What's the middle ground on climate change and fossil fuels?
-
I like to discuss/argue. This comes from a friend on my FB feed.
Thoughts?
-
How can we have a constructive conversation about our energy policy when the Right doesn’t believe that human use of fossil fuels is causing climate change?
-
Many liberals are willing to compromise on fossil fuels for the sake of more jobs, energy independence, and/or because pipelines are safer for oil transport than the trucks and trains we’re using now. But conservatives refuse to compromise on anything.
-
-
I like to discuss/argue. This comes from a friend on my FB feed.
Thoughts?
-
How can we have a constructive conversation about our energy policy when the Right doesn’t believe that human use of fossil fuels is causing climate change?
-
Many liberals are willing to compromise on fossil fuels for the sake of more jobs, energy independence, and/or because pipelines are safer for oil transport than the trucks and trains we’re using now. But conservatives refuse to compromise on anything.
The amazing thing about the climate is how LITTLE it changes. While using fossil fuels do significantly affect pollution, it does not have any significant affect upon the climate. Solar power is not a viable source of power. Try to find an anti-fossil fuel moonbat who gives up their car. The only viable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power, and the moonbats are even more against that. Moonbats are full of complaints, with no solutions. Solar power is so absurd, that the energy used to make the solar panels combined with the cost of purchasing and maintaining them makes them a less than worthless option.
-
-
I like to discuss/argue. This comes from a friend on my FB feed.
Thoughts?
-
How can we have a constructive conversation about our energy policy when the Right doesn’t believe that human use of fossil fuels is causing climate change?
-
Many liberals are willing to compromise on fossil fuels for the sake of more jobs, energy independence, and/or because pipelines are safer for oil transport than the trucks and trains we’re using now. But conservatives refuse to compromise on anything.
The amazing thing about the climate is how LITTLE it changes. While using fossil fuels do significantly affect pollution, it does not have any significant affect upon the climate. Solar power is not a viable source of power. Try to find an anti-fossil fuel liberal who gives up their car. The only viable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power, and the liberals are even more against that. Liberals are full of complaints, with no solutions. Solar power is so absurd, that the energy used to make the solar panels combined with the cost of purchasing and maintaining them makes them a less than worthless option.
Ah, by substituting liberal for moonbats your meaning has become clear.
Your first statement says fossil fuels do not have any significant effect on climate. What do you say to the 99% of professional scientists and researchers who use data to say otherwise?
Liberals (and some conservatives) have not given up their cars en mass but they have pushed forth legislation phasing out gasoline-powered automobiles forcing car companies to come up with greener alternatives.
The environmental costs in making nuclear power plants is exponentially more damaging to the environmental costs that the pollution costs in making the solar panels. Over time, the carbon footprint from manufacturing solar panels decreases while the waste from nuclear power plants multiplies over time. (Footnote: There is an isotope that is far safer than the current fuels being used but the technology is already in place for the other type.)
-
-
I like to discuss/argue. This comes from a friend on my FB feed.
Thoughts?
-
How can we have a constructive conversation about our energy policy when the Right doesn’t believe that human use of fossil fuels is causing climate change?
-
Many liberals are willing to compromise on fossil fuels for the sake of more jobs, energy independence, and/or because pipelines are safer for oil transport than the trucks and trains we’re using now. But conservatives refuse to compromise on anything.
The amazing thing about the climate is how LITTLE it changes. While using fossil fuels do significantly affect pollution, it does not have any significant affect upon the climate. Solar power is not a viable source of power. Try to find an anti-fossil fuel liberal who gives up their car. The only viable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power, and the liberals are even more against that. Liberals are full of complaints, with no solutions. Solar power is so absurd, that the energy used to make the solar panels combined with the cost of purchasing and maintaining them makes them a less than worthless option.
Ah, by substituting liberal for moonbats your meaning has become clear.
