Science wins again w/ Global Warming

nope, I just think on GW you and yours are full of baloney - the fear mongering is really just to control us and is part of the globalism the libs are so high on

 

The people who “buy into this stuff” are the people who look at the numbers. Obviously there are legit debates about the trade offs between economics and environment. Can’t go 100% in either direction.

As far as I can tell your take is “neener needer neener it’s a hoax, nothing gonna change my mind, don’t you libz feel owned by my obstinance?”.

 

How can anyone believe it is OK to dump whatever you want in the oceans, rivers, lakes and streams. release any toxic or otherwise chemical or fume into the air, bury our garbage or worse in the ground and cut down as many trees as you'd like without there being long term and, at some point, permanent consequences?

You shouldn't need a doctorate or even a college degree to understand the likely results of these actions.

At least if people said profits are more important than the environment or let my grandchildren deal with it, it would show some base, fundamental understanding of the consequences of our behavior, but to simply deny it is happening is evidencing an obliviousness that defies imagination.

 

I remember having this exact discussion with someone on here before, they were adamant the EPA should be dissolved and the feds should have zero say about what goes in to rivers and streams. My question was what then happens to people downstream? I thought that should be an obvious one considering how many rivers span or border multiple states. But their take was “people can move further upstream for cleaner water”. LOL. Some of these people have to be trolling. Nobody can be that ignorant of the past (rivers literally catching fire).

 

Never underestimate the Maga capability to ignore any opposing facts or deem them fake.

 

Good lord... strawman much?

 

Does it matter to you who is providing the data?
Do you care where the grants originate?
Do you even give a shit about anything else besides your ability to track down libbie slanted links?
LOL.

 

That is an awfully large amount of emotional buzzwords. But let's pretend for a second like this isn't talk radio, where the hottest/most emotional take "wins" but really a scientific question driven by cognitive thought processes. You theorized that global sea levels weren't rising (i.e., the slope of the line tracking the relationship between year and global sea levels was zero or negative). I presented observations that showed a positive slope, utilizing two different observational methods (satellite and buoy data). You declared that "bogus."

Let me ask again, and this has nothing to do with globalists or whatever things the emotional part of your brain is trying to spin up now, what is incorrect in the graph that I posted. Did they collect the data incorrectly? Did they analyze it incorrectly? I challenge you to make a cognitive argument, devoid of motivated reasoning and emotion.

 

Yes. The data was provided by a combination of groups, since multiple methods were used. Those group are the US EPA, NOAA, and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (from Australia). The observations occured over years.

What grants? This isn't research supported by grants.

Buoys and satellites collecting the data are now libs too?

 

His entire argument is based on a most stupid strawman. It’s not even shared by the bloody hydrocarbon industry that’s rapidly to a carbon neutral (or negative) world.

I was on a call with an operator, just last week, about Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) with wells that are isolated with salt caps. It’s pretty neat stuff.

 

actually in my case I don’t. I’d prefer people understand and accept grade school level facts and debate the more salient points, but alas we are where we are.

 

You know who’s suuuuuper liberal?

Exxon-Mobile.

Climate policy principles | ExxonMobil.

 

Because in some instances cost isn’t the primary factor. For AI server farms reliability and availability is the most important issue. However for most applications cost is a primary factor.

 

Its all bullshit. The biggest proponents of it live in giant houses and fly private. Hell, some of those giant houses are on beaches not far from Plymouth Rock.....just sitting there.....for centuries.....on the beach....not under water.
Who knows what data to believe. A giant majority of it is funded by public funds and fudged so often. The scientific community even bullshits the numbers on "97%+" consensus so I have little doubt they bullshit with the feedback multipliers in their models or the variable they plug in for solar activity. And theres another sign its a grift. They repurpose electrical engineering formulas for feedback multipliers, plug it in and convince people its "doing science".
Even the whole "2C rise in temp" was just thrown out there like "6ft social distancing". Its made up bullshit by grifters throwing parties in beach houses while you lock down and eat Microsoft iMeat.
Its cool though. Just stay off my lawn and we're all good.

 

My God. This post is like if Dunning-Kruger and an ad hominem fallacy combined their powers to create the stupidest strawman yet posted in this thread.

Now, getting that out of the way…

Provide a coherent, evidence-based rebuttal against currently accepted theory. It would help to cite papers and/or establish your credibility as an expert.

 

Sounds time consuming and youre an internet stranger. Ill pass.
You can go
-google earth Plymouth Rock
-look up Obama/Kerry/Gore residents
-Google various leaders throwing parties during lockdowns
-Read the charter docs of IPCC from the 70s. Iirc, the introduction paragraph states their intended outcome. Super sciency. They used to also list information on the weighted variables they use in their models - not sure if they still do, been a few years since I looked. If its still on there youll notice the sun is weighted towards the very bottom.
- Search Antarctic ice sheets growing
- I seem to remember reading a brand new study that just came out this past summer about the GBR growing.

 

I’m not going to do your research for you. It is your job to support yourself in the ways I outlined above.

This sort of response always feel like “I don’t actually have evidence-based reasons to feel like I do, so I’m just gonna pigeon chess and refuse to do it.”

Once more, attacking AGW research through ad hominem arguments isn’t effective. Demonstrate that data and conclusions, shared across industries, governments, and universities are somehow wrong.

I wish you could understand the sheer absurdity of a conspiracy that large and across often competent interests….

 

I gave you a “like”.

I’m all for getting off fossil fuels. I just think we need something other than wind and solar for back up. I prefer a small nuclear reactor over coal. If we have enough natural gas then use that. Get coal out of the equation.

Alaska has long nights. I’m not sure battery storage would hold up long enough during that time. Wind may be the answer during that time. I’m all for it if it’s not too expensive and dependable.

Nothing would make me much happier than giving OPEC the finger.

 

Long nights and very long days. It is always light for the same amount of time. But yes, there are challenges and advantages to rural places like Alaska. While you have more extreme variance in terms of climate and light, the distributed nature of power production is better for small and isolated communities (which is why most power in South Dakota is now wind). I'd imagine that they would likely use more wind, but very high winds can be a problem for that as well.

And thanks for the like.

 

Beans and biomass

Everyone wants the magical silver bullet. Reality is, power generation has long been a mixture of different types of generation. That trend will continue as new technologies supplant older ones.