New Study -Turns out the Earth is at about it's coldest point of the last 485 million years

[IGotWorms 4,058]

5 hours ago, RLLD said:

Well, we all know that is not true....    But I have seen people do what you did here as well when cornered after making the assertion.

CO2 produced by human activities is the largest contributor to global warming.

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.

So they sell people on fear, standard tactic, and then business/government says they have the solution, and then billions of dollars later.....sometimes decades, we suddenly discover that it was not true....lather rinse repeat.

So the climate constantly changes, but oh no....we have to spend billions that benefit politicians and oligarchs RIGHT NOW.   So they sell us on this human-driven climate change, and of course someone has to get rich from fighting it..

I wish people were not so gullible.....

Do you understand that “the largest” necessarily means that there are others that are not as large?

[IGotWorms 4,058]

4 hours ago, Fnord said:

This thread. I mean, really. I just can't. Defending the "climate change is a hoax" movement with THIS article, which very clearly states the opposite. 

I get where the deniers are coming from and even agree with some of the rationale, but you all are NOT helping yourselves here.

They’re focking idiots.

I’d actually like them to be right because it’d be great if humanity wasn’t actually facing an existential crisis.

But they sure haven’t shown that  

[The Real timschochet 6,766]

@jerryskids you are wrong about most political things IMO, but dead right about nuclear energy. The green folks are hypocrites for continually rejecting nuclear energy when it’s the obvious, most viable alternative to carbon fuels. 
 

That being said it’s important to note that whatever we do with nukes will require a substantial government investment- one that neither Democrats or Republicans have shown any willingness to make. And of course if we manage to conquer nuclear fusion (and there have been hopeful signs in recent years in that regard) then it probably doesn’t make much sense to invest heavily in fission since it will be outdated anyhow. (Actually as I’ve mentioned before I believe that the development of fusion will solve ALL of our energy problems, and environmental problems, and most other problems in the world as well. It will change human society dramatically for the better; we really should get on this.) 

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

8 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Do you understand that “the largest” necessarily means that there are others that are not as large?

He almost assuredly does not

[IndyColtsFan 325]

49 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

If you had common sense, knowledge, and facts about wind vs. nuclear, you would know that they are two completely different things.  Wind will never be anything more than an ancillary source to a major power grid with the technology we have.  Nuclear has been in place for like 50 years as just such a source, yet we continue to eschew it.

Thoughts on the cult reference?  I see you skipped that.  Why do we do what I just explained, if not that?

As usual, you missed my point in your attempt at yet another Eeyore reference.  You are as bad as seafoam with his "liberals are so stupid."    

There goes good ol' Eeyore Jerry again. 

Where did I say wind and nuclear were not different? Show me where I said that. Wind, wave, geothermal and nuclear are alternative energy sources, meaning an alternative to fossil fuels, which WILL run out some day. I at one time majored in petroleum engineering and have a geology degree. At the time, the industry thought it would run out of fossil fuels in 30 years.

Now, the prediction is between 132 and 139 years for coal, 47 to 50 years for oil and 53 to 120 years for natural gas.

I don't know what the fock cult you're talking about, so that's my answer for that one.

What exactly is your point? 

I'm not against more nuclear power, despite it being dangerous as fock. At some point it might be cost effective to mine the moon for Helium 3 to use in fusion reactors.

As for wind, it provides almost a third of the power that Texas generates and is not something that can be discounted.

 

 

[jerryskids 6,799]

3 minutes ago, IndyColtsFan said:

There goes good ol' Eeyore Jerry again. 

Where did I say wind and nuclear were not different? Show me where I said that. Wind, wave, geothermal and nuclear are alternative energy sources, meaning an alternative to fossil fuels, which WILL run out some day. I at one time majored in petroleum engineering and have a geology degree. At the time, the industry thought it would run out of fossil fuels in 30 years.

Now, the prediction is between 132 and 139 years for coal, 47 to 50 years for oil and 53 to 120 years for natural gas.

I don't know what the fock cult you're talking about, so that's my answer for that one.

What exactly is your point? 

I'm not against more nuclear power, despite it being dangerous as fock. At some point it might be cost effective to mine the moon for Helium 3 to use in fusion reactors.

As for wind, it provides almost a third of the power that Texas generates and is not something that can be discounted.

 

 

I was clear about the cult IMO, go back and reread if you want to learn.  Questioning the beliefs of a cult are not tolerated BTW.

I've heard many discussions about how humans fundamentally need "religion," or beliefs in something.  As belief in God wanes, God is being replaced by things like climate change.  

