Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »

2
0

99% of scientists and global warming

By rd6B follow rd6B   2019 Sep 21, 8:47am 1,109 views   38 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


Check this guy out:

https://twitter.com/DavidBCollum

He is a very well-regarded scientist from a highly ranked school, has a shot at membership in National Academy of Sciences. I suspect that many if not most scientists think like him, but they have less ability to publicly say what they think due to AGW hypocrite witch-hunts.

Please read through this:

https://twitter.com/DavidBCollum/status/1175244297530216450

"I think claims about melting ice and especially hurricane frequency have been contested rather convincingly. These counters could be wrong but I don't find them easy to dismiss.
On top of that, I am way more afraid of the plans of the cult-like alarmists than the weather and far more concerned about resource depletion and general environmental destruction than the climate. I actually don't think it is even possible to CONSTRUCTIVELY address concerns."
1   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Sep 21, 10:24am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

:
He says right up front that he's a libertarian and a Mises fan.

But his point is well taken about the environment in general and resource depletion.

Also true about constructively addressing concerns. For example, if it were a fact that we as a species would be better off with a much lower population (probably true at some point) how could that be addressed ? WE woudn't even ever be able to reach an agreement that this were a fact, that is if it were.
2   rd6B   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 21, 10:40am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Also true about constructively addressing concerns.

That is a huge problem. Both sides of the discussion are generally engaging in satisfying their emotional needs, instead of coming up with solutions that will not not decrease life quality of 99% of population and preserve at least some of the fossil fuels for future generations.
3   rd6B   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 21, 10:47am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
For example, if it were a fact that we as a species would be better off with a much lower population (probably true at some point) how could that be addressed

At some point population will start to decline naturally and for most world fertility is way down See map below (dark blue is below rate needed for reproduction, light blue is at that rate). For some countries, especially in Sub-saharan Africa, the fertility rates are too high - and they could be decreased by FREE! contraceptives, but there parts of the right - CHURCH! or MOSQUE! will not allow that.

4   HEYYOU   ignore (46)   2019 Sep 21, 10:56am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

" A little time with your favorite online search engine will take you to George Perkins Marsh sounding the alarm in 1847, Svente Arrhenius’s relevant journal article in 1896, and young versions of Al Gore, Carl Sagan, and James Hansen testifying before the United States Congress in the 1980s. There is more, of course, all ignored for a few dollars in a few pockets."

"The projected rate of climate change based on IPCC-style gradualism outstrips the adaptive response of vertebrates by a factor of 10,000 times. Closer to home Homo sapiens, mammals cannot evolve fast enough to escape the current extinction crisis. Humans are vertebrate mammals. To believe that our species can avoid extinction, even as non-human vertebrates and non-human mammals disappear, is classic human hubris wrapped in a warm blanket of myth-based human supremacy."

https://guymcpherson.com/extinction_foretold_extinction_ignored/
5   NoCoupForYou   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 21, 11:04am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Cosmos came out just when the Consensus of Ice Age was being challenged by Consensus of Global Warming. Here is Carl Sagan hedging his bets about which catastrophic anthropogenic model would eventually be adapted:

Human activities brighten our landscape and our atmosphere. Might this ultimately make an ice age here?
At the same time we are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect…. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth’s climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the Cosmos, into a kind of hell.

https://thefederalist.com/2014/02/26/the-original-sin-of-global-warming/

But one thing is true: Since about the 1960s, liberals have pushed catastrophic anthropogenic climate disaster; it's only whether it will be a cold or hot death spiral, which the same causes having wildly different effects.
6   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2019 Sep 21, 11:10am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

For example, if it were a fact that we as a species would be better off with a much lower population (probably true at some point)

