« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 92

Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28933 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #405 on: April 18, 2019, 04:58:38 pm »
Quote from: TimG on April 18, 2019, 04:00:19 pm
What wonderful evidence of why nothing you say can be taken seriously because you simply do not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.

No one screams at flat-earthers either...  they're just ignored because they are so bloody ridiculous no one can take them seriously.  Deny science all you want...  you'll just have to do it from the sidelines with other fringe groups while the adults make decisions.

Unfortunately, there are people like you in conservative politics.
Logged
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #406 on: April 18, 2019, 05:39:52 pm »
Quote from: the_squid on April 18, 2019, 04:58:38 pm
No one screams at flat-earthers either...  they're just ignored because they are so bloody ridiculous no one can take them seriously.  Deny science all you want...  you'll just have to do it from the sidelines with other fringe groups while the adults make decisions.
That's rich. You have no clue what the science says and does not say yet you have the nerve to lecture others on "denying" science. All your do is spout nonsense you read in the media which often has nothing to do with what was actually reported in the literature.

Quote from: the_squid on April 18, 2019, 04:58:38 pm
Unfortunately, there are people like you in conservative politics.
Unfortunately there are way to many people like you who prefer to call people names rather than attempt to understand the complex questions involved.
Logged

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #407 on: April 18, 2019, 08:49:43 pm »
Quote from: TimG on April 18, 2019, 05:39:52 pm
That's rich. You have no clue what the science says and does not say yet you have the nerve to lecture others on "denying" science. All your do is spout nonsense you read in the media which often has nothing to do with what was actually reported in the literature.
Unfortunately there are way to many people like you who prefer to call people names rather than attempt to understand the complex questions involved.

You still have never given your explanation of where all that 1.4 million sq.kms. of ice went from the arctic ice cap. I'll get the popcorn.
Logged

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8848
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #408 on: April 19, 2019, 11:33:35 am »
Quote from: TimG on April 18, 2019, 04:00:19 pm
What wonderful evidence of why nothing you say can be taken seriously because you simply do not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.

instead of whining about it, if you had a capability to counter the denier label, you would. You can't. You have been given many opportunities to do so. You deny that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to global warming/climate change... and you refuse to provide your interpreted understanding of an alternative principal causal tie. That's not an opinion; rather, that factual as borne out over the years on multiple board postings.
Logged

Offline Rue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • The beast feeds on fear - I feast on the beast.
  • Location: inside a matrix
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #409 on: April 22, 2019, 10:10:58 am »
Quote from: TimG on April 16, 2019, 02:31:23 pm
A common mistake people make is to assume that just because a technology exists that it must be possible to use at a large scale. Nothing could be further from the truth. Energy production is extremely sensitive to economics. i.e. the energy produced must be much more valuable that the resources consumed to produce it where the resources consumed include fuel but also capital investment. On top of that you have a hierarchy of energy where liquid fuel is more valuable than dispatch-able or baseload electricity which is more valuable that intermittent electricity (e.g. wind).

Going large scale can happen once patents do not prevent the wide application of a particular technological process. intellectual property rights can and do prevent this. The sources I listed were done on purpose because in fact they could be implemented on large scale. In fact they could be used by all of us in daily life.

With due respect  nothing I listed has production issues. Can you think of any?
Logged
You have me mistaken with an eagle. I only come to eat your carcass.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #410 on: April 22, 2019, 11:14:42 am »
Quote from: Rue on April 22, 2019, 10:10:58 am
Going large scale can happen once patents do not prevent the wide application of a particular technological process. intellectual property rights can and do prevent this. The sources I listed were done on purpose because in fact they could be implemented on large scale. In fact they could be used by all of us in daily life.

With due respect  nothing I listed has production issues. Can you think of any?
1) Patents are non-issue. Owners of these kinds of patents make more money on volume so they have a financial incentive to license at a reasonable cost. If technology is not deployed it is because of things other than patent costs.

2) If a hypothetical patent holder did try to block the deployment of cheap alternatives that patent would be ignored and/or removed by legislation very quickly. Patent holders only have rights when the government thinks there is a public interest in letting them keep those rights.  It would not take much lobbying by renewable power advocates to put an end to any attempt to block the use of technology.

3) You listed a bunch of alternatives (such of which were irrelevant like walking) but let's pick one "algae fuel". Yes it is possible to produce liquid fuel with algae and it is being done at significant scale today. The trouble is the process consumes energy, water and labour. When you do the math it would take $800/barrel oil to make it economically viable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel#Economic_viability

This is an example of what I meant when I said, that just because a technology exists that does not mean it is a viable replacement for fossil fuels. This statement is often true if one assumes that costs come down as production scale increases (the link explains why, even if produced at very large volumes, algae fuel is too expensive).

« Last Edit: April 22, 2019, 11:16:52 am by TimG »
Logged

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #411 on: April 22, 2019, 12:05:30 pm »
I don't think it's patents that are slowing down advancement toward renewable energy production, and, contrary to what some people around here seem to think, the ever increasing evidence of the need to make advances in the field is not provided by paid off scientists, but is in fact thwarted by the strangle hold the fossil fuel producers have on our economies.
Logged

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #412 on: April 22, 2019, 03:30:41 pm »
Roll up your pant legs and get out your wallets as global warming raises both water levels and insurance rates.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-climate-fuelled-flooding-is-canadas-costliest-and-fastest-growing/


“We have a growing adaptation deficit in Canada, and we’ve got to reverse that trend,” said Blair Feltmate, head of the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo.

