, and CO blabbering about who knows what with lots of exclamation points.
The conspiracy theory guy whose username I forget is actually the most normal, well-adjusted right wing voice on here LOL.
Jesus.
And then there's ME naively trying to teach a class full of children with no interest in learning.
Keep it up, boys. You never disappoint.
So far we've got some accountant or widget salesman lauding an ecologist denying climate change who's gone from one extremist organization (Greenpeace) to another (Heartland), NTOP drunk posting again, NC failing to differentiate real science from junk science as usual, and CO blabbering about who knows what with lots of exclamation points.
The conspiracy theory guy whose username I forget is actually the most normal, well-adjusted right wing voice on here LOL.
Jesus.
And then there's ME naively trying to teach a class full of children with no interest in learning.
Keep it up, boys. You never disappoint.
Make sure that you keep that union pension for working 5 hours a day, 9 month's per year. [period]
CO
Edit to add: If your students have "no interest in learning".....that's your FAULT! [exclamation point]
This post was edited on 3/24 7:50 PM by COengr
Latest posts
-
-
Midweek edition of Redshirt Diaries presented by Cedarbrook Golf Course- Latest: Charlotteyinzer96
-
-