Your first statement says fossil fuels do not have any significant effect on climate. What do you say to the 99% of professional scientists and researchers who use data to say otherwise?
Liberals (and some conservatives) have not given up their cars en mass but they have pushed forth legislation phasing out gasoline-powered automobiles forcing car companies to come up with greener alternatives.The environmental costs in making nuclear power plants is exponentially more damaging to the environmental costs that the pollution costs in making the solar panels. Over time, the carbon footprint from manufacturing solar panels decreases while the waste from nuclear power plants multiplies over time. (Footnote: There is an isotope that is far safer than the current fuels being used but the technology is already in place for the other type.)
It's not unusual for the vast majority of people to be wrong about something. I've given a couple of examples of this several months ago. One example of that which will be revealed in the future is a man fraudulently convicted of murder in which I would say 99.9% of people are convinced he is guilty.. because almost all the information they have been given about the case is false. (he was framed). I know who framed him, I can prove he was framed, and the evidence I have to prove he was framed was given to me by the person who basically confessed to the crime to me in several chat sessions. He committed suicide a few months later. The jury were not even told that the man who did it existed. His suicide was never even reported. At the time, I thought the man was a nut, but the things he confided to me turned out to all be 100% true when the trial took place 2.5 years after he told me what really happened.
As for climate change… the climate is always changing in cycles. There have been many ice ages, etc. The rate of change is incredibly slow.. and it's not a result of CO2 emissions but because of other factors. If people want to bitch about something real.. bitch about pollution, overpopulation, and the fact that the oceans are becoming barren wastelands due to pollution and overfishing. Many countries dump their raw sewage and garbage right into the ocean.
Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing. There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle
and
and
and
-
-
It's not unusual for the vast majority of people to be wrong about something. I've given a couple of examples of this several months ago. One example of that which will be revealed in the future is a man fraudulently convicted of murder in which I would say 99.9% of people are convinced he is guilty.. because almost all the information they have been given about the case is false. (he was framed). I know who framed him, I can prove he was framed, and the evidence I have to prove he was framed was given to me by the person who basically confessed to the crime to me in several chat sessions. He committed suicide a few months later. The jury were not even told that the man who did it existed. His suicide was never even reported. At the time, I thought the man was a nut, but the things he confided to me turned out to all be 100% true when the trial took place 2.5 years after he told me what really happened.
As for climate change… the climate is always changing in cycles. There have been many ice ages, etc. The rate of change is incredibly slow.. and it's not a result of CO2 emissions but because of other factors. If people want to bitch about something real.. bitch about pollution, overpopulation, and the fact that the oceans are becoming barren wastelands due to pollution and overfishing. Many countries dump their raw sewage and garbage right into the ocean.
Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing. There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?
A personal account of a single case is hardly a good demonstration that the majority can be wrong. Here we're talking about scientists from across the planet, 97% of them, who say that climate change is real. 97%. How often do you get that much agreement?
The better argument against large numbers of people agreeing is religion. There is no god, there is no afterlife so pretty much 99.9% of the planets 8 billion people are wrong. Were there to be an afterlife than only a very small portion of those people would be right. Either way, the majority is wrong.
The difference is that the majority are not learned people. The average person who doesn't believe in climate change is the layperson commenting on their day to day. The few scientist who remain, well, they might have a point but it doesn't mean they're right. It also doesn't mean that we, as a global people, can't course correct. Look at what India and Pakistan did in planting several million trees. If we continue to do that while decrease carbon emissions the naysayers might be proven right – there is no climate change -- becasue we stopped it.
Whether you belive or not, cleaner air is a boon we can all enjoy.