Republicans and Democrats don't want to invest in nuclear?  I've heard it estimated that "carbon zero" will take $15T.  We can build a lot of fission plants, invest in fusion (for @The Real timschochet, also it is a good idea), and invest in researching improved ways of disposing the waste, for tiny fractions of that money.  Problem is, such investment doesn't satisfy the climate change cultists, who require human flagellation as a path to purification.  So it is not politically expedient to do so. 

[IndyColtsFan 325]

19 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I was clear about the cult IMO, go back and reread if you want to learn.  Questioning the beliefs of a cult are not tolerated BTW.

I've heard many discussions about how humans fundamentally need "religion," or beliefs in something.  As belief in God wanes, God is being replaced by things like climate change.  

Republicans and Democrats don't want to invest in nuclear?  I've heard it estimated that "carbon zero" will take $15T.  We can build a lot of fission plants, invest in fusion (for @The Real timschochet, also it is a good idea), and invest in researching improved ways of disposing the waste, for tiny fractions of that money.  Problem is, such investment doesn't satisfy the climate change cultists, who require human flagellation as a path to purification.  So it is not politically expedient to do so. 

Oh, climate-change cultists.

So anyone who believes the scientific evidence showing mankind's climate impact is a cultist?

A nuclear power plant costs like $9 billion to build, while a wind turbine costs like $2 million.

As I clearly said, I have no problem with more nuclear plants, but they should complement wind, geothermal and wave.

Oh, and I forgot solar!

We should turn Arizona into one big solar field after raping it for its natural resources.

 

[Reality 3,121]

Taxing Americans more and mining lithium will definitely fix it...

Climate change is the left's new religion and they certainly don't have any actual solutions to a problem they claim exists.

 

[jerryskids 6,799]

1 hour ago, IndyColtsFan said:

Oh, climate-change cultists.

So anyone who believes the scientific evidence showing mankind's climate impact is a cultist?

A nuclear power plant costs like $9 billion to build, while a wind turbine costs like $2 million.

As I clearly said, I have no problem with more nuclear plants, but they should complement wind, geothermal and wave.

Oh, and I forgot solar!

We should turn Arizona into one big solar field after raping it for its natural resources.

 

Nice strawman.  I never said that.  

I also have never said that mankind has no impact on climate change.  Feel free to search if you want.  What I HAVE said is that I question the impact and severity, and the ability of the earth to accommodate our impact in its closed-loop system.  And of course, the seriousness of our leaders, who refuse to implement policies which would actually solve the problem.

$9B for a nuke plant?  Give me 50.  That's $450B, the entire country has clean power for centuries, existential crisis averted.

Look, I spent most of my career in high-tech sales.  I understand the importance of urgency in the sales process.  A degree or two temp rise over the next century isn't going to do much to the planet; look at the graph in this thread.  But, we should still be good stewards for the planet, because eventually, we will cause problems.  But if you present it this way to the public, nobody will act.  So instead they do "OMG the planet will be underwater in a decade$#@!" in hopes of getting people to behave how they want for the long term.  Many will, many probably won't, but it's better than nothing.  The leaders certainly don't behave as they prescribe, because they know what I'm saying.

As a recent real-world example, I present our Covid policy.  Masks may have provided some small incremental benefit, as did social distancing, but it wasn't terribly important.  The goal was to impart onto people that this thing was really, really serious, and they needed to take it that way.  Many more people tested, and stay home when sick (to this day), because of that.  Again, our leaders didn't follow those procedures.

[IndyColtsFan 325]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Nice strawman.  I never said that.  

I also have never said that mankind has no impact on climate change.  Feel free to search if you want.  What I HAVE said is that I question the impact and severity, and the ability of the earth to accommodate our impact in its closed-loop system.  And of course, the seriousness of our leaders, who refuse to implement policies which would actually solve the problem.

$9B for a nuke plant?  Give me 50.  That's $450B, the entire country has clean power for centuries, existential crisis averted.

Look, I spent most of my career in high-tech sales.  I understand the importance of urgency in the sales process.  A degree or two temp rise over the next century isn't going to do much to the planet; look at the graph in this thread.  But, we should still be good stewards for the planet, because eventually, we will cause problems.  But if you present it this way to the public, nobody will act.  So instead they do "OMG the planet will be underwater in a decade$#@!" in hopes of getting people to behave how they want for the long term.  Many will, many probably won't, but it's better than nothing.  The leaders certainly don't behave as they prescribe, because they know what I'm saying.

