Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[ron johnson]

Your first point does nothing to support your claim that “we can’t do anything”. You then create a straw man by saying everyone is against nuclear. I’m not against nuclear and I bet most people arguing here aren’t against nuclear.

It seems to me that all the policymakers, and the loud activists are against nuclear. Do any of the 2020 Dems climate plans include nuclear? Of the top of my head, I don't believe they do, except for Yang maybe?

I give the example of a solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, and natural gas mix as an example of a plan that might actually be feasible, and would reduce emissions to some extent in the US, but I stand by the fact that it will have a minimal impact on warming.

Your second point assumes that the US is the only country that reduces its co2 and no one else does. Other countries are willing to do the same. And your article is from Forbes and is an unfounded and poorly written opinion piece that lacks scientific basis. Further, developing new wind, solar, and storage technology definitely would drive down the cost. That’s how shit works, how it has always worked.

I've said over and over, that the world will not adopt zero carbon emission energy unless it makes economic sense. You might get part of the developed world to increase its non carbon renewable energy share, but you have to get this tech economically viable if you want to get a large share of the world on board.

If you read the link I gave, there isn't much more cost savings to be had from more wind and solar development. Storage still has cost saving potential, but it still has a massive way to go, and it doesn't seem our best storage option at the moment (lithium batteries) has much untapped potential.

I'm aware that the Forbes piece isn't great evidence. I have asked in the past that someone try to find a better source for that type of analysis because I can't find anything. Find me a source of your liking that will estimate how much warming will be prevented by 2100 from the US stopping co2 emissions tomorrow. I'm guessing you won't be able to find anything since it will be highly inconvenient to show people that these climate plans will have a negligible effect on warming.

Lastly, that’s cute. It isn’t a pollutant. I encourage you to go breath 100% nitrogen, that isn’t a pollutant either. The idea that because something is necessary for life that you can’t get too much of it is the most preposterous, stupid thing you’ve said in a long line of stupid. The fact you won’t attribute any costs to co2 even though the most conservative estimates say rising sea levels alone will cost the world trillions.

There is zero historical evidence of high levels of co2 being bad for the planet. Plant life thrives with 1,000+ ppm co2.

You exhale 38,000ppm co2 when you breathe.

Sea levels will still rise if US emissions are cut to zero tomorrow.

[rideit]

So, we should do...nothing?
This thread needs something.

[El Kanone]

[KQ]

Letter to the editor of my local rag the Union Bulletin. Oh Jerry......


Present climate is best we’ve lived in
Jerry Votendahl Oct 4, 2019

Beth Call (Sept. 26 letter to the editor) thinks that it’s just great to see these kids march, crying for us adults to save the planet. No, it’s not. All those educators and parents who brainwash children to believe that our climate is sick, and unless we do something now, they will all die in about 10 years or so ought to be arrested and put in jail for child abuse. They have caused these children extreme pain and emotional distress in fear for their very lives. And for what?

Oh, I understand the liberal mindset of our teachers and parents who believe promoting their socialistic climate change agenda is of most importance, but they of all people should understand the vulnerability of our young and the fear that they cause them by such drastic disclosure.


As to the college kids, I thought they had inquiring minds that wouldn’t accept teachings without reasonable inquiry into the facts supporting it. However, as proven by the Whitman students who marched on the Sept. 20, regurgitating the same climate change garbage of their liberal professors, facts don’t matter.

But it was nice that they marched on a cool day, rather than experiencing the unbearable sun-killing hot day, which was predicted by these so called scientist some 30 years ago. I wonder why they don’t ask the question — why?

Why is it that our present climate doesn’t match their predictions, and contrary to Ms. Call, this climate is probably the best we have ever lived in: We live longer, we are healthier, we produce more crops to feed the world, pollution has been reduced by over 70%, our economy is stronger than ever, and our planet is not in any crisis (at least less than we were in the 1930s, which was the hottest decade on record).

Climate always changes and our prayer is that it doesn’t again change to a mini ice age, even though this year was one of the coldest winters on record which also wasn’t supposed to happen).

If Ms. Call and these students actually read the weather/climate records, they would discover that we have been warmer, cooler, wetter, drier and windier than we are now, and it will change again. As history has shown, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires and floods are not any worse than this planet has experienced many times before.


So, chill out and don’t scare the children!

Jerry Votendahl

Walla Walla

[El Kanone]

Do you really think we are all going to die in 10 to 12 years due to the change in the weather? Seriously??
That is what these people are telling the children.
Are you unable to grasp the severity of lasting mental trauma that is causing these Kids. The kids really believe they will be dead in 12 years that is insane to promote that. Anyone teaching that is batshit crazy.
Pollution is a major problem. We need to address and combat. Telling little kids they will all die before they reach 20 years of age is utter insanity.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[grinch]

The effects of climate change are predicted to be "irreversible" in 10-12 years. Are you promoting the ostrich technique?