That point is NOW. Otherwise, what is all the fuss about AGW, unless it is too may 1st Worlders spewing too much CO2? 1st World population must stabilize for any chance that renewables will support an industrial lifestyle. I cannot even see why you would even say "if, in fact" unless you were trying to reconcile the cognitive dissidence of being a climate alarmist while supporting unfettered immigration from the 3rd World.
7   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Sep 21, 11:36am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

So what you're saying is that in your opinion, some of the one percent aren't idiots ?
9   NoCoupForYou   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 21, 12:58pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

In fact, I forgot the other big angle to liberal escatonic doomsaying. Paul Ehrlich and the great Famine that not only not happened, but instead a worldwide obesity crisis.
10   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2019 Sep 22, 8:40am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        



2019 may be less hot than 2018. Is climate change causing global cooling?
11   Shaman   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 22, 9:14am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Doom and gloom prognosticators are perennially wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that they always find a receptive audience. Plenty of people are unhappy enough with their situation in the world that they’d welcome a little Armageddon or other serious catastrophe...as long as it happens to all those other people who are in their way. I reject all such Debbie Downers as the losers that they are. Mankind is marching towards a destiny, and things are actually on track!
Rather than hoping for an imminent civilization collapse, we should be working for a better future.
Energy is nearly solved. We have many ways to produce it now, not just fossil fuels (which are still abundant anyway). Once fusion comes online, energy will be cheap, abundant, and clean. The question is not IF fusion power replaces fossil fuels. It’s WHEN!
I also foresee more upgrades in solar generation making that process more efficient. This will facilitate a lot more “off the grid” behavior and energy independence for common people.
All that’s lacking right now are affordable solar kits for DIY projects that laypeople can easily do with a little help from a YouTube video. Someone will come out with a streamlined DIY kit and it will be wildly popular and that will be another step in the progress towards global energy production via renewables. Take Africa for example: plenty of sun. What do they need power for? Mostly lighting and charging their phones. Easy! A few panels and they’re set.
12   Tenpoundbass   ignore (16)   2019 Sep 22, 9:24am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The old Historical Florida photos keep disappearing but every now and then a gem like this one pops up.
Bars in South Florida used to have old Nautical maps on the walls, or inset in the Bistro tables with resin.
Perhaps they used them all up and there aren't any left to digitize. You can believe that or the truth that images that don't fit Liberal's narrative, are being cleansed from the internet like a rising star Republican pundit's Facebook page.

13   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Sep 22, 10:07am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

:
Do you really have the fantasy that we're being lied to about sea level changes ?

Whatever the change is that they say has occurred in Florida in the past century, it's something like 8 inches, it's very small compared to the tidal changes of a several feet.

How much does 8 inches in max sea level change the coast line ? It depends on the pitch of the beach, but probably just a few feet. Less, if they add enough sand. Certainly not something that would show up in those photos.

Why the ever increasing in Miami flooding ? How do the republitards explain that ? Miami sinking ? Maybe. But even if so that doesn't mean the sea isn't also rising.

You're right about the brainwashing though.
14   ignoreme   ignore (0)   2019 Sep 22, 11:51am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

AGW alarm is just an excuse to institute a global carbon tax. I’ve yet to year any intelligent explanation about what will be done with the money to actually combat climate change.

I think the most honest explanation of what would be done with the proceeds from a carbon tax is on Yang’s campaign site where he suggests he would use it to fund his UBI plan (which is just bread and circus vote buying). What that has to do with the “emergency” of climate change I have no idea.

Another way to show it’s all a hoax is to ask yourself this: if the democrats really believed climate change is the emergency they say it is, why won’t they work with republicans in the areas where they share common ground? Why would you invite third world immigrants into this country where their carbon footprint will
be multiplied many times? Why would you be against nuclear and hydro projects? Why would you be for increased trade with China and the rest of the third world where production is much dirtier? This is life or death right??? Right?!?!?!!
15   HEYYOU   ignore (46)   2019 Sep 22, 12:50pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

@ 4
"Humans are vertebrate mammals. To believe that our species can avoid extinction, even as non-human vertebrates and non-human mammals disappear, is classic human hubris wrapped in a warm blanket of myth-based human supremacy."
16   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Sep 22, 12:57pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HEYYOU says
To believe that our species can avoid extinction


The question isn't whether we will at some point be extinct.

