Quote :

"I realized that most of the studies I can pull up on Bangladesh mention the UN or scientists involved in the IPCC, and you think they're a conspiracy, so I'm not going to bother to argue with you."

So you admit defeat. Thanks. Now, go read up on the poorly sited weather stations, the corrupt "corrections" applied the world over, and the failure to correct for actual errors. You might learn something in the process.

Quote :

"Arguing against climate change is basically a religion at this point. "

I know. How dare people actually expect science to be done without bias. How dare people expect that researchers actually have some ethics.

Quote :

"It's based on talking points and fallacies, with the entire scientific community on the other side of the issue."

1) Popularity means NOTHING in science. Again, Christopher Columbus is said to have fought against flat-earthers. Many people believe this. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't.
2) What would you expect the scientific community to say? "Hey, no more need for research dollars and our jobs. We were just foolin, hyuck!"?
3) If, in science, you have to appeal to popularity, it means one thing: YOU DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS. Period.

Quote :

"I don't argue with people don't believe in evolution, people who believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, or people who don't believe that the Holocaust actually happened."

Ahhh, nice ad hominem! Because questioning shitty science is the same as being a Holocaust denier. Yep.

Quote :

"No one does this shit for the money, I can promise you that, and I guarantee you climate research doesn't pay any better."

That is such a crock of shit. You might want to google Michael Mann's grants and just how much he actually makes before you make such a baseless claim.

Quote :

"In what field? Climatology? I would hope so."

And you don't see a problem with that? That you have to say there's a problem in order to get research money? You don't think that biases the research just a little?

Quote :

"While I don't believe in AGW most people in here know that I still support being efficient and not wasteful in most aspects of life and that I care about the environment."

Bingo. Calling out AGW for the bullshit it is does not preclude one from supporting legitimate environmental efforts. I recycle, even when it's inconvenient to me. I turn off lights when I leave a room. I'm also against pollution, in a general sense. I just don't buy the lie that a trace gas in the atmosphere is the main driver of our climate system.

7/21/2011 7:09:17 PM

Quote :

""In what field? Climatology? I would hope so." And you don't see a problem with that? That you have to say there's a problem in order to get research money? You don't think that biases the research just a little?"

Climatology today exists almost entirely as a result of global warming, although I should probably use the word AWG instead. This has been big since the early 90s, and it's gotten bigger over time. The reason people funded it is because there was an imperative associated with it. And yes, this is a political imperative. You can correctly say that pretty much all government funded research (which comprises the vast majority of what we talk about here) exists as a result of a political imperative of some form or another, even pure science.

You need to accept the fact that even the established researchers and professors in the field of climatology started as young students who went into the field to study the way man was affecting climate. Let's just be blunt about this!

Climatology, as a whole, however, is an entirely respected field. The consensus we speak of, the IPCC, so on and so fourth is almost entirely people in this field and closely related fields. However, the fact that there is an army of scientists devoting their careers to the subject does not mean there isn't good science behind it.

The reason to believe AGW is real is the strength of evidence behind it. I don't just think there have been exaggerations and dishonesty on some level in the entire climatology community - I expect it.

Quote :

"Bingo. Calling out AGW for the bullshit it is does not preclude one from supporting legitimate environmental efforts. I recycle, even when it's inconvenient to me. I turn off lights when I leave a room. I'm also against pollution, in a general sense. I just don't buy the lie that a trace gas in the atmosphere is the main driver of our climate system."

The most intelligent environmentalists I know of make the argument that the fight over climate change is really between leaving hydrocarbons (coal, oil, gas) in the ground, or burning them to put them in the atmosphere. In spite of the carbon capture technological promises, there is no in-between where we use the rest of recoverable hydrocarbons and still avoid the disastrous effects of AGW.

I admit it, we're probably screwed. It's almost pointless to argue for nations to significantly reduce CO2 output voluntarily. Copenhagen made the political reality even more abundantly clear. In spite of this, however, there is still some race going on to renewables and nuclear globally. We need those two plus electric vehicles just to start out. The market has some amount of hydrocarbons that it will decide to leave in place on its own accord. It is my belief that due to the extraordinary threat of AGW we need need market distortion on a massive level so that we will leave more than that amount in the ground.

We'll have no ice caps, no economic wild fisheries (anywhere), no coral, a barrage of unpredicted ice break-offs from Greenland and Antarctica, a litany of nations engulfed by sea levels and desertification. Once we have those, we'll have a crash geoengineering project and a crash project into nuclear and renewables.

I just want that process to go more smoothly.

7/22/2011 1:54:04 PM

^I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm glad I don't have any stress from worrying about any of those things occuring.

