Hey Matt B ... How the hell o are you ??? :)

2nd Light Forums
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Oh Goodness. Climate scientists come clean.
Topic Summary:
Created On: 06/20/2017 12:28 PM
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 06/20/2017 12:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


tpapablo

Posts: 43831
Joined Forum: 07/25/2003

They now admit that their models are wrong.

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

Poor progs - always wrong about everything.

Tpap, on the other hand, is triumphant as always. I very much look forward to how the cultists rationalize this. That's what cultists do. Everyone have a good laugh.



-------------------------
I :heart; Q
 06/20/2017 12:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


daner

Posts: 7918
Joined Forum: 04/20/2004

Unlike politics that you use as a source for your information, science strives to be accurate through self examination. It's how it gets better.

-------------------------
Replace turf grass with native plants that don't need irrigation and synthetic fertilizers or chemicals that can go into our waterways and ocean

 06/20/2017 12:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


tpapablo

Posts: 43831
Joined Forum: 07/25/2003

Originally posted by: daner Unlike politics that you use as a source for your information, science strives to be accurate through self examination. It's how it gets better.

Maybe so, but some of you folks were perverting science, trying to shout down dissenters in order to advance your political agenda. A bunch of y'all were calling us deniers, idiots, flat earthers, anti-science, etc. We have been vindicated. Y'all have been vanquished. I would hope that the cultists will go away in shame quietly. But I know better.



-------------------------
I :heart; Q
 06/20/2017 12:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


RustyTruck

Posts: 33300
Joined Forum: 08/02/2004

Are you denying that the global temperature is rising? Did you read the article?

Go burn some coal, the rest of use are going green because the scientific evidence is concrete that the climate is changing, it's temperatures are rising, and humans activity is contributing towards it.


-------------------------
Capitalism is based on the ridiculous notion that you can enjoy limitless growth in a closed, finite system.

In biology, such behavior of cells is called "cancer".
 06/20/2017 12:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


SuperTeeBird

Posts: 2387
Joined Forum: 12/08/2016

The models aren't perfect.

Hopefully FK will, as always, extrapolate that to mean they are completely wrong and stay for the next Cat 5.

 06/20/2017 01:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


tpapablo

Posts: 43831
Joined Forum: 07/25/2003

Originally posted by: RustyTruck Are you denying that the global temperature is rising? Did you read the article? Go burn some coal, the rest of use are going green because the scientific evidence is concrete that the climate is changing, it's temperatures are rising, and humans activity is contributing towards it.

I'd prefer to burn gasoline. No doubt that the climate is changing, that temperatures have been rising since ithe last Ice Age or about 18,000 years, and that man has some influence on that. The amount of influence is the issue and that hasn't been established. Then there is the question of whether we can do anything about it. There is also the question of whether we should do anything about it (getting colder is the problem, not getting warmer). And there is the question of whether it is worth spending trillions on the issue, even if we can do something about it, or put the money to other uses. The cultists never seem to want to address those questions. Pretty simplistic to them: warm is bad, must spend whatever it takes to stop. I look at the issue at a higher level.



-------------------------
I :heart; Q
 06/20/2017 01:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


daner

Posts: 7918
Joined Forum: 04/20/2004

When cutting pollution is what we can do about it- it's a win win.

-------------------------
Replace turf grass with native plants that don't need irrigation and synthetic fertilizers or chemicals that can go into our waterways and ocean

 06/20/2017 03:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


tpapablo

Posts: 43831
Joined Forum: 07/25/2003

Originally posted by: daner When cutting pollution is what we can do about it- it's a win win.

Not necessarily. We've had pollution for the earth's entire existence. Our air and water have always had things in them. You have to do a cost benefit analysis. If 8 parts per billion of something causes no harm to anything, what sense does it make to spend billions of dollars to reduce its concentration to 1 part per billion? Cutting pollution for the sheer hell of it is dumb.



-------------------------
I :heart; Q
 06/20/2017 05:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


RustyTruck

Posts: 33300
Joined Forum: 08/02/2004

If you want to breath smog and surf in a poo soup, fine for you.

The rest of us are going to work to clean the place up.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Donora_smog

My people remember this.

-------------------------
Capitalism is based on the ridiculous notion that you can enjoy limitless growth in a closed, finite system.

In biology, such behavior of cells is called "cancer".
 06/20/2017 05:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


ww

Posts: 16088
Joined Forum: 08/17/2007

I don't see anything big about the paper.  The author is a prominent climate scientist.  

 06/20/2017 06:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


johnnyboy

Posts: 25071
Joined Forum: 07/22/2003

You are like the guys a century and a half ago that would have killed every whale to extinction just keep the lamps burning.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

 06/20/2017 06:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


scombrid

Posts: 18021
Joined Forum: 07/24/2003

Originally posted by: tpapablo There is also the question of whether we should do anything about it (getting colder is the problem, not getting warmer).

 

Any rapid change is bad and expensive.

Warmer is really bad if you already live in a hot humid climate.



-------------------------
...

 06/21/2017 01:59 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


scombrid

Posts: 18021
Joined Forum: 07/24/2003

It is currently 4:55 AM and I am headed out the door for an interval workout.

It is 81F with a dewpoint of 77F. That puts the wet bulb dangerously high for stenuous activity.

Our normal low for June is 73 and dewpoint should be around 72 based on the 1980 to 2010 record period. We rarely see either of those numbers. ("normal" would be lower if it wasn't reset every 30 years as opposed to being based on the full record for a location).



-------------------------
...

 06/21/2017 02:17 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


scombrid

Posts: 18021
Joined Forum: 07/24/2003

Originally posted by: tpapablo You have to do a cost benefit analysis.