The question is, are there some scenarios where we flourish for many millennia more than others.
17   Ceffer   ignore (4)   2019 Sep 22, 1:02pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

ignoreme says
Another way to show it’s all a hoax is to ask yourself this: if the democrats really believed climate change is the emergency they say it is, why won’t they work with republicans in the areas where they share common ground?


Because it's a propaganda hoax disguised to convince religious believers that they are doing something altruistic and benign for the world environment, when they are just being chumped by the Globalists into giving over their prosperity and freedoms. Classic Bernays misdirection, and making something harmful to the many but beneficial to a few seem like an act of selfless and wise devotion.
18   HEYYOU   ignore (46)   2019 Sep 22, 1:05pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

"Norfolk, VirginiaTen times a year, the Naval Station Norfolk floods. The entry road swamps. Connecting roads become impassable. Crossing from one side of the base to the other becomes impossible. Dockside, floodwaters overtop the concrete piers, shorting power hookups to the mighty ships that are docked in the world’s largest naval base."

"Norfolk station is headquarters of the Atlantic fleet, and flooding already disrupts military readiness there and at other bases clustered around the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, officials say. Flooding will only worsen as the seas rise and the planet warms. Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built. By 2100, Norfolk station will flood 280 times a year, according to one estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists."

Well this leaves scum Rep/Cons with no argument.
They don't have a clue of on the ground reality.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/
19   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Sep 22, 1:12pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says
Because it's a propaganda hoax disguised to convince religious believers that they are doing something altruistic and benign for the world environment, when they are just being chumped by the Globalists into giving over their prosperity and freedoms


Sounds slightly delusional to me.

Is it not true that under some circumstances, including government support, both green technology development as well as it's implementation occurs faster than in others ? We are often the leaders, at least historically. If technologies go mainstream and are affordable, the entire world will adopt them. We don't want china to win that race, although I guess they sort of already have with solar panels.

Meanwhile nuclear reactor tech keeps on progressing and will certainly be part of the mix, maybe it's time is here ? That too take political impetus, since the stronger lobbying comes from existing fossil fuel industries that stand to lose big time when the shift finally occurs. As I think about it, who is lobbying for nuclear ?

Your reality seems much more convoluted and conspiracy theory driven than mine.

Sometimes common sense really does apply.
20   Ceffer   ignore (4)   2019 Sep 22, 1:17pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What does green tech and nuclear power have to do with Global Warming fear mongering? Those things were in place a long time before somebody decided to throw the switch on the Global Warming scare, and Global Warming scare doesn't have any real, viable solutions proposed other than massive, implemented social control.

The goal is the social and resource control, not actually doing anything about alternative energy or improving the environment. "People bad, people must be controlled because they fuck up the world. Let us control all the people, and the problem will be solved". Uh-Huh.
21   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Sep 22, 1:21pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says
What does green tech and nuclear power have to do with Global Warming fear mongering?


Everything. EVERYTHING !!!

IT's going to take some kind of catalyst and reason to generate the political impetus to implement policies that destroy the profits of such strong industries and their lobbies.

Why do you think Fossil fuel companies are the biggest funders of global warming denial "research ?"

Where we are at with this can very easily be traced back to the fact that corporate lobbyists more or less own our government. To win against the big money that lobbies will spend, supporting candidates, on important issues where the corporations don't act in our best interest, you're going to have to affect the beliefs of the voters, you know, with the truth ! Otherwise the money wins.
22   Ceffer   ignore (4)   2019 Sep 22, 1:29pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Slippery Slope, Straw Man, Appeal to Emotion, Ad Hominem, and Begging the Question. That's quite a cluster.
23   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Sep 22, 1:32pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

:
I implied it was obvious. I didn't say you are capable of getting it. Although I did try my best.