7/22/2011 2:27:04 PM

Quote :

"The consensus we speak of, the IPCC, so on and so fourth is almost entirely people in this field and closely related fields."

riiiiiiiiiiight. That's why their lists include biologists and botanists. Oh, and public officials and policy wonks. yep. There's NOTHING shady about the IPCC. Like how they put in un-peer-reviewed work into their reports (by journalists, at that) after swearing up and down that only peer-reviewed work was going to be allowed. Like how they let activist papers get into their report stating absurd things like the Himalayas were all going to melt and the Amazon River would run dry. Yep.

Quote :

"However, the fact that there is an army of scientists devoting their careers to the subject does not mean there isn't good science behind it."

I'm sure there is some good science. But frauds like the Hockey Stick and its derivative works are not examples of it.

Quote :

"The reason to believe AGW is real is the strength of evidence behind it."

Then why isn't the evidence the foremost argument? Why is it always "there is no debate, oh, and all these people agree?" There's no debate about the earth not being flat, because we can point to the evidence. There's little debate about the concept of gravity because we can see it in action. AGW? Not so much. At least the predictions of other controversial topics can be verified. The predictions of AGW have consistently failed, time and time again.

Furthermore, if the strength of the evidence is so strong, then why is it that the most prominent studies come out time and again as deeply-flawed or outright fraudulent? If the evidence is so strong, why are people, prominent people, faking it? If the evidence is so strong, why is the temperature record constantly being manipulated to make things consistently look worse, with little reason for the "corrections"?

Quote :

"We'll have no ice caps"

Even though there is no appreciable change is global ice coverage? Really? You want to make that claim? Summer ice extent in the Antarctic is at a 30-year high.

Quote :

"no economic wild fisheries"

Due to overfishing, not the climate boogeyman.

Quote :

"a litany of nations engulfed by sea levels and desertification."

You mean those sea-levels that are rising at the same historic average of 1.8mm/year for the last 1000 years?

For all of your claims of "good science," there sure is a whole hell of a lot of bad science and lack of valid predictions

[Edited on July 22, 2011 at 2:43 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2011 2:41:13 PM

Quote :

"Then why isn't the evidence the foremost argument?"

I'm sorry that someone apparently represented the case for AGW poorly to you. Scientists have a long history of poor communication. And yeah, I do think that plenty of journalists and politicians have screwed up the case by making those consensus arguments, which I personally see as unscientific. If they hadn't screwed something up then we wouldn't be in the situation we are in right now.

And yes, I should have said the northern ice cap.

7/22/2011 2:47:01 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry that someone apparently represented the case for AGW poorly to you."

Don't hide behind that. One of THE FOREMOST ARGUMENTS is the supposed consensus. It ALWAYS comes up. ALWAYS. You NEVER hear of ANY "consensus" argument for the earth being round.

Quote :

"And yes, I should have said the northern ice cap."

And even THAT is questionable. The fact is, northern summer sea ice extent is within the range of "normal" again. And it is a well-known fact that one of the biggest factors in said ice-extent is the direction of the winds. When they blow one direction, it pushes the ice together, making a smaller extent. When the winds blow the other direction, it spreads the ice out, making the extent larger. This is a KNOWN phenomena, yet the "diminishing sea ice extent" is consistently touted, even when we can perfectly explain it outside of fearmongering. Where is the "good science" in that?


And, again, as for "weight of evidence," if it's so strong, then why was shit like THIS done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&feature=related
look at about 3:50, to show the true fraud of Mann's hockey stick.

[Edited on July 22, 2011 at 3:32 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2011 3:03:23 PM

Quote :

"Don't hide behind that. One of THE FOREMOST ARGUMENTS is the supposed consensus. It ALWAYS comes up. ALWAYS. You NEVER hear of ANY "consensus" argument for the earth being round."

I could not have made this point better than what you just did.

Any narrative where AWG has a consensus and the geometry of the Earth is not said to have a consensus... makes my mind reel. AGW is not the most solid of scientific fact. Evolution isn't for that matter. The number of things that we have proved so well that they are more-or-less indisputable is astonishing - that is exactly the success of science.

7/22/2011 3:32:44 PM

And, for that matter, if the science is so good, then why do the proponents of these theories routinely deny requests to their data and methods? Why do they thwart FOIA requests, which they are legally required to respond to? Why is science, in this case, so secretive? The answer is simple: because the "science" is faked and bogus and wouldn't stand up to legitimate scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny you don't find by sending your work off to be reviewed by people who worked with you on what they are reviewing.

as for the claim that climate science doesn't pay well, why does James Hansen, one of the leading fearmongerers, have $1.2m outside of his NASA salary over the past four years? Is that not "being paid well?" Well, if he and NASA would respond to legally binding requests, we might find out

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/07/19/nasas-inconvenient-ruse-the-goddard-institute-for-space-studies/

[Edited on July 22, 2011 at 3:52 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2011 3:47:01 PM

Quote :

"hahahaha. something that's been proven to be absolute bullshit. and you claim people who doubt AGW are "anti-science," lol."