A new report from the think tank pegs flooding in major urban centres as Canada’s costliest and fastest-growing extreme-weather challenge, with implications for everything from residential insurance premiums to municipal credit ratings.

It cites data from the Insurance Bureau of Canada that show payouts for catastrophic losses jumped from an average $405-million a year between 1983 and 2008 to a yearly average of $1.8-billion since 2009, with flooding accounting for more than half of the increase.
Logged

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #413 on: April 23, 2019, 01:50:44 pm »
Quote from: Omni on April 22, 2019, 03:30:41 pm
It cites data from the Insurance Bureau of Canada that show payouts for catastrophic losses jumped from an average $405-million a year between 1983 and 2008 to a yearly average of $1.8-billion since 2009, with flooding accounting for more than half of the increase.

I think the relationship between insurance payouts and climate change is very tenuous. 
Logged

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #414 on: May 09, 2019, 09:01:37 pm »
The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change
might not be reliable information. 
https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/?fbclid=IwAR0vaxsruaxQUQAWjgC1HTFLsh9fxkjBZGuTceJ54PAGpZ8Z2Qru1ovsiS0
The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

...

“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.

The descriptions of the 3 main errors are interesting to read.  Lol

A 3% error rate in science isn't bad.
But nobody should be basing policy on the 3% who sold out to the oil lobby.





Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #415 on: May 09, 2019, 09:26:55 pm »
Quote from: Granny on May 09, 2019, 09:01:37 pm
The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change
Pathetic alarmist propaganda that means absolutely nothing because it is based on a irrelevant strawman. In fields where honest scientific inquiry is sill possible there is always dissent. The lack of dissent is are argument for why should should not trust anything a climate scientist says. They are clearly more interested in pushing their "consensus" meme rather than understanding what is going on.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2019, 09:36:51 pm by TimG »
Logged
Old Old x 2 View List

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12532
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #416 on: May 10, 2019, 06:18:42 am »
Quote from: TimG on May 09, 2019, 09:26:55 pm
  The lack of dissent is are argument for why should should not trust anything a climate scientist says.

Horseshit.  You yourself don't deny human-caused climate change.  How much dissent is there on commonly accepted theories ?

 
Logged
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12532
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #417 on: May 10, 2019, 06:32:11 am »
Quote from: Granny on May 09, 2019, 09:01:37 pm
The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change
 

That number seems waay high.  I think they may have expanded what they considered real scientific papers... also...

Quote
by one contrarian paper (Miskolczi 2010). A handful of papers (Shaviv 2002; Svensmark 1998; Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1991; Marsh and Svensmark 2000)

One of these was in the last 10 years and only 2 in the last 20 ?  And some of them method DON'T deny human-caused change they only discount the impact of it.
Logged

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #418 on: May 10, 2019, 07:52:47 am »
Quote from: MH on May 10, 2019, 06:18:42 am
Horseshit.  You yourself don't deny human-caused climate change.  How much dissent is there on commonly accepted theories ?
There is always dissent in any fields where it is not possible to prove a hypothesis with repeatable controlled experiments. The fact that they try so hard to suppress dissent in climate science should be a serious concern for anyone who actually wants to know what is really going on. Climate science is the textbook example of what happens when science is used to support a political agenda because politics does not handle nuance and contradictions well. Politics demands clear and ambiguous "answers" hence the need to produce stupid papers like the one listed here which reduce an extraordinarily complex and multi-factor problem to an irrelevant yes-no question.

Of course, I realize I am whistling in the dark because way too many people have stopped caring about science and only care about their personal political agendas. The net result is researchers that support their "team" are never expected to meet ethical and professional standards which they demand of researchers who do not support their cause.
Logged
Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #419 on: May 10, 2019, 09:29:18 am »
Quote from: TimG on May 10, 2019, 07:52:47 am
There is always dissent in any fields where it is not possible to prove a hypothesis with repeatable controlled experiments. The fact that they try so hard to suppress dissent in climate science should be a serious concern for anyone who actually wants to know what is really going on. Climate science is the textbook example of what happens when science is used to support a political agenda because politics does not handle nuance and contradictions well. Politics demands clear and ambiguous "answers" hence the need to produce stupid papers like the one listed here which reduce an extraordinarily complex and multi-factor problem to an irrelevant yes-no question.

Of course, I realize I am whistling in the dark because way too many people have stopped caring about science and only care about their personal political agendas. The net result is researchers that support their "team" are never expected to meet ethical and professional standards which they demand of researchers who do not support their cause.

Ya, because the best research is always the 3% that didn't do it right, failed to meet inspection. <rolleyes> Lol
You do make the oil industry sound pretty dumb, too dumb to be in charge of making those decisions.
You just make it more and more apparent that we need to take control, cut all their subsidies to nothing, make the polluters pay the REAL cost of cleaning up the environment from producing oil ... and then see how many staunch supporters still want to pay the REAL cost of gas at the pumps.

If people had to pay the REAL price of fossil fuel products, they would have switched long ago.

I am REALLY tired of the fossil fuel corporate welfare bums. We just need to shut them down, drain the swamp.
You're not winning, Tim. You just make the oil industry look too dumb to exist. Lol

I love the 'errors' they made to fake the results, get the results their oil bosses wanted:

"Then there were some that applied inappropriate “curve-fitting”—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing."

Hahahahahahaha ....

Step away Tim ... step away from the data ... farther!  farther!!!
Hahahahahahaha!
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 09:48:31 am by Granny »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 92
« previous next »