Weather Network ****s on Breitbart climate article

[LogGrad98]

Freak out? He posted a few times about how treating the planet better is a good idea in his opinion. (I think it's a good idea too btw)

This is a better reason to do the right thing by the planet than climate change panic mongering. We should be good stewards of our planet and our fellow man.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I'm not trying to be a dick, just a realist. We can try to be pragmatic, set goals, and do what we can but we should avoid the eco-panic attack rhetoric. It doesn't help.

But you know what he meant in regards to low.

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Beantown]

Some quick responses:

#1-A majority of developed countries are a part of the Paris Climate Agreement. US needs to lead by example.

#2-Making little changes in your life can greatly reduce your carbon/pollution footprint. The two biggest polluters that you can quickly make changes are your electricity and the food you eat/buy. Electricity production is the biggest polluter. Switching to solar or purchasing wind REC's will dramatically help cut down your footprint. Then focus on cutting or reducing your red meat intake and try and buy as much local produce as possible. All these options are not only good for the local environment but will help your local economy and your health.

#3-The creation of solar panels isn't perfect. But it's a billion times better than blasting our earth for oil, creating earthquakes, polluting fresh water, and destroying land. Only to then take that substance and burn it into the air we breath. Unfortunately you can't make energy out of nothing...that goes against science. But I believe absorbing the suns energy is our best shot. And no... I don't sell solar panels (nothing wrong with that profession if you're not a sleazeball). My degree is in Environmental Science and I develop utility scale solar farms in New England.

#4-Trump can't stop renewable energy. Solar prices are dropping like a rock and utility prices continue to rise. Solar is already at grid parity in most states.

 

[Hotdog]

Ive never understood why anyone would be against clean energy(other than oil companies). Taking the risk that you might be destroying the planet is beyond retarded. We have one planet, and no where else to go. You would think that taking caring of it would trump everything else. Its the one gamble that you should never take.

This is why religion has no place in politics or governing. How stupid would it be that we went extinct because half the planet let the belief in fairy tales guide their decision making.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Ive never understood why anyone would be against clean energy(other than oil companies). Taking the risk that you might be destroying the planet is beyond retarded. We have one planet, and no where else to go. You would think that taking caring of it would trump everything else. Its the one gamble that you should never take.

This is why religion has no place in politics or governing. How stupid would it be that we went extinct because half the planet let the belief in fairy tales guide their decision making.

The people's who livelihoods depend on the jobs created by natural resources and the politicians whose jobs depend on telling people they created jobs.

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Siro]

Please post the peer reviewed proof that the "vast majority" agree. I posted a rebuttal you that which actually cites polls and studies. You and dal just keep saying "nuh uh" then attacking personally. I have read several of the pieces cited that supposedly support the 97% claims that are way sketchier than an "op-ed" piece. Which, by the way, is almost the only source of the 97% claims to begin with...op-ed pieces. So since you agree with a particular op-ed piece it's valid but if you don't agree with it then it isn't. Yeah ok. Standards leftist tactic...our opinion=truth.

I'm sorry, but did you read the article you Googled? They're trying to figure out whether it really is 97%, or if it's more like 86%. Either way, it's a vast majority. And no, the 97% does not come from op-ed pieces. It comes from a 2009 survey of a few thousand scientists. As the WSJ points out, it's only 97% if you include active climate scientists. I'm sure if you only include computer programmers or whatever, you'll end up with the same percentage as average educated Americans.

Here's a wikipedia graph that shows various scientific surveys on the subject.

So as you can see, the absolute vast majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

But you're sucking me into a stupid argument that I have no interest in. What is important is that you presented NOTHING. No data, no questioning of climate science modeling and results, no alternative explanations of current data. Not a single thing. A laughable article that surveys oil engineers, and an irrelevant op-ed piece in WSJ.

So ignoring all the Hackisque garbage about "leftist tactics", I don't disagree with you because your opinion goes against the grain. I am not making an appeal to authority. I think in face of overwhelming evidence, you offered nothing of substance (except for a quick Google search, which you apparently did not even look at).

So in the immortal words of Wolfgang Pauli, it's not that you're not right. You're not even wrong.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm sorry, but did you read the article you Googled? They're trying to figure out whether it really is 97%, or if it's more like 86%. Either way, it's a vast majority. And no, the 97% does not come from op-ed pieces. It comes from a 2009 survey of a few thousand scientists. As the WSJ points out, it's only 97% if you include active climate scientists. I'm sure if you only include computer programmers or whatever, you'll end up with the same percentage as average educated Americans.

Here's a wikipedia graph that shows various scientific surveys on the subject.

So as you can see, the absolute vast majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

But you're sucking me into a stupid argument that I have no interest in. What is important is that you presented NOTHING. No data, no questioning of climate science modeling and results, no alternative explanations of current data. Not a single thing. A laughable article that surveys oil engineers, and an irrelevant op-ed piece in WSJ.

So ignoring all the Hackisque garbage about "leftist tactics", I don't disagree with you because your opinion goes against the grain. I am not making an appeal to authority. I think in face of overwhelming evidence, you offered nothing of substance (except for a quick Google search, which you apparently did not even look at).

So in the immortal words of Wolfgang Pauli, it's not that you're not right. You're not even wrong.

Did you look at the data behind some of those polls? Many of them only took results from scientists who had already shown agreement and ignored results from those who disagreed. You need to dig deeper into the data. Ever heard of the hockey stick hoax? The middle ages heat increase? Cherry picking data is at the core of the consensus. And you laugh at my sources but your use Wikipedia with a straight face? Hypocrite much?

My bigger point is that there are no hard facts of 2 key points in regards to climate change. 1) the pace of warming is anything different than the planet had already seen and isn't necessarily explained by natural processes and 2) there is absolutely zero proof that it is necessarily bad. Lots of conjecture, no proof. Definitely not enough there to risk crippling the world economy with policies that have repeatedly been shown to be far more damaging to the very people we supposedly want to help (3rd world countries, etc.). I think we need to encourage clean energy development without making sweeping unnecessary changes that will likely cause far more harm than good.

 

[LogGrad98]

https://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

Read this and read the 2 books it cites.

 

[Stoked]

Have you seen this yet? Hydrogen fuel cell semi. It's supposed to get something like 800 miles on a single fueling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9AmbJBGBBo

This is cool

 

[Stoked]

Freak out? He posted a few times about how treating the planet better is a good idea in his opinion. (I think it's a good idea too btw)

When he is posting in bold and super large font its considered yelling. Sounds like a freak out to me.

I think its a very good idea.

BUT I DONT NEED TO POST LIKE THIS TO MAKE A POINT!!!!

 

[LogGrad98]

When he is posting in bold and super large font its considered yelling. Sounds like a freak out to me.

I think its a very good idea.

BUT I DONT NEED TO POST LIKE THIS TO MAKE A POINT!!!!

Fine you made your point. Jeez.

 

[babe]

Clearly not a hoax by the Chinese

How can you be so sure? I mean, really. Those Chinese are pretty smart and they are always looking for angles in every deal.

Yah, I follow the guy who wrote the crap you quoted, and have for years. Mostly pretty credible and informative, and I love the site for all my weather info maps and information. Clearly a lot of smarts there.

However, he is a fairly recent "convert" to AGW alarmism, I think about fours years in is all. I find his rhetoric still infantile in the sense that he's overboard on his his conclusions and obviously slanting his factual basis towards the needed political conclusions.

The bigger problem with the warm scare mongers is their questionable connections, usually fundamentally rooted in money flows of some kind, with political agenda pushers. Gotta get that UN tax to fund the world government, whatever it takes.

I still haven't seen anyone in the warmite camp with the right equation for the effects of carbon dioxide and other molecular sources for increased heat capacity in the atmosphere. I learned that equation in my basic college physics class, and surely no real scientist would deliberately mistake that.

Neither have I heard anyone state the known fact that all our previous ice ages, on good evidence, have been preceded by shorter warm extremes. What we have seen so far is on the same scale and pattern as what has preceded ice ages in the past.

Neither have I seen anyone really address the carbonate deposition that occurs geologically. We have had climate extremes that lasted for millions of years in the past, where our polar regions had temperate climates and rainforest conditions somewhat like the northern Pacific coast enjoys all winter now.

I don't dispute the molecular heat capacity of atmospherics or the rise in temps. What I find illogical and unsustainable as "science" is the conclusions that are worked up as big scary reasons to institute global governance, rather than pro-active planning for building human infrastructure that will conform to both extremes better than what we have done, which has been reasonable on in terms of being in an interglacial cyclical warm period that usually lasts less than this one has lasted.

The cited article lacks data on deep sea temps, which clearly must be important to our cycles. And also we lack any grasp of earth processes such as cyclical heat waves from nuclear sources which are plausibly affected by convection currents in the earth's core, which are known to sustain cyclical volcanism on the surface. When we get a wave of volcanism heating up the earth's surface, we will have climate change for sure. Our last major wave was about thirty million years ago, and beyond the horizon of known ice ages, when our atmosphere had more CO2 than we've had since. Lots of dinosaurs back then.

 

[babe]

Some quick responses:

#1-A majority of developed countries are a part of the Paris Climate Agreement. US needs to lead by example.

#2-Making little changes in your life can greatly reduce your carbon/pollution footprint. The two biggest polluters that you can quickly make changes are your electricity and the food you eat/buy. Electricity production is the biggest polluter. Switching to solar or purchasing wind REC's will dramatically help cut down your footprint. Then focus on cutting or reducing your red meat intake and try and buy as much local produce as possible. All these options are not only good for the local environment but will help your local economy and your health.

#3-The creation of solar panels isn't perfect. But it's a billion times better than blasting our earth for oil, creating earthquakes, polluting fresh water, and destroying land. Only to then take that substance and burn it into the air we breath. Unfortunately you can't make energy out of nothing...that goes against science. But I believe absorbing the suns energy is our best shot. And no... I don't sell solar panels (nothing wrong with that profession if you're not a sleazeball). My degree is in Environmental Science and I develop utility scale solar farms in New England.

#4-Trump can't stop renewable energy. Solar prices are dropping like a rock and utility prices continue to rise. Solar is already at grid parity in most states.

Solar is going to be the economical energy for homes and other stationary point uses. Everything that goes into solar is recyclable and will be re-used rather than end up in the dumps.

I have no objection to rooftop solar, but carpeting our beautiful and irreplaceable desert valleys with solar is an abomination, a corporate abomination as well as an environmental abomination.

I think cold fusion research is warming up, and again, the material used are recyclable, and the deuterium in water is abundant enough and recoverable enough that this could be our major industrial source of power in the future, maybe twenty to forty years out.

I think conventional nuclear power can be "cleaned up" and the byproducts effectively contained, and power produced safely. Just don't allow designs that have China Syndrome potentials, use bigger reactors with less concentrated nuclear components, and use byproduct radioactives, encased in glass at levels that won't melt the glass, submerged in ponds, to preheat water for the generation cycle, stuff like that.

Although coal and oil are evidently still available and in the case of coal and natural gas fairly abundant, we should not have an economy based on these resources alone, and conservation of depletable resources, even nuclear, is a always going to be good long-term planning.

We don't need to accept any plan that reduces human productivity, technology, or living standards. And we don't need a fascist world government like the UN.

 

[Stoked]

Just read that Leonardo DiCaprio and his foundation met with the President elect at his HQ in New York. They presented a plan on how focusing on renewable energy could create millions of jobs.

At least he is listening. This is after a meeting with his wife to present her with this info. Possibly a follow up meeting next month.

 

[fishonjazz]

Just read that Leonardo DiCaprio and his foundation met with the President elect at his HQ in New York. They presented a plan on how focusing on renewable energy could create millions of jobs.

At least he is listening. This is after a meeting with his wife to present her with this info. Possibly a follow up meeting next month.

Good job trump.

 

[LogGrad98]

Trump isn't the hero we deserve, but maybe he's the hero we need right now.


Lol I almost said that with a straight face. Heh.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm sorry, but did you read the article you Googled? They're trying to figure out whether it really is 97%, or if it's more like 86%. Either way, it's a vast majority. And no, the 97% does not come from op-ed pieces. It comes from a 2009 survey of a few thousand scientists. As the WSJ points out, it's only 97% if you include active climate scientists. I'm sure if you only include computer programmers or whatever, you'll end up with the same percentage as average educated Americans.

Here's a wikipedia graph that shows various scientific surveys on the subject.

So as you can see, the absolute vast majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

But you're sucking me into a stupid argument that I have no interest in. What is important is that you presented NOTHING. No data, no questioning of climate science modeling and results, no alternative explanations of current data. Not a single thing. A laughable article that surveys oil engineers, and an irrelevant op-ed piece in WSJ.

So ignoring all the Hackisque garbage about "leftist tactics", I don't disagree with you because your opinion goes against the grain. I am not making an appeal to authority. I think in face of overwhelming evidence, you offered nothing of substance (except for a quick Google search, which you apparently did not even look at).

So in the immortal words of Wolfgang Pauli, it's not that you're not right. You're not even wrong.

Don't forget this part.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

 

[Stoked]

Apparently the President-Elect met with Al gore as well. I will give him this as a positive, he seems to be listening to a wide stretch of people on issues. Read a report that he has called the President a couple times for advice and opinions on different people. Even stated that the Presidents recommendation on one person is the reason the President elect named him a cabinet member.

 

[fishonjazz]

Apparently the President-Elect met with Al gore as well. I will give him this as a positive, he seems to be listening to a wide stretch of people on issues. Read a report that he has called the President a couple times for advice and opinions on different people. Even stated that the Presidents recommendation on one person is the reason the President elect named him a cabinet member.

Good to hear.

 

[♪alt13]

Some quick responses:

#1-A majority of developed countries are a part of the Paris Climate Agreement. US needs to lead by example.

#2-Making little changes in your life can greatly reduce your carbon/pollution footprint. The two biggest polluters that you can quickly make changes are your electricity and the food you eat/buy. Electricity production is the biggest polluter. Switching to solar or purchasing wind REC's will dramatically help cut down your footprint. Then focus on cutting or reducing your red meat intake and try and buy as much local produce as possible. All these options are not only good for the local environment but will help your local economy and your health.

#3-The creation of solar panels isn't perfect. But it's a billion times better than blasting our earth for oil, creating earthquakes, polluting fresh water, and destroying land. Only to then take that substance and burn it into the air we breath. Unfortunately you can't make energy out of nothing...that goes against science. But I believe absorbing the suns energy is our best shot. And no... I don't sell solar panels (nothing wrong with that profession if you're not a sleazeball). My degree is in Environmental Science and I develop utility scale solar farms in New England.

#4-Trump can't stop renewable energy. Solar prices are dropping like a rock and utility prices continue to rise. Solar is already at grid parity in most states.

https://www.citylab.com/housing/2011/12/missing-link-climate-change-single-family-suburban-homes/650/