As a recent real-world example, I present our Covid policy.  Masks may have provided some small incremental benefit, as did social distancing, but it wasn't terribly important.  The goal was to impart onto people that this thing was really, really serious, and they needed to take it that way.  Many more people tested, and stay home when sick (to this day), because of that.  Again, our leaders didn't follow those procedures.

The graph shows a sharp increase since mankind became industrialized, and the article is populated with scientists warming about climate change.

The MAGAturd runs down the field with the headline without actually looking at the article's contents.

Focking funny stuff, Ensign Eeyore!

[jerryskids 6,799]

2 minutes ago, IndyColtsFan said:

The graph shows a sharp increase since mankind became industrialized, and the article is populated with scientists warming about climate change.

The MAGAturd runs down the field with the headline without actually looking at the article's contents.

Focking funny stuff, Ensign Eeyore!

I don't have access to WaPo, since I don't support Leftie sources.  Feel free to paste the relevant info.

Also, if you read above, I said that the rate of change (vs. absolute change) is an interesting point which, as an engineer, I find more believable.  But in doing so, you are basically conceding that the absolute temp change is irrelevant.  Either you didn't read that or forgot.

More Eeyore, I'll go Seafoam in reply:  Rusties are so stupid!

[IndyColtsFan 325]

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I don't have access to WaPo, since I don't support Leftie sources.  Feel free to paste the relevant info.

Also, if you read above, I said that the rate of change (vs. absolute change) is an interesting point which, as an engineer, I find more believable.  But in doing so, you are basically conceding that the absolute temp change is irrelevant.  Either you didn't read that or forgot.

More Eeyore, I'll go Seafoam in reply:  Rusties are so stupid!

I don't subscribe, either, but was able to see the whole article when I clicked on it, but thanks for proving my point that you ran down the field with a headline instead of digging into an article you thought you couldn't see but actually could if you'd clicked on the link.

And how hilarious is it that you "don't support" lefty sources that you thought were reporting exactly what you wanted to hear.

Weeeeeeeeyore!

[jerryskids 6,799]

1 minute ago, IndyColtsFan said:

I don't subscribe, either, but was able to see the whole article when I clicked on it, but thanks for proving my point that you ran down the field with a headline instead of digging into an article you thought you couldn't see but actually could if you'd clicked on the link.

And how hilarious is it that you "don't support" lefty sources that you thought were reporting exactly what you wanted to hear.

Weeeeeeeeyore!

I didn't "run down the field" with anything, I said initially that the rate of change vs. absolute change was interesting.  I've made my points, which you've largely ignored, and instead focus on your inability to read, and end with another Eeyore reference.  

I was trying to have an actual conversation with you, if you had taken the time to read my posts, Hopefully, others with some intelligence got something out of them. Otherwise, I'm done responding to your trolling on this, Peefoam-Light.   

[IndyColtsFan 325]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

I was trying to have an actual conversation with you ...

Pro tip: an "actual conversation" would start with you not fabricating fake information about what I've stated in this forum, Peeyore!

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

[jerryskids 6,799]

3 minutes ago, IndyColtsFan said:

Pro tip: an "actual conversation" would start with you not fabricating fake information about what I've stated in this forum, Peeyore!

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

Fake information, PeefoamLight?

[IndyColtsFan 325]

10 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Fake information, PeefoamLight?

I thought you were done, Peeyore.

[RLLD 4,230]

16 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Do you understand that “the largest” necessarily means that there are others that are not as large?

And you assume, that this information is true......   that because we point to humans as the majority...   and any source that might challenge that assertion simple has to be wrong.....

Your trust in government and "scientists" not to mention the lying media......might be misplaced.....

Scientists once told us we were facing global cooling, so please be a little less trusting and a little more inquisitive.

[jerryskids 6,799]

13 hours ago, IndyColtsFan said:

I thought you were done, Peeyore.

Hopefully you had a good night sleeping off the booze, and can come in today with intelligent discussion.   

[IndyColtsFan 325]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Hopefully you had a good night sleeping off the booze, and can come in today with intelligent discussion.   

I wasn't drunk, Peeyore, but thanks of thinking of me.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

On 9/25/2024 at 9:33 AM, MDC said:

The fact that the earth was warmer before humans were around doesn’t have any bearing on whether human activity contributes to warming. I’m not a big environmental guy but you’re making a facile argument here.

indeed

[MDC 7,428]

Just now, Engorgeous George said:

I believe you may have been going for facetious rather than facile.

fac·ile

adjective

1. 1. 

   (especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.

   "facile generalizations"