-
It's not unusual for the vast majority of people to be wrong about something. I've given a couple of examples of this several months ago. One example of that which will be revealed in the future is a man fraudulently convicted of murder in which I would say 99.9% of people are convinced he is guilty.. because almost all the information they have been given about the case is false. (he was framed). I know who framed him, I can prove he was framed, and the evidence I have to prove he was framed was given to me by the person who basically confessed to the crime to me in several chat sessions. He committed suicide a few months later. The jury were not even told that the man who did it existed. His suicide was never even reported. At the time, I thought the man was a nut, but the things he confided to me turned out to all be 100% true when the trial took place 2.5 years after he told me what really happened.
As for climate change… the climate is always changing in cycles. There have been many ice ages, etc. The rate of change is incredibly slow.. and it's not a result of CO2 emissions but because of other factors. If people want to bitch about something real.. bitch about pollution, overpopulation, and the fact that the oceans are becoming barren wastelands due to pollution and overfishing. Many countries dump their raw sewage and garbage right into the ocean.
Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing. There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?
A personal account of a single case is hardly a good demonstration that the majority can be wrong. Here we're talking about scientists from across the planet, 97% of them, who say that climate change is real. 97%. How often do you get that much agreement?
The better argument against large numbers of people agreeing is religion. There is no god, there is no afterlife so pretty much 99.9% of the planets 8 billion people are wrong. Were there to be an afterlife than only a very small portion of those people would be right. Either way, the majority is wrong.
The difference is that the majority are not learned people. The average person who doesn't believe in climate change is the layperson commenting on their day to day. The few scientist who remain, well, they might have a point but it doesn't mean they're right. It also doesn't mean that we, as a global people, can't course correct. Look at what India and Pakistan did in planting several million trees. If we continue to do that while decrease carbon emissions the naysayers might be proven right – there is no climate change -- becasue we stopped it.
Whether you belive or not, cleaner air is a boon we can all enjoy.
As long as the population continues to grow exponentially, any measures taken to try and reduce carbon emissions are futile. I have one amusing and true story about that. In some places there is a carbon emission tax put on cattle because they fart so much!
-
As long as the population continues to grow exponentially, any measures taken to try and reduce carbon emissions are futile. I have one amusing and true story about that. In some places there is a carbon emission tax put on cattle because they fart so much!
That's demonstrably false. Energy-related carbon emissions are falling across the globe, notably in developed countries and China (and I believe India, if not, they've been fast at work putting the infrastructure in place to do so).
You might be thinking of poverty. Macron said as much, that there can be no answer for poverty as long as undeveloped nations continue to spew out more people.
-
As long as the population continues to grow exponentially, any measures taken to try and reduce carbon emissions are futile. I have one amusing and true story about that. In some places there is a carbon emission tax put on cattle because they fart so much!
That's demonstrably false. Energy-related carbon emissions are falling across the globe, notably in developed countries and China (and I believe India, if not, they've been fast at work putting the infrastructure in place to do so).
You might be thinking of poverty. Macron said as much, that there can be no answer for poverty as long as undeveloped nations continue to spew out more people.
The most recent data I could find is from 2015.. but the data shows clearly that CO2 emissions = CHINA
also…
Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.
-
We can't have a proper discussion on this when the left has a history of acting in such horrible ways to enforce their view on the topic.
The left committed countless vile deeds to make sure only their version was presented. Email-gate and many others exposed the nasty antics the left did to prevent any descent.
In email-gate, we found out (along with countless other things) that East Anglia University was lying on Freedom Of Information requests by saying that the information requested didn't exist. They laughed and joked at how much lying they were doing and how easy it was to get away with it.
We learned that they used "Mark's number trick" to get the data set to come out the way they wanted it.
The UN's bi-annual report on climate change has to have constant edits to correct proven lies. One of the most famous lies was the photo-shopping of a glacier to show it as virtually gone, when in fact it grew over the span of the 2 photos. This was how we went from "global warming" to "climate change". No one ever gets punished for these lies.
There was an article where scientific journals refused to peer review sceptic papers. They then use that as proof that their claims are junk because they aren't peer reviewed.
+++++
While I agree that climate change is real, I fucking despise the way the left has acted over this.