We know for a fact that ocean currents are driven by density currents that start the converyor system. This system is fragile and relies on consistent ocean temperature and salinity gradients to function. You lose both when you melt ice.

Quote :

"You fucking dolt, it's not the "improvement" that is the problem. It's the way to get said improvement that is, namely cutting off all of our electricity."

No its not. Its simply using electricity more efficiently and switching away from fossil fuels.

Quote :

"hahahahaha. This is so fucking hilarious that I don't know where to begin... Energy problem? By cutting off all our electricity? That fixes the energy problem? Healthcare? WHERE THE FUCK DOES THAT COME IN? All of our health problems are caused by a trace gas in the atmosphere? REALLY? And economy? Ask Spain how well their attempts to mandate green energy did. really. Do some research, Earl."

You are the only one who has suggested we cut off all electricity. Leaving fossil fuels would free us from the problem of being victim of the price guaging thats going to come in the peak oil market and when oil runs out, at this point, we'd be completely screwed. Sooner or later, oil will cost just as much as cleaner resources. That is our energy problem.

If we had smarter, well-planned cities, people would walk more. When you drive every single place not only do you waste energy, you also lose time for exercise.

If we were the first to leave fossil fuels, we will have all the jobs in the future energy industries. We will have the engineers that supply the rest of the world. Green ideas would be our export.

7/22/2011 7:28:48 PM

Quote :

"We know for a fact that ocean currents are driven by density currents that start the converyor system. This system is fragile and relies on consistent ocean temperature and salinity gradients to function. You lose both when you melt ice. "

An yet, with all of the supposed melted ice, there's been ZERO recorded disruption in the ocean currents. Again, a prediction from the doomsayers falls flat. Funny how all these things we "know for a fact" simply can't be counted upon to actually take place.

Quote :

"No its not. Its simply using electricity more efficiently and switching away from fossil fuels. "

And switch to... Nuclear is out, because that's even more evil than coal. So we are left with what? Things that still don't work and won't work when the sun isn't perfectly overhead or the winds aren't blowing. Ergo, we cut our damned electricity off.

Quote :

"Sooner or later, oil will cost just as much as cleaner resources. That is our energy problem. "

And when that happens, you can guaran-damn-tee that people will have a solution for it. Until then, switching to something massively more expensive and far less dependable is not the solution.

Quote :

"If we had smarter, well-planned cities, people would walk more. When you drive every single place not only do you waste energy, you also lose time for exercise."

And if unicorns existed and farted skittles, it'd be awesome.

Quote :

"If we were the first to leave fossil fuels, we will have all the jobs in the future energy industries."

No. We'd be a 3rd-world nation in a few years, as our energy would virtually disappear overnight. We will only leave fossil fuels when it actually makes sense and can be replaced with something that works (*cough*nuclear*cough*)

Quote :

"Green ideas would be our export."

hahahaha. that's fucking rich.

7/22/2011 7:46:33 PM

Quote :

"An yet, with all of the supposed melted ice, there's been ZERO recorded disruption in the ocean currents. Again, a prediction from the doomsayers falls flat. Funny how all these things we "know for a fact" simply can't be counted upon to actually take place."

Really? because climates are moving, "wild" and geographically uncharacteristic extreme weather events are increasing, dry areas getting tons of rain, wet areas drying up all over the globe. Sounds like global climate change to me.

Quote :

"And switch to... Nuclear is out, because that's even more evil than coal. So we are left with what? Things that still don't work and won't work when the sun isn't perfectly overhead or the winds aren't blowing. Ergo, we cut our damned electricity off."

Nuclear is fine and very safe despite what the big oil media might lead you to believe. It may not be unlimited into the future, but its a great upgrade from fossil fuels and super clean. Nuclear can be supplemented with the less reliable, renewable resources. Tidal is reliable everyday, cheap but only available on the coast. Wind is efficient, cheap but limited to certain geographic regions. The good thing is most of our cities are on the coast where wind and tidal work well. Nuclear should be the workhorse for now though.

This will only work if we tone down automobile usage. This means we need smarter city planning and we have to get the oil companies out of our government.

Quote :

"And when that happens, you can guaran-damn-tee that people will have a solution for it. Until then, switching to something massively more expensive and far less dependable is not the solution."

Its happening now. Things are artificially more expensive because we are spending billions of dollars to subsidize the oil industry.

Quote :

"No. We'd be a 3rd-world nation in a few years, as our energy would virtually disappear overnight. We will only leave fossil fuels when it actually makes sense and can be replaced with something that works (*cough*nuclear*cough*)"

all of these mentioned work very well and if we use energy more efficiently we'll be fine.

We have to get out of the "comfortable now, forget about later" attitude or we really will go back to the dark ages.

7/22/2011 8:17:49 PM

Quote :

"Really? because climates are moving"

what the hell does that mean?

Quote :

""wild" and geographically uncharacteristic extreme weather events are increasing"

FALSE. There is ZERO proof of this. All studies show that extreme weather events are happening at no greater frequency now than they did before. Stop spouting lies. Either that, or produce the studies that actually show this.

Quote :

"This will only work if we tone down automobile usage. This means we need smarter city planning and we have to get the oil companies out of our government."

How? How will "smarter city planning" address the fact that we are a suburban nation? How will that magically get people to work? It fucking won't.

Quote :

"all of these mentioned work very well and if we use energy more efficiently we'll be fine."

Really? You mean wind and solar which have proven so unreliable that utilities build backup generators running on oil and gas to meet demand when they fail? Oh, and those generators produce more GHG yearly than the plants the wind and solar were meant to replace? REALLY? Those "work very well"?

7/22/2011 8:46:16 PM

Here is a map with zones representing different climate types. Well climates are shifting and moving all over the globe at a pace than many animals cannot move with (they move with the natural pace but not the manmade pace). Thats why we are entering a period of mass extinction.

Quote :

"FALSE. There is ZERO proof of this. All studies show that extreme weather events are happening at no greater frequency now than they did before. Stop spouting lies. Either that, or produce the studies that actually show this."

This is common knowledge and can probably be found easily on the noaa website. Extreme heat, flooding, snowstorms and droughts are all up.

Quote :

"How? How will "smarter city planning" address the fact that we are a suburban nation? How will that magically get people to work? It fucking won't."

We can easily implement zoning laws and tax policies that would change us from being a suburban nation to an urban nation. Portland does it quite well already like the rest of the civilized world sans canada and australia.

-Get rid of zoning laws
-put up a construction boundary around every city
-increase taxes in the sububrbs
-make it more expensive/hassle to own a car
-use the car/road taxes to fund green mass transit

Then everything would urbanize pretty quickly. Some could opt out and just pay more to live wreckless while funding the urbanization.

Quote :

"Really? You mean wind and solar which have proven so unreliable that utilities build backup generators running on oil and gas to meet demand when they fail? Oh, and those generators produce more GHG yearly than the plants the wind and solar were meant to replace? REALLY? Those "work very well"?"

I never mentioned solar. I said wind and tidal to aid the NUCLEAR workhorse

[Edited on July 22, 2011 at 9:12 PM. Reason : ok]

7/22/2011 9:12:01 PM

Quote :

"Well climates are shifting and moving all over the globe at a pace than many animals cannot move with"

source? Probably one that has been equally disproved.

Quote :

"Thats why we are entering a period of mass extinction."

No, we have extinctions right now primarily due to habitat destruction. Keep posting lies, though.

Quote :

"This is common knowledge and can probably be found easily on the noaa website. Extreme heat, flooding, snowstorms and droughts are all up."

Common knowledge that is false, like the notion that Columbus fought against flat-earthers. Seriously, do some research. Many people have proposed that AGW will make them worse, yet, curiously, no one can show that it has actually happened.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/monthly_co2_report_november_2010.pdf
Pages 18-22. Damn, facts suck, don't they?

Quote :

"We can easily implement zoning laws and tax policies that would change us from being a suburban nation to an urban nation. "

Really? You are going to make everyone move by bulldozing their house and forcing them to live somewhere else? Wow, that's the kind of world I don't want to live in.

Quote :

"I never mentioned solar. I said wind and tidal to aid the NUCLEAR workhorse"

Too bad I mentioned wind, too. DOH! And tidal? That'll NEVER get past the environmental nutjobs. Imagine all the snails and clams that will be hurt! That and I can't even begin to contemplate the unintended consequence that fucking with the oceans would bring.

7/22/2011 9:49:48 PM

heres your common knowledge source
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Quote :

"Really? You are going to make everyone move by bulldozing their house and forcing them to live somewhere else? Wow, that's the kind of world I don't want to live in."

We aren't going to make anyone do anything. If they want to stay in the suburbs they can just pay the suburb tax which will go to fund our new world.

Quote :

"That'll NEVER get past the environmental nutjobs. Imagine all the snails and clams that will be hurt! That and I can't even begin to contemplate the unintended consequence that fucking with the oceans would bring."

Smaller and cleaner than oil rigs. I'm sure anyone would prefer propellers to huge oil spills. Also there would be no unintended consequence because we won't be "fucking with" the oceans. The area of turbines to supplement our nuclear energy would be both negligible in terms of footprint and energy extraction from the tides.

[Edited on July 22, 2011 at 10:34 PM. Reason : wow]

7/22/2011 10:34:23 PM

Quote :

"Well climates are shifting and moving all over the globe at a pace than many animals cannot move with (they move with the natural pace but not the manmade pace). Thats why we are entering a period of mass extinction."

Interesting theory, but it makes no sense. Any animal that is going to be killed by global warming would have already died off from the normal climatic variation.

7/23/2011 2:10:22 AM

No. The natural pace is much slower than the manmade pace.

7/23/2011 4:36:31 AM

No, the natural pace is for rainfall and temperature to fluctuate wildly one year to the next. El Nino anyone?

7/23/2011 9:42:09 AM

el nino is an event and not a long-term change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IjN7tBL-3g

7/23/2011 10:31:30 AM

So what? Animals must survive the short term in order to see the long term. That they survive such drastic short term variation implies they should do fine with slow long term variation.

7/23/2011 10:36:33 AM

ENSO doesn't wipe out plant life. Its only a short term deal. When the climate changes for a long period of time, certain plants don't survive and any animal that relies on that plant is done for as well as subsequent animals that rely on that animal.

7/23/2011 10:55:07 AM

Quote :

"heres your common knowledge source"

hahahahaha. A regurgitation of talking points from the IPCC? That's all you got? Talking points that have been specifically refuted. Saying "we have an increase in extreme weather from 1950" is disingenuous, because we had an increase in the ability to DETECT it. Jesus.

Quote :

"We aren't going to make anyone do anything."

In which case, no one will do anything you want them to do at all, because no taxes will be able be passed, probably on account of a Constitutional basis. if you try to tax the piss out of suburbs, people will simply move to another city that isn't stupid. The cities that try this stupidity will lose a massive amount of population, and they will get the message how dumb it is.

Quote :

"I'm sure anyone would prefer propellers to huge oil spills. "

And you'd be wrong. Ted Kennedy and his family spent millions of dollars fighting wind farms, on account of BIRDS.

Quote :

"Also there would be no unintended consequence because we won't be "fucking with" the oceans."

Yes. Sucking energy out of the oceans and its current system is not "fucking with the oceans." Yes.

Quote :

"When the climate changes for a long period of time, certain plants don't survive and any animal that relies on that plant is done for as well as subsequent animals that rely on that animal."

Assuming that said plant can't exist anywhere else, and said animal can't use any other plant, nor move to wherever that plant actually is. Then again, this is still predicated on the notion that climate change is occurring, so there you go

7/23/2011 2:54:19 PM

Quote :

"hahahahaha. A regurgitation of talking points from the IPCC? That's all you got? Talking points that have been specifically refuted. Saying "we have an increase in extreme weather from 1950" is disingenuous, because we had an increase in the ability to DETECT it. Jesus."

We also have the ability to go back and find historical events. You act like people just started spreading out in 1950.

Quote :

"In which case, no one will do anything you want them to do at all, because no taxes will be able be passed, probably on account of a Constitutional basis. if you try to tax the piss out of suburbs, people will simply move to another city that isn't stupid. The cities that try this stupidity will lose a massive amount of population, and they will get the message how dumb it is."

It works in other countries and if unconstitutional, it can easily be done in the reverse manner.

Instead of taxing suburbs you get rid of all the tax breaks to the oil industry and this drives up the price of everything being trucked to the suburbs which makes cost of living higher. You also raise overall taxes and provide tax breaks to everyone living/working/building in urban areas.

Quote :

"And you'd be wrong. Ted Kennedy and his family spent millions of dollars fighting wind farms, on account of BIRDS."

Thats because it polluted their views. Tidal can be completely under the waterline.

Quote :

"Yes. Sucking energy out of the oceans and its current system is not "fucking with the oceans." Yes."

the fraction of energy you'd be taking out would be negligible. Do you really think some turbines would change the orbit of the moon?

[Edited on July 23, 2011 at 3:05 PM. Reason : needs a high school science class]

7/23/2011 3:02:01 PM

Quote :

"We also have the ability to go back and find historical events."

If no one was there to document it, then it never happened as far as history is concerned, which was my point. A storm that was not documented, such as out in the middle of the ocean, doesn't get counted. Now, we catch ALL of the storms. DURRRR, troll.

Quote :

"Instead of taxing suburbs you get rid of all the tax breaks to the oil industry and this drives up the price of everything being trucked to the suburbs which makes cost of living higher. "

If you honestly believe that the oil subsidies would drive prices up to a level necessary to do what you hope to accomplish, then you have serious problems. Jared Loughner style problems.

Quote :

"Thats because it polluted their views. Tidal can be completely under the waterline. "

Yes, but they still objected on environmental grounds. And you can guarantee that wherever anyone wants to put one of these things the tree-huggers will find a new sea roach that is threatened by it.

Quote :

"the fraction of energy you'd be taking out would be negligible."

Until you start putting them every where. In the same way that one coal factory puts out a negligible amount of CO2 and particulates on its own.

Quote :

"Do you really think some turbines would change the orbit of the moon?"

No, but I think you could easily affect currents, maybe not deep ocean ones, but currents none the less. Something you were seemingly concerned about before. No, I think the WORST idea imaginable to solve a fucked up climate is to directly fuck with the climate

7/25/2011 9:49:32 PM

Quote :

"If no one was there to document it, then it never happened as far as history is concerned, which was my point. A storm that was not documented, such as out in the middle of the ocean, doesn't get counted. Now, we catch ALL of the storms. DURRRR, troll."

People were everywhere in 1950. Storms out in the middle of the ocean would not count as a flooding event or hurricane landfall. We are talking about droughts and significant precipitation. Those are easily recorded to have been increasing since 1950.

Quote :

"If you honestly believe that the oil subsidies would drive prices up to a level necessary to do what you hope to accomplish, then you have serious problems. Jared Loughner style problems."

What is the natural price of a gallon of gasoline these days? ~6dollars. I'm not sure but I think doubling the price right now would change the way a lot of people think about where they live and how they get around.

Quote :

"No, but I think you could easily affect currents, maybe not deep ocean ones, but currents none the less. Something you were seemingly concerned about before. No, I think the WORST idea imaginable to solve a fucked up climate is to directly fuck with the climate "

Currents don't flow in tidal zones. The water comes up and goes down. Turbines would not restrict it in anyway. They would only change the work that the moon does. Essentially, we'd b drawing this energy from the moon's gravity.

7/25/2011 11:54:36 PM

Quote :

"Currents don't flow in tidal zones. The water comes up and goes down. Turbines would not restrict it in anyway. They would only change the work that the moon does. Essentially, we'd b drawing this energy from the moon's gravity."

Actually, such turbines would push the moon into higher orbits than it otherwise would be. The work to turn the turbines and push the moon into higher orbits is extracted from the rotational energy of the Earth. Which means, such turbines would also slow the rotation of the earth over time relative to what it otherwise would be.

7/26/2011 12:10:53 AM

Yeah and you are crazy if you think that would be noticeable. The scales are not even close. Super earthquakes change the rotation of the Earth and that still isn't even noticeable.

7/26/2011 12:15:34 AM

Quote :

"People were everywhere in 1950."

No, they really weren't. Not enough to count all of the extreme weather events that we can now detect.

Quote :

"Storms out in the middle of the ocean would not count as a flooding event or hurricane landfall."

And if those were the only things being counted, then you might be right. Too bad the environmentalists are dishonest and don't count them that way. If they did, and when they do, you notice no change from historical patterns. Let's also note that 50 years is WAY to0 short of a time to be looking at weather patterns for a system we know has cycles of at least 60 years in length, if not more.

Quote :

"Those are easily recorded to have been increasing since 1950. "

No, they HAVEN'T. produce god damn facts to back up your lies. Actual studies show no trends, dude. I'm sorry that you disagree with them.

Quote :

"What is the natural price of a gallon of gasoline these days? ~6dollars."

Where did you pull that number out of? Your ass? Yep.

Quote :

"I'm not sure but I think doubling the price right now would change the way a lot of people think about where they live and how they get around. "

And people said that when gas was a buck-fifty, and it doubled in a matter of months.

Quote :

"Yeah and you are crazy if you think that would be noticeable."

For one, yes. Just like, AGAIN, one coal plant doesn't make a difference.

7/26/2011 1:32:48 AM

Quote :

"No, they HAVEN'T. produce god damn facts to back up your lies. Actual studies show no trends, dude. I'm sorry that you disagree with them."

already gave you the link. you can claim that widely accepted facts are lies all day.

Quote :

"Where did you pull that number out of? Your ass? Yep."

canada brazil uk

Quote :

"And people said that when gas was a buck-fifty, and it doubled in a matter of months."

back when the economy was doing well and people could just refinance their homes to pay for driving to work.

Quote :

"For one, yes. Just like, AGAIN, one coal plant doesn't make a difference."

You are talking about gravity here. millions of turbines will be several orders of magnitude less than gravity compared to each coal plant producing an additive pollutant that sticks around for 100 years.

I wouldn't expect a better argument from someone who has very little grasp of high school science.

7/26/2011 1:59:06 AM

It's barely nudged above 70 degrees here in the Bay Area all summer. You guys need to stop making such a big stink over nothing. The weather is just fine. In fact, its downright enjoyable.

7/26/2011 3:51:05 AM

Satisfied with current weather. So obviously no action needed.

7/26/2011 8:04:09 AM

^better than being forced by the government to spend hundreds of billions in the hope of lowering the temperature a few tenth's of a degree.