There are stacks of these for carbon and anything else that has ever been considered to be "regulated". Would you like to critique a few? Or share ones that favor your position?

Or are you unaware of them and that is why you posted earily that "cultists never think about these things"?

If 8 parts per billion of something causes no harm to anything, what sense does it make to spend billions of dollars to reduce its concentration to 1 part per billion? Cutting pollution for the sheer hell of it is dumb.

 

That's what many in industry have said about ozone, sulfphur, nitrogen, etc....

Meanwhile air quality has improved substantially in the US with less smog and ozone both. Acid rain has gotten less bad and some lakes that were sterilized by it have seen their pH rise to a point that they again support some aquatic life. Mercury concentrations in places like the Everglades have dropped though there is still a lot of work to do on that front. That is in spite of all the kicking and screaming by you people whenever things like pollution control devices on cars were required or the cap and trade program for sulfur was instituted.

Go ahead an name the contaminants in air or water that is at harmlessly low concentrations that are regulated or proposed for regulation just for the hell of it

You name CO2 by default given what you have posted in this thread but it is above ppb by a bit and there are demonstrable effects so you can't claim that it is totally harmless. I can talk about effects beyond temperature, e.g. biological and chemical effects of having more CO2 around, effects that are going to cost somebody something.

Surely you have other ppb things to list given the generality in your statement.

 

 



-------------------------
...



Edited: 06/21/2017 at 02:35 AM by scombrid
 06/21/2017 02:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


scombrid

Posts: 18021
Joined Forum: 07/24/2003

Originally posted by: johnnyboy You are like the guys a century and a half ago that would have killed every whale to extinction just keep the lamps burning.

Or that in the 1980s and 1990s opposed any and all regulations on sulfur and cfcs.

They crow about cost but the only cost that they care about it is cost to the polluter. They don't care at all about the cost dumped on the commons. They discount that cost to the point of pretending that it doesn't exist.

People that claim to believe in freedom shouldn't think it right for industry in Ohio to be able to dump its pollution in New England. But their they have been for decades opposing pretty much every regulation on the grounds of cost to the polluter.



-------------------------
...

 06/21/2017 04:52 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Cole

Posts: 68180
Joined Forum: 07/22/2003

In actual news: Trump's FEMA director confirmed 10 hours before the first tropical event hits land.

Only 1,000 cabinet and department positions left to fill!

Donald Trump, histories laziest president.

-------------------------
I was right.
 06/21/2017 05:13 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


stokedpanda

Posts: 4226
Joined Forum: 09/04/2015

Originally posted by: tpapablo

Originally posted by: RustyTruck Are you denying that the global temperature is rising? Did you read the article? Go burn some coal, the rest of use are going green because the scientific evidence is concrete that the climate is changing, it's temperatures are rising, and humans activity is contributing towards it.




I'd prefer to burn gasoline. No doubt that the climate is changing, that temperatures have been rising since ithe last Ice Age or about 18,000 years, and that man has some influence on that. The amount of influence is the issue and that hasn't been established. Then there is the question of whether we can do anything about it. There is also the question of whether we should do anything about it (getting colder is the problem, not getting warmer). And there is the question of whether it is worth spending trillions on the issue, even if we can do something about it, or put the money to other uses. The cultists never seem to want to address those questions. Pretty simplistic to them: warm is bad, must spend whatever it takes to stop. I look at the issue at a higher level.



he took his troll hat off quick look at how oddly shaped his head is!

JK, the wanton spending is pretty ridiculous, some good points there^



-------------------------
I troll 2L.com to be a better person in real life
 06/21/2017 05:31 AM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


tom

Posts: 8013
Joined Forum: 07/25/2003

'Essentially, all models are wrongbut some are useful' G. Box

until you've done your own modeling,

this statement is just another outlier



-------------------------
add a signature since I'm here in profile anyway
 06/21/2017 06:39 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


SuperTeeBird

Posts: 2387
Joined Forum: 12/08/2016

The models created by brilliant physicists are the best we have.

What they point to is obvious.

We could always run the real thing instead of a simulation. See what happens, haha. Say "interesting outcome!" just before half of us perish.

Of course, the morons thought Ebola was gonna ravage us; science means nothing compared to their powerful delusions.

 06/21/2017 07:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


tpapablo

Posts: 43831
Joined Forum: 07/25/2003

Originally posted by: scombrid
Originally posted by: johnnyboy You are like the guys a century and a half ago that would have killed every whale to extinction just keep the lamps burning.

 

Or that in the 1980s and 1990s opposed any and all regulations on sulfur and cfcs.

 

They crow about cost but the only cost that they care about it is cost to the polluter. They don't care at all about the cost dumped on the commons. They discount that cost to the point of pretending that it doesn't exist.

 

People that claim to believe in freedom shouldn't think it right for industry in Ohio to be able to dump its pollution in New England. But their they have been for decades opposing pretty much every regulation on the grounds of cost to the polluter.

 

That's not what we are saying at all. Think we are all in agreement that things were out of control by the 60's and that something needed to be done. It was, after all, Nixon who created the EPA. But there comes a point where you are no longer achieving anything of value. As far as global warming, we do not know enough about it yet. It is, therefore, foolish to spend trillions on something that we may or may not be causing and may or may not be able to stop and may not want to stop. Keep in mind that we have been warming for a long time now. Given the cycles we've seen in the past, it is getting around that time (in geological times) where we should start cooling again. Global warming will not be catastrophic (and probably would be good in many ways - compare the last ice age to now.). Global cooling would be. Maybe we should be warming the planet while we can.



-------------------------
I :heart; Q
Statistics
146494 users are registered to the 2nd Light Forums forum.
There are currently 3 users logged in to the forum.

FuseTalk Basic Edition - © 1999-2024 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

First there was Air Jordan .