It makes society unable to trust them when they are using shit like "Mark's number trick", photo-shopped pics and countless other things to lie about the "proof".
One side is purposely and dishonestly muted, so how do we know that what we do hear is even remotely true.
-
We can't have a proper discussion on this when the left has a history of acting in such horrible ways to enforce their view on the topic.
The left committed countless vile deeds to make sure only their version was presented. Email-gate and many others exposed the nasty antics the left did to prevent any descent.
In email-gate, we found out (along with countless other things) that East Anglia University was lying on Freedom Of Information requests by saying that the information requested didn't exist. They laughed and joked at how much lying they were doing and how easy it was to get away with it.
We learned that they used "Mark's number trick" to get the data set to come out the way they wanted it.
The UN's bi-annual report on climate change has to have constant edits to correct proven lies. One of the most famous lies was the photo-shopping of a glacier to show it as virtually gone, when in fact it grew over the span of the 2 photos. This was how we went from "global warming" to "climate change". No one ever gets punished for these lies.
There was an article where scientific journals refused to peer review sceptic papers. They then use that as proof that their claims are junk because they aren't peer reviewed.
+++++
While I agree that climate change is real, I fucking despise the way the left has acted over this.
It makes society unable to trust them when they are using shit like "Mark's number trick", photo-shopped pics and countless other things to lie about the "proof".
One side is purposely and dishonestly muted, so how do we know that what we do hear is even remotely true.
There is also the issue of major moonbats such as Al Gore. Al is supposed to be the prince of "Green".. but the green isn't the welfare of the planet.. it's the paper in his wallet. Al invested his life savings into things like low wattage light bulbs and solar panels.. while aggressively pushing for laws to benefit his own companies. Even worse, Al's products are a bit expensive compared to cheap imports.. so he had the solar panels imported from China destroyed by customs! Al only likes energy conservation that benefits his own bank account. https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/22/16351562/solar-energy-international-trade-commission-foreign-trade-lawsuit-suniva-tariff
-
The most recent data I could find is from 2015.. but the data shows clearly that CO2 emissions = CHINA
also…
Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.
I did some reading about this before bed. I found information from different sources which said that China isn't expected to peak until 2020 (or even as late as 2030) and others that said that their CO2 has already started to decline. I'm not positive but I think taken together it's supposed to mean that the population is still increasing so in the coming decades as people start moving to these newly made cities car consumption will increase driving their CO2 consumption up but at the same time, they've already reached certain targets.
Data's a bitch. :cheesy2:
That you and I could go online and come up with wildly different information shows how difficult it is for one team of people – spread across the globe, no less -- to come to a near-unanimous conclusion that the planet is warming and that there will be dire consequences.
As for "Mark's number trick", this is all I could find and I'm pretty sure this isn't what he had in mind. ::)
-
The most recent data I could find is from 2015.. but the data shows clearly that CO2 emissions = CHINA
also…
Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.
I did some reading about this before bed. I found information from different sources which said that China isn't expected to peak until 2020 (or even as late as 2030) and others that said that their CO2 has already started to decline. I'm not positive but I think taken together it's supposed to mean that the population is still increasing so in the coming decades as people start moving to these newly made cities car consumption will increase driving their CO2 consumption up but at the same time, they've already reached certain targets.
Data's a bitch. :cheesy2:That you and I could go online and come up with wildly different information shows how difficult it is for one team of people – spread across the globe, no less -- to come to a near-unanimous conclusion that the planet is warming and that there will be dire consequences.
As for "Mark's number trick", this is all I could find and I'm pretty sure this isn't what he had in mind. ::)
wouldn't call that a trick.. I would call that very basic algebra.
sqrt{xx + 2x + 1} - x = (x + 1) - x = 1keep in mind that (x+1) * {x + 1) = x^2 + x + x + 1 = xx + 2x + 1
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies
Both are ultra leftist, but they were the easiest to find.