The E Man, it's well documented that global cyclone (i.e. hurricane) activity is at a historic low. Of course this is a non-issue as there are no links between these storms and "global warming".

Regarding droughts, the current Texas drought is bad, but it was worse in the 50s...and worse in the 30s. Both time periods where you could not blame CO2 emissions. Who should you blame for the current drought? Probably La Nina. On the whole however, global drought conditions have dropped considerable over the last 30 years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/23/the-texas-centered-drought-versus-1918-1956-and-1934/#more-43973

[Edited on July 26, 2011 at 8:43 AM. Reason : k]

7/26/2011 8:42:24 AM

Quote :

"^better than being forced by the government to spend hundreds of billions in the hope of lowering the temperature a few tenth's of a degree."

Trying to put the thread back on topic...

So you believe that doing nothing is the best course of action. Correct?

7/26/2011 9:08:40 AM

Well what exactly do I need a plan of action for? Why should a plan be conceived to ward off natural climate changes?

Now, if you want to talk about a plan of action to offset things that affect local climates like the urban heat effect and deforestation that's another matter.

Should a plan be formulated for how to deal with the end of the oil era? Most definitely, though we have plenty of oil to last quite a while and shouldn't discourage continual development of known oil reserves when equivalent technologies are nowhere near ready.

[Edited on July 26, 2011 at 9:17 AM. Reason : d]

7/26/2011 9:16:26 AM

Quote :

"Should a plan be formulated for how to deal with the end of the oil era? Most definitely, though we have plenty of oil to last quite a while and shouldn't discourage continual development of known oil reserves when equivalent technologies are nowhere near ready."

You've said 2 things here. You recognized that running out of hydrocarbons is a problem. You also seem to state that a part of mitigating the impact of the transition out of an oil economy is to keep drilling... hard.

That's not contradictory, and I'm not trying to say it is. But the typical "liberal" position is at least that we should try to leave oil in the ground, and I think it's fair to say you disagree with that. After all, if global warming is a problem, then why bother leaving any burnable hydrocarbons in the ground, amirite?

7/26/2011 9:34:17 AM

Quote :

"The E Man, it's well documented that global cyclone (i.e. hurricane) activity is at a historic low. Of course this is a non-issue as there are no links between these storms and "global warming"."

Yeah well warm waters fuel cyclones and waters are warmer but shear has increased in said hotspots and steering currents have changed with the climate.

Quote :

"though we have plenty of oil to last quite a while and shouldn't discourage continual development of known oil reserves when equivalent technologies are nowhere near ready."

We have 2% of the worlds reserves and consume 25% of the worlds oil. Our reserves are a political gimmick and nice moneymaker for whatever companies are using them but really don't mean anything in the big picture.

You also don't seem to understand that its not oil running out that will be the end for us, its peak oil that will be the problem. Production continues to increase with soaring demand. China india and brazil continue to increase demand exponentially. Once we reach a point in production where they cna't increase it anymore, prices will take off and never look back. Thats the end of oil and the end of our current way of life.

Oil will never run out it will just be used until its not the cheapest thing anymore. Oil companies want to make us much money for as long as they can so they will never be in favor of what is best for the country. They just want to keep milking it. I don't know why you guys listen to them on this issue.

7/26/2011 10:01:33 AM

Quote :

"Production continues to increase with soaring demand."

u mean production decreases?

7/26/2011 10:32:29 AM

No, production has continued to increase, we continue to drill more and extract oil at a faster rate around the globe to keep up with demand.

[Edited on July 26, 2011 at 11:09 AM. Reason : without prices going gold]





[Edited on July 26, 2011 at 11:12 AM. Reason : india and china will cause global demand to double in15 years]

[Edited on July 26, 2011 at 11:13 AM. Reason : poop]

7/26/2011 11:08:51 AM

http://freedom21.org/alternative/5a-1.jpg

Really? Seriously? A 2002-ish projection from who knows where?

Here is the EIA International Energy Outlook 2010.



A good laugh altogether, but the OPEC conventional especially so.

7/26/2011 11:39:10 AM

Oil isn't finite. We can just crush more trees and grind them with bones under intense pressure to make more oil.

7/26/2011 3:38:43 PM

Quote :

"already gave you the link."

that link gave ZERO evidence towards the claim. I can give you propaganda links, too, if you want.

Quote :

"canada brazil uk"

ahhh. So you admit you have no source. Got it.

Quote :

"back when the economy was doing well and people could just refinance their homes to pay for driving to work."

So you admit your are wrong. Got it.

Quote :

"You are talking about gravity here. millions of turbines will be several orders of magnitude less than gravity compared to each coal plant producing an additive pollutant that sticks around for 100 years. "

And you are talking about fucking with the oceans, one of the major players in our climate system. Keep up the good work, troll.