There's your ad hominem. THe rest of your nonsense sounds like I might have almost cracked your bubble.
24   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2019 Sep 22, 1:43pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says

Because it's a propaganda hoax disguised to convince religious believers that they are doing something altruistic and benign for the world, when they are just chumped by the Globalists into giving over their prosperity and freedoms. Classic Bernays misdirection, and making something harmful to the many but beneficial to a few seem like an act of selfless and wise devotion.

Another great analysis.
25   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 22, 1:45pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says


@marcus Thanks for posting this.

Saudi Arabia murdered thousands of Americans on 9/11.
26   rocketjoe79   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 22, 1:48pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

ignoreme says
AGW alarm is just an excuse to institute a global carbon tax. I’ve yet to year any intelligent explanation about what will be done with the money to actually combat climate change.


Also a license to print money. Carbon offset projects are approved by....wait for it...the UN!! A totally uncorruptible agency devoid of fraud or personal interest. Yeah right. The offsets go into a "market" where they can be bought by polluting entities to offset bad practices.

For example, has anyone proven that a tree farms are net negative CO2? No.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tree-farms-will-not-save-us-from-global-warming/

Pollution can be reduced - but it takes money OR ultimately, lower cost of energy. That can only be achieved reliably, in bulk, with Nuclear Energy.
27   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2019 Sep 22, 1:50pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Why do you think Fossil fuel companies are the biggest funders of global warming denial "research ?"

An excellent example of the "religious believer" attitude of the alarmists.
28   Shaman   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 22, 2:09pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Sounds slightly delusional to me.


So? Why should anyone seriously consider the opinion of a guy who’s been nearly 100% wrong with forecasting and situation analysis? At this point, blind monkeys with darts and a Oija Board would be about 50% more correct.
29   CovfefeButDeadly   ignore (7)   2019 Sep 22, 2:34pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Meanwhile nuclear reactor tech keeps on progressing and will certainly be part of the mix, maybe it's time is here ? That too take political impetus, since the stronger lobbying comes from existing fossil fuel industries that stand to lose big time when the shift finally occurs. As I think about it, who is lobbying for nuclear ?


You are the first left leaning person I’ve seen State this. Which of course with your other views you’ve posted means you are exactly what you say you are...a true liberal...which makes it baffling that you support and vote for leftists, whom you should reasonably despise.

And of course the absence of advocacy of nuclear power...the one readily available and economically viable alternate power source there is...is absolute proof that the “climate change” cabal is a fraud solely designed to enrich certain politically connected individuals, and largely taking advantage of a slew of useful idiots.
30   NoCoupForYou   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 22, 2:42pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

There's no getting around nuclear power. Eventually oil and gas WILL run out, and it's not very useful in a vacuum.

We already produce tons upon tons of Thorium from refining rare earths for electronic components and batteries.

The entire rare-earths/lithium/thorium system is an incredible ecosystem; Monazite Sands contain both Thorium and Rare-Earths, for example.

Instead of just burying this waste, use it!
31   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Sep 22, 2:53pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CovfefeButDeadly says
which makes it baffling that you support and vote for leftists, whom you should reasonably despise.


Despise is a little strong. But I do strongly disagree with the hyper leftist zealous practitioners of identity politics.

SJws are said to make up about 8% of the population. That would make them about one sixth of democrats. I don't identify with that part of the left, just as you probably don't identify with the white supremacist part of the right or sub 90 IQ part of the right (not that there isn't an intersection between these 2 groups).

The SJW s have undue influence at universities and the media making them seem bigger than they are. Sadly it is significant part of the cause of Trump and the devolution of the right.
32   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Sep 22, 3:03pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CovfefeButDeadly says
And of course the absence of advocacy of nuclear power...the one readily available and economically viable alternate power source there is...is absolute proof that the “climate change” cabal is a fraud solely designed to enrich certain politically connected individuals, and largely taking advantage of a slew of useful idiots


I would frame it differently.