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[rideit]

Do you really think we are all going to die in 10 to 12 years due to the change in the weather? Seriously??
That is what these people are telling the children.
Are you unable to grasp the severity of lasting mental trauma that is causing these Kids. The kids really believe they will be dead in 12 years that is insane to promote that. Anyone teaching that is batshit crazy.
Pollution is a major problem. We need to address and combat. Telling little kids they will all die before they reach 20 years of age is utter insanity.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Bullshit, NO-ONE is saying that, they are saying that if we don't DO SOMETHING in the next decade, millions will be impacted.
Not the same thing.
You are gullible.

[El Kanone]

If I had the computer skills to embed videos I could show you clip after clip of kids crying saying we will all be dead in ten years.
Pretty sure the crazy bartender chick who won the casting call and got installed into congress recently said the world was going to end in 12 years.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[El Kanone]

[KQ]

When I was a kid it was the threat of Nuclear war (the evil USSR!), gas shortages and the sun dying that they beat us over the head with on a daily basis. Then there were the queers and pervs waiting in public restrooms to grab us. It was a regular gauntlet.

If I had the computer skills to embed videos I could show you clip after clip of kids crying saying we will all be dead in ten years.
Pretty sure the crazy bartender chick who won the casting call and got installed into congress recently said the world was going to end in 12 years.

On the internet you can find videos of just about anything and some of them are actually real. If you want to embed just use video tags. Very easy. Even kids can do it.

[rideit]

If I had the computer skills to embed videos I could show you clip after clip of kids crying saying we will all be dead in ten years.
Pretty sure the crazy bartender chick who won the casting call and got installed into congress recently said the world was going to end in 12 years.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Prove it.

[SumJongGuy]

When I was a kid they told us that the Earth, then the Sun was the center of the universe and God was the only thing that kept us from falling off the Earth in to space. Since then there have been countless new theories and guestimates.. But very few have had the overwhelming support and consensus from the scientific community that human caused global warming does. Evolution, vaccines, gravity, a few others come to mind. Note the same group that disagrees with any of those things disagrees with most of them..

[WMD]

Cover of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle today
"Climate in crisis - "uncharted" warming alarms Montana Scientists"



The science is clear

Cathy Whitlock was nervous when she first started traveling around Montana to talk to small groups of farmers and ranchers, foresters, tribal college and church members about the hot topic of climate change.

“I was really terrified. I’m an introvert and a scientist,” Whitlock recalled.

Whitlock is respected as a regents professor of Earth sciences at Montana State University and the first Montana scientist elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Still, she worried that people might be rude or angry or shut her down.

Instead she found the people she met were “very gracious and good listeners. They were genuinely interested and concerned.”

For scientists like Whitlock, the evidence of climate change is too strong and too alarming to stay home and stay quiet.

“We’re certain enough about this one that we’re pretty darned serious,” said Bruce Maxwell, an MSU ecologist specializing in crop science. Maxwell is co-director of the Montana Institute on Ecosystems, a joint project of MSU and the University of Montana.

Whitlock and Maxwell are two of the five lead authors on the 2017 Montana Climate Assessment report.

They worked with a team of 30 — scientists, water experts, economists and policy people from all around the state — to write the first major report on climate change in Montana. They spent two years collecting data, working on computer models and talking with Montanans.

The report’s goal was “to inform Montanans about the state’s changing climate so that they can better plan for the future.”

The scientists drove all across the state to hold listening sessions and meet with some 4,000 Montanans to talk about “our changing climate.”

Only two or three times did anyone stand up and claim climate change was fake, a government conspiracy. In Havre, farmers in the audience told the few disrupters to shut up — they wanted to hear what the scientists had to say.

Melting glaciers,
burning forests
Montanans can clearly see that our climate is changing.

Just about everyone has seen the dramatic photos of Glacier National Park’s disappearing glaciers. In the 1850s, the park had about 150 glaciers. By 2016, only 25 remained, the Montana Climate Assessment reports.

“We’ve gotten 2 to 3 degrees warmer since 1950 in Montana,” Whitlock said, adding that most people who’ve lived here for decades know things are changing.

“Warming is driving everything,” she said. “There’s more drought because of warming. There’s less snow because of warming. More fires because of warming. Closing streams because of warming.”

If nothing is done to alter our current direction, if we stick with business as usual, the scientists predict Montana could be 10 degrees warmer by the end of this century.

“That 10 degrees would really be a game changer,” Whitlock said.

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...edium=facebook

[El Kanone]

Real covers of Time magazine no parody. The science was settled then too.

[rideit]

It never was settled on global cooling.
Go back and read up on it.

[Marmot or Fox]

@ WMD.

The Comical FB page has that article and a bazillion comments from experts such as El Kanone.

The sheer ignorance/falsehood/spin is staggering.

Such as....

https://time.com/5670942/time-magazi...ge-cover-hoax/

The newsmagazine business isn’t what it used to be. (Though, hey, it could be worse.) But the space between the red borders of TIME magazine remains some of the most valuable real estate in the news industry. You can tell by how often doctored TIME covers show up in protest crowds, movies, TV shows and on the Web. Former TIME International editor Jim Frederick even had a copy of this fake TIME from the video game Call of Duty 3 hanging up in his office — a fact that drove me insane with jealousy.

Ads, jokes and protests are one thing, though — hoax covers are something else entirely. And that’s the problem with a faked TIME cover about global warming that’s been floating around the Internet for some time. (Hat tip to the science blogger David Kirtley, who posted on this a couple of days ago.) You can see it here.

The cover on the right is real. (I should know — I wrote the story about China and India that’s mentioned in the subhead.) The one on the left is very much not. It’s a doctored version of this cover, from 2007:

Apparently the hoax cover has been floating around the Internet for at least a few years. I’m not sure who created it, and it doesn’t seem to have gotten a whole lot of traction, even among climate-science deniers. Though kudos to whoever initially put the fake cover together. That’s some pretty good photoshopping.

But the hoax does touch on an important part of climate science — and one that’s often misunderstood by skeptics. Call it the Ice Age Fallacy. Skeptics argue that back in the 1970s both popular media and some scientists were far more worried about global cooling than they were about global warming. For some reason a Newsweek article on the next ice age, published back in 1975, gets a lot of the attention, though TIME did a version of the story, as did a number of other media outlets. The rationale goes this way: the fact that scientists were once supposedly so concerned about global cooling, which didn’t come true, just shows that we shouldn’t worry about the new fears of climate change.

But as John Cook points out over at Skeptical Science, global cooling was much more an invention of the media than it was a real scientific concern. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has. And some of those global-cooling projections were based on the idea that aerosol levels in the atmosphere — which are a product of air pollution from sources like coal burning and which contribute to cooling by deflecting sunlight in the atmosphere — would keep rising. But thanks to environmental legislation like the Clean Air Acts, global air-pollution levels — not including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — peaked in the 1970s and began declining.

The reality is that scientists in the 1970s were just beginning to understand how climate change and aerosol pollution might impact global temperatures. Add in the media-hype cycle — which was true then as it is now — and you have some coverage that turned out to be wrong. But thanks to the Internet, those stories stay undead, recycled by notorious climate skeptics like George Will. Pay no attention to the Photoshop. It’s the science we should heed — and the science says man-made climate change is real and very, very worrying.

[SumJongGuy]

It never was settled on global cooling.
Go back and read up on it.

Even my junior high science teacher said it was just a theory without a lot of support but an interesting thing to think about. What's even more stunning is that a lot of the consensus believes that we actually should be in a cooling period had it not been for us fucking our shit all up.

[ron johnson]

Reading comprehension much?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weath...-record-books/

Seems to me that you are the one that could use some help with your reading comprehension.

We have been discussing extreme heat/heatwaves in the US.

Have I ever dismissed the past decade being the warmest globally in the instrumental record?

[ron johnson]

Sigh...............

https://www.climatesignals.org/data/...cord-low-temps

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/natio...et-Language=ar

What exactly is the point you are trying to make by highlighting various heatwaves throughout the world in the 21st century? That heat waves never existed before 2000?

What point of mine do you think these posts of yours are refuting?

[ron johnson]

Record Highs are Outpacing Record Lows



Heat Records Shattered across North Carolina Thursday

So you are just doubling down on your cherry picking and think this one regional event somehow proves that there has been an increase in extreme heat in the US?

[stuckathuntermtn]

You are not as smart as you think you are. FOAD

[ron johnson]

You are not as smart as you think you are. FOAD

I know I'm not that smart, but I do know I'm smarter than everyone that has engaged in this thread with the possible exception of MV and neufox. They are the only two that have demonstrated any level of critical thinking, so I'm not exactly setting a high bar for myself.

[Marmot or Fox]

I'll just leave this here.

[iceman]

I know I'm not that smart, but I do know I'm smarter than everyone that has engaged in this thread with the possible exception of MV and neufox. They are the only two that have demonstrated any level of critical thinking, so I'm not exactly setting a high bar for myself.

Funny, I thought MV and neufox were smarter before this thread. But I guess I was wrong, or why the fuck would they engage with a clueless shill like you?

[rideit]

I know I'm not that smart, but I do know I'm smarter than everyone that has engaged in this thread with the possible exception of MV and neufox. They are the only two that have demonstrated any level of critical thinking, so I'm not exactly setting a high bar for myself.

Dunning-Kruger much?
Smart people can see the nose on their own face.