Quote :

"Yeah well warm waters fuel cyclones and waters are warmer but shear has increased in said hotspots and steering currents have changed with the climate. "

So then, should we see more hurricanes or not? This is the problem with AGW claims. All of them are non-falsifiable, because there's always an excuse for when their predictions fail, again.

Quote :

"You also don't seem to understand that its not oil running out that will be the end for us, its peak oil that will be the problem. "

Oh, so you're one of those people. lol.

7/26/2011 7:41:47 PM

Quote :

" I can give you propaganda links, too, if you want."

Any source you disagree with is propaganda, got it. Even fucking NASA isn't legit.

Quote :

"ahhh. So you admit you have no source. Got it."

just look up the current prices of gasoline in those countries ~6.00/gallon but its always changing so no need of a source.

Quote :

"And you are talking about fucking with the oceans, one of the major players in our climate system. Keep up the good work, troll."

The oceans aren't being fucked with. They still do the same thing. This is like saying wind farms change the weather. Absurd.

Quote :

"So then, should we see more hurricanes or not? This is the problem with AGW claims. All of them are non-falsifiable, because there's always an excuse for when their predictions fail, again."

It means when sheer is absent, we will see stronger hurricanes.

Quote :

"Oh, so you're one of those people. lol."

you're one of those people who think we will always just be able to drill more oil than demand. Even though a few billion people are just now starting to use oil.

7/26/2011 7:55:29 PM

Quote :

"Any source you disagree with is propaganda, got it. Even fucking NASA isn't legit."

It's propaganda because it provides ZERO sources for ANYTHING. Besides, NASA (James Hansen) has been shown to be fudging the numbers. OF COURSE I don't believe an organization like that. And, again, it doesn't even provide any facts to support the claims. Just because it has "evidence" in the link doesn't actually mean it has any evidence.

Quote :

"just look up the current prices of gasoline in those countries ~6.00/gallon but its always changing so no need of a source. "

And why is the price of gas in those countries the "natural price"? do you even know what the fuck you are talking about? of course not.

Quote :

"The oceans aren't being fucked with."

Yes. Putting something into the ocean, drawing energy out of it. That's not doing anything with the ocean. Got it.

Quote :

"It means when sheer is absent, we will see stronger hurricanes. "

Ahhh. So you are basically saying that the predictions are true because they are predictions. Got it.

7/26/2011 11:44:42 PM

Quote :

"This is like saying wind farms change the weather. Absurd. "

Wind farms do change the weather. So does paving a hundred square miles. A sizable chunk of measured global warming has been due to human induced land use changes.

7/26/2011 11:48:04 PM

Quote :

"And why is the price of gas in those countries the "natural price"? do you even know what the fuck you are talking about? of course not."

Its not natural but its a heck of a lot closer because they have a lot less subsidies and less big oil in their governments.

Quote :

"Yes. Putting something into the ocean, drawing energy out of it. That's not doing anything with the ocean. Got it."

Its negligible. You seem to be confused with the oceans disturbable processes and the tides. It would take a force we are not capable of producing to make a noticable effect on the moon's power to pull the tides.

Quote :

"Wind farms do change the weather. So does paving a hundred square miles. A sizable chunk of measured global warming has been due to human induced land use changes."

I'm literally laughing hard at the fact that you think wind farms slow down the wind enough to effect the weather. The pavement argument is apples and oranges. You are talking about sun reflection and albedo in a fluid physics, gravity conversation. Of course paving changes things, simply changing the color of surfaces has a great impact on heat content.

7/27/2011 12:47:34 AM

Quote :

"Its not natural but its a heck of a lot closer because they have a lot less subsidies and less big oil in their governments. "

so then, again, you have no point. You can't show or even estimate what the price of gas would be without subsidies, yet you still claim it's way higher. Put up or shut up.

Quote :

"Its negligible."

According to you. We always assume our effects are negligible, until they come back to bite us in the ass.

Quote :

"I'm literally laughing hard at the fact that you think wind farms slow down the wind enough to effect the weather."

And I'm literally laughing that you don't think messing with an actual part of the weather affects the weather

7/27/2011 12:51:59 AM

A single building would have 10x the impact on the weather that a windfarm would based on resistance alone. Your grasp of scale is severely lacking.

Quote :

"so then, again, you have no point. You can't show or even estimate what the price of gas would be without subsidies, yet you still claim it's way higher. Put up or shut up."

showing you countries that have less subsidization and almost double the price is enough. Who knows what the price would be naturally.

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 1:07 AM. Reason : complex]

7/27/2011 1:06:38 AM

and your point?

7/27/2011 1:07:34 AM

Tidal turbines ftw.

7/27/2011 1:09:23 AM

yep, until we see how they fuck things up worse. DOH! all for a problem that doesn't exist

7/27/2011 1:17:16 AM