First off, I would say that it simply indicated that big oil and big coal work all the angles. They have right wing politicians denying global warming concerns and they have democratic politicians saying nuclear is dangerous. Actually I think they worked both sides on the terrorism angle (what terrorists might do to nuclear reactors).

Secondly, it's probably a good thing that we waited on nuclear, becasue it's coming on 4th generation, and once nuclear reactors are built (for massive investment) , they are used for a long time. And in fact previous generation nuclear reactors were far more dangerous than the ones we are going to get.

Also, waiting helped spur investment and research into alternatives.
33   ignoreme   ignore (0)   2019 Sep 22, 5:26pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I’m just curious Marcus, your response to everything about why the right actions aren’t being taken on global warming is always “greedy oil and gas industry executives spending lobbying dollars” yet the amount of money being spent on the pro AGW side of things is 100x more then whatever the coal and gas companies are paying. If I was a bribable politician or scientist why would I forsake my better paycheck by taking the anti AGW position?

And you didn’t answer my original question. If democrat politicians really believe in their hearts that climate change is the disaster they say it’s going to be, why not work with Trump in the areas they agree on? The population growth in our huge sinful wasteful evil country would be cut to 0 if you eliminated 3rd world migration. The dollars spent on educating them, policing them, feeding them, and medical care could be redirected to the dire emergency of climate change. I get it’s a little harsh, but Democrat politicians have called climate change an existential threat. I don’t know about you but to me that means you do what it takes to ensure the survival of humanity. You certainly don’t spend time chewing your nails worrying about the difference between 3rd and 4th gen nuclear reactors.

There’s only 2 logical answers to my question:
1. Democrats are power hungry liars
2. Democrats are idiots
34   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (3)   2019 Sep 22, 5:30pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

sea levels aren't rising. my friend who lives on the beach, his shoreline hasn't changed ever, and house is old, built in the 50's i think.

global warming is an alarmist scam.
35   NoCoupForYou   ignore (5)   2019 Oct 7, 4:06pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

"Totally not a doomsday cult."

36   richwicks   ignore (0)   2019 Oct 7, 4:24pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dave Column is fun. I once said hello to him in email. This interview of his got banned by youtube for, um, "not conforming to community standards" are some other bs, i.e. politically censored:

https://quoththeraven.podbean.com/e/quoth-the-raven-131-dave-collum-the-conspiracy-theory-episode/

He said "crazy stuff", like it's perfectly reasonable to think people with wealth conspire and other nutzo stuff like that it's possible WTC7 was taken out by demolition, a university of Fairbanks study lends credence to the idea, and other bad bad thoughts. You know, like what a human would have, instead of a government manufactured robot.
37   richwicks   ignore (0)   2019 Oct 7, 4:35pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
SJws are said to make up about 8% of the population. That would make them about one sixth of democrats. I don't identify with that part of the left, just as you probably don't identify with the white supremacist part of the right or sub 90 IQ part of the right (not that there isn't an intersection between these 2 groups).


Well, let's see if I can make you a "right wing whacko" like I, apparently, am.

The current Democratic party who wants to go to war, that has spent 2 1/2 years trying to do a coup against Trump, that selected a woman that voted for the Iraq War and is the principle person that got Libya into civil war with slavery markets, that doesn't mind Biden's son was taking bribes for his dad, that doesn't mind that the Clinton Foundation is corrupt, that doesn't mind the wars in Syria, Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan...

Those are the people you want to give more power to. Those nutcases. Do you trust them to implement universal health care, to provide a better retirement, and to improve your life?

I wouldn't trust a politician of either side more than I can spit which is why I want smaller government.

I won't get it with the Republican party, but at least they promise that bullshit.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions