Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike Honcho

New Study: Climate Change report from the White House

Recommended Posts

No Jerry, using terms like alarmist, cultist and duped makes it very clear you’ve already made up your mind. HTH

 

I like to use "alarmist" in contrast to "deniers," mea culpa. The other words you mentioned are in direct support of my point which you refuse to address, instead choosing to take your ball and go home. If there is an infrastructure to invest significant money into research for reducing the earth's temperature then I am open to that discussion, I honestly don't know. Because that is the underlying problem which may or may not be human-related, or perhaps fractional. In the absence of such investment I have no choice but to determine that the climate change community is not as concerned about reducing the earth's temperature per se as it is in punishing humans for an improvable 100% responsibility of the earth's increased temperature. I don't know how else to say it. :dunno:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I like to use "alarmist" in contrast to "deniers," mea culpa. The other words you mentioned are in direct support of my point which you refuse to address, instead choosing to take your ball and go home. If there is an infrastructure to invest significant money into research for reducing the earth's temperature then I am open to that discussion, I honestly don't know. Because that is the underlying problem which may or may not be human-related, or perhaps fractional. In the absence of such investment I have no choice but to determine that the climate change community is not as concerned about reducing the earth's temperature per se as it is in punishing humans for an improvable 100% responsibility of the earth's increased temperature. I don't know how else to say it. :dunno:

Is there really a lack of research on climate change? I feel like weve had 30+ years of research on it.

 

Im not a big environmentalist. Seems to me though there would be far more business and political incentive to downplay the threat of climate change than promote it. ExxonMobil is making way more on oil than anyone is on climate change research or alternative energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there really a lack of research on climate change? I feel like weve had 30+ years of research on it.

 

Im not a big environmentalist. Seems to me though there would be far more business and political incentive to downplay the threat of climate change than promote it. ExxonMobil is making way more on oil than anyone is on climate change research or alternative energy.

 

I don't mean to be a Richard but I'm running out of ways to say the same thing so I'm not sure how to respond. Let's concede that the earth is warming. No research that I am aware of has proven that any percentage of the increase is due to humans. But let's presume we have an impact. So if we further presume that increasing temps are catastrophic, we need to address it. There are two parallel paths: (1) reduce human impact, and (2) reduce the rising temps not associated with humans. Because remember, catastrophic, it's just a matter of time. My question is what we are investing in for the latter. I'm open to that discussion. In the absence of that effort I'm left to conclude that it isn't really catastrophic. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's concede that the earth is warming. No research that I am aware of has proven that any percentage of the increase is due to humans.

We know that greenhouses gases in the atmosphere are contributing to rising temperatures. We know there are many more greeenhouses gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. We know this coincides with rising temperatures. This has all been exhaustively researched and documented. So ... :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote for more greenhouse gasses, because it's been cold and snowy as fock already this year.

Don't say that. MDC will go crazy and call you names. It's hot damn it!! Just agree with him for God's sake!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know that greenhouses gases in the atmosphere are contributing to rising temperatures. We know there are many more greeenhouses gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. We know this coincides with rising temperatures. This has all been exhaustively researched and documented. So ... :dunno:

 

You have presumably read my posts and either choose not to respond or lack the analytical ability to do so. Sigh...

 

I'll try another tact: if we eliminated all human contribution to global warming, and the earth keeps warming, what is the plan? Since it is a catastrophe in the making. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have presumably read my posts and either choose not to respond or lack the analytical ability to do so. Sigh...

 

I'll try another tact: if we eliminated all human contribution to global warming, and the earth keeps warming, what is the plan? Since it is a catastrophe in the making. :dunno:

Are you suggesting we need a plan B and C before attempting to implement plan A?

 

If your car were speeding toward a brick wall, would you attempt to use the brakes, or refuse unless you could throw the car in reverse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there really a lack of research on climate change? I feel like weve had 30+ years of research on it.

 

Im not a big environmentalist. Seems to me though there would be far more business and political incentive to downplay the threat of climate change than promote it. ExxonMobil is making way more on oil than anyone is on climate change research or alternative energy.

Correct. There is plenty of high quality research supporting man's role in cc. It is less clear what we can do about it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. And yeah, there is way more money invested in maintaining the status quo, but who ever heard of a corrupt oil company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have presumably read my posts and either choose not to respond or lack the analytical ability to do so. Sigh...

 

I'll try another tact: if we eliminated all human contribution to global warming, and the earth keeps warming, what is the plan? Since it is a catastrophe in the making. :dunno:

I did. You said there is no research you are aware of that any % of warning is manmade. There is a ton of research supports that idea. :dunno:

 

I dont know what we should realistically do about it, one reason why I am not a big environmentalist. Im just responding to your claim that what we need is more research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting we need a plan B and C before attempting to implement plan A?

 

If your car were speeding toward a brick wall, would you attempt to use the brakes, or refuse unless you could throw the car in reverse?

 

Jesusfockingchrist, I am not suggesting plan B or C, I'm screaming it from the rooftop$#@! If global warming is not 100% due to humans, and it is a "not if but when" catastrophe in the making, what are we doing to reduce it?

 

Your car analogy makes no sense in the context of the above. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did. You said there is no research you are aware of that any % of warning is manmade. There is a ton of research supports that idea. :dunno:

 

I dont know what we should realistically do about it, one reason why I am not a big environmentalist. Im just responding to your claim that what we need is more research.

 

No, I said there is no research which shows that 100% of global warming is manmade, see the above post. What we need is more research on cooling the earth, because that is the underlying problem. But you and Penny don't get my point so let's just give Al Gore another $B and ignore the fact that not all of the warming is due to humans. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jesusfockingchrist, I am not suggesting plan B or C, I'm screaming it from the rooftop$#@! If global warming is not 100% due to humans, and it is a "not if but when" catastrophe in the making, what are we doing to reduce it?

 

Your car analogy makes no sense in the context of the above. :(

Climate change isn't 100% due to humans, but we are contributing a non-inconsequential amount.

 

Reducing carbon emissions may not prevent the disaster from happening, but it will presumably slow the process (like the brakes of a car), buying us time to bolster infrastructure and research reversing the effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is everyone wanting to change the earth's natural progression of seasons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change isn't 100% due to humans, but we are contributing a non-inconsequential amount.

 

Reducing carbon emissions may not prevent the disaster from happening, but it will presumably slow the process (like the brakes of a car), buying us time to bolster infrastructure and research reversing the effects.

 

This is my point, is it happening? I don't sense that it is. You called it plan B or C. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, I said there is no research which shows that 100% of global warming is manmade, see the above post. What we need is more research on cooling the earth, because that is the underlying problem. But you and Penny don't get my point so let's just give Al Gore another $B and ignore the fact that not all of the warming is due to humans. :thumbsup:

I suspect this is way too simplistic, but there are scientists thinking along those lines: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geoengineering-how-to-cool-earth/

Geoengineering refers to the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the Earth's environment to counteract climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is my point, is it happening? I don't sense that it is. You called it plan B or C. :dunno:

Curtailing emissions gives us more time to work on plans B and C, if catastrophe appears imminent. It's also possible it averts the catastrophe altogether - that's why plan A :dunno: :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, I said there is no research which shows that 100% of global warming is manmade, see the above post.

Nobody would debate that. What you actually said is you are unaware of research thats shown that any increase is due to humans.

 

No research that I am aware of has proven that any percentage of the increase is due to humans.

:dunno:

 

All the Al Gore / $ billion stuff doesnt mean anything to me. Im not a big environmental guy. I only take issue with your original claim that we dont have enough research to show that manmade emissions are at all responsible.

 

Maybe you didnt mean that, but thats what you actually wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In dinosaur times the earth was far hotter, very swampy. Guess those Dino’s were burning fossil fuels even worse than we are now, no wonder they went extinct. The earth coolers down and the earth heateth up, tis the natural way. If our polluting is affecting it there’s nothing we can do. Everything we do is necessary to support 7, soon to be 9 billion people. Accept it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody would debate that. What you actually said is you are unaware of research thats shown that any increase is due to humans.

 

 

:dunno:

 

All the Al Gore / $ billion stuff doesnt mean anything to me. Im not a big environmental guy. I only take issue with your original claim that we dont have enough research to show that manmade emissions are at all responsible.

 

Maybe you didnt mean that, but thats what you actually wrote.

 

Perhaps poor wording, I meant the first statement. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So flying spaghetti monster global warming cultists, what's your answer other than bigger government and higher taxes.

Let's hear em?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curtailing emissions gives us more time to work on plans B and C, if catastrophe appears imminent. It's also possible it averts the catastrophe altogether - that's why plan A :dunno: :dunno:

 

We are curtailing emissions. We don't seem to be working on plans B and C. If catastrophe appears imminent, does that strike you as a good time to "work on" plans B and C? :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We are curtailing emissions. We don't seem to be working on plans B and C. If catastrophe appears imminent, does that strike you as a good time to "work on" plans B and C? :dunno:

Of course you'd like to have a solution before things become disastrous. But if plan A is implemented effectively, disaster may not occur, or be attenuated enough we don't need a plan to cool the planet.

 

Since you've had trouble with the wording of your posts, can you restate exactly what you oppose? Funding for climatologists working on projects other than global cooling? Penalizing companies and countries for excessive carbon emissions? Reducing reliance on petrochemicals?

 

Did you read anything about geoengineering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know that greenhouses gases in the atmosphere are contributing to rising temperatures. We know there are many more greeenhouses gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. We know this coincides with rising temperatures. This has all been exhaustively researched and documented. So ... :dunno:

let’s raise the price of energy so only the rich can afford it! Win/ Win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you'd like to have a solution before things become disastrous. But if plan A is implemented effectively, disaster may not occur, or be attenuated enough we don't need a plan to cool the planet.

 

Since you've had trouble with the wording of your posts, can you restate exactly what you oppose? Funding for climatologists working on projects other than global cooling? Penalizing companies and countries for excessive carbon emissions? Reducing reliance on petrochemicals?

 

Did you read anything about geoengineering?

 

You are a scientist so I don't see how you can possibly take that position in the first sentence. We MAY not need a plan? If that is true, how serious is it?

 

I don't specifically oppose anything you listed. Your first item is too vague to comment but I'm certainly not saying that ALL research money should go into cooling the planet. I think some should tho. The next two items encourage clean air and the third also reduces reliance on the Middle East; these are intrinsically good things. Contrary to your opinion of me, I think recycling and a clean planet are good things. In Phoenix we have a problem with air pollution in the winter due to an inversion layer that settles in:

 

http://www.weatherbus.com/viewpost.php?id=89

 

As such I support things like ethanol in the gas to help reduce emissions.

 

I oppose carbon credit trading. I oppose countries like China getting a hall pass. These fly in the face of global warming being a real problem. I also oppose overly subsidizing technologies which aren't ready yet. On this last point, I support research to fix this problem instead.

 

To summarize: I think we contribute to global warming but to say that we are the only contributor is inane; I'll put a solar flare up against a Suburban any day. I also think the earth has a wonderful feedback system which has a way of adapting to changes in a manageable way. I think we should not be good to the environment but not to the extent that it overly impacts our economy. I want climate alarmists to stop the chicken little "OMG we're all gonna die in a decade$#@!" hysteria. I dunno, maybe it is like our combative legal system: you "alarmists" push hard one way, we "deniers" push hard the other way, and we end up somewhere rational in the middle. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jerry, Pen is a scientist now? So I won? He’s not really a doctor like I’ve been trying to tell you all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jerry, Pen is a scientist now? So I won? He’s not really a doctor like I’ve been trying to tell you all?

 

Well no, I'm convinced he is a doctor. I used "scientist" as a more general descriptor because IMO medicine is a subset of science, and IMO a scientist would not say "we don't know how much humans are contributing to global climate change but we know the change will be catastrophic, so let's ignore non-human factors and hope that reducing human factors does the trick." Plus we have a friendly feud on scientists vs. engineers (which I am). :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no, I'm convinced he is a doctor. I used "scientist" as a more general descriptor because IMO medicine is a subset of science, and IMO a scientist would not say "we don't know how much humans are contributing to global climate change but we know the change will be catastrophic, so let's ignore non-human factors and hope that reducing human factors does the trick." Plus we have a friendly feud on scientists vs. engineers (which I am). :cheers:

Ok fair enough, just checking. But for the sake of sanity let’s at least be clear that doctors are not scientists and cannot be labeled as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok fair enough, just checking. But for the sake of sanity let’s at least be clear that doctors are not scientists and cannot be labeled as such.

 

Doctors typically have at least a BS in biology which makes them scientists, then they specialize in medicine. And many doctors do scientific research vs. treat patients. I don't know if I can convince you to change your opinion, but I assure you that you can't change mine, so do us both a favor and don't try. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok fair enough, just checking. But for the sake of sanity let’s at least be clear that doctors are not scientists and cannot be labeled as such.

My degree is in biochemistry, I’ve done bench and clinical research and teach scientific topics to trainees. WTF is your definition of scientist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My degree is in biochemistry, Ive done bench and clinical research and teach scientific topics to trainees. WTF is your definition of scientist?

I like the ones that rightly state that there are two genders, absent some rare instances of people with dual sex organs. Anyone claiming different forfeits their claim to being a scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the ones that rightly state that there are two genders, absent some rare instances of people with dual sex organs. Anyone claiming different forfeits their claim to being a scientist.

Ummmm...OK. :huh:

 

You are a scientist so I don't see how you can possibly take that position in the first sentence. We MAY not need a plan? If that is true, how serious is it?

 

I don't specifically oppose anything you listed. Your first item is too vague to comment but I'm certainly not saying that ALL research money should go into cooling the planet. I think some should tho. The next two items encourage clean air and the third also reduces reliance on the Middle East; these are intrinsically good things. Contrary to your opinion of me, I think recycling and a clean planet are good things. In Phoenix we have a problem with air pollution in the winter due to an inversion layer that settles in:

 

http://www.weatherbus.com/viewpost.php?id=89

 

As such I support things like ethanol in the gas to help reduce emissions.

 

I oppose carbon credit trading. I oppose countries like China getting a hall pass. These fly in the face of global warming being a real problem. I also oppose overly subsidizing technologies which aren't ready yet. On this last point, I support research to fix this problem instead.

 

To summarize: I think we contribute to global warming but to say that we are the only contributor is inane; I'll put a solar flare up against a Suburban any day. I also think the earth has a wonderful feedback system which has a way of adapting to changes in a manageable way. I think we should not be good to the environment but not to the extent that it overly impacts our economy. I want climate alarmists to stop the chicken little "OMG we're all gonna die in a decade$#@!" hysteria. I dunno, maybe it is like our combative legal system: you "alarmists" push hard one way, we "deniers" push hard the other way, and we end up somewhere rational in the middle. :dunno:

A couple points: 1. Nobody is saying man is solely responsible for ALL climate change. 2. Nobody is saying we're gonna die in a decade, at least on this bored. I've never endorsed a timeline for catastrophe, or even said it is a foregone conclusion.

 

We really only differ in the amount of resources we think should be allocated to the problem, and your focus on treating the symptoms of the disease rather than addressing the cause. I wouldn't characterize you as a denier any more than you should think of me as an alarmist. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Doctors typically have at least a BS in biology which makes them scientists, then they specialize in medicine. And many doctors do scientific research vs. treat patients. I don't know if I can convince you to change your opinion, but I assure you that you can't change mine, so do us both a favor and don't try. :cheers:

I suspect he thinks scientists are only found in labs surrounded by beakers and Erlenmeyer flasks. Or maybe he only believes in the physical sciences. Either way, the depth of his ignorance is impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia, Turkey, other countries mulling over pulling out of Paris agreement.

 

The World is waking up to the asinine notion we can control the planet's climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia, Turkey, other countries mulling over pulling out of Paris agreement.

 

The World is waking up to the asinine notion we can control the planet's climate.

 

Are they pulling out cause they were asked to contribute $12T too. :lol: :LOL: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are they pulling out cause they were asked to contribute $12T too. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

No; only America was on the hook for such an amount.

 

Let's proceed from another direction. Please provide proof where we can indeed change the climate. Also include the figures on how much we could lower the temperature per trillion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the oceans and stuff will rise because of all of this "climate global change", or whatever they call it now, why did Al Gore buy a house right by the ocean?

 

Another thing, what is the optimum temperature and climate of the Earth? Did someone read the user's manual? If not, who decided what was "optimal"?

 

This is why this is a farce and just fear-mongering to get more money from the people... No one knows what is "optimal" and no one ever will...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×