[sasquatch2]

Expressing a founded opinion is not an insult.....especially if it is accurate.

[Zipperfish]

sasquatch2 wrote:

Expressing a founded opinion is not an insult.....especially if it is accurate.

Well, aren't you Mr. Grumpypants.

[Calbeck]

If we're going to do anything realistic about global climate change, it is going to have to be in terms of technological control solutions. The new consensus that appears to be emerging from the scientific community is that we could cut back to ZERO emissions tomorrow and still be buggered.

So, since simple conservation of carbon emissions won't help, we need to work on ways to remove excess climate-affecting gases and particles from the atmosphere. Technologically, I think we can do this already, but the question then becomes whether or not we can cope with the sheer scale of the project.

[Zipperfish]

Calbeck wrote:

If we're going to do anything realistic about global climate change, it is going to have to be in terms of technological control solutions. The new consensus that appears to be emerging from the scientific community is that we could cut back to ZERO emissions tomorrow and still be buggered.

So, since simple conservation of carbon emissions won't help, we need to work on ways to remove excess climate-affecting gases and particles from the atmosphere. Technologically, I think we can do this already, but the question then becomes whether or not we can cope with the sheer scale of the project.

And the odds that countries would willingly forego wealth (i.e. oil) by cutting emissions in order to deal with an uncertain future risk is pretty much zero as well. My personal opinion is that energy crises, water shortages and decline of fish stocks (and possibly a nice airbrone ebola or superbug pandemic and a world war thrown in) will probably reduce the population of the planet to around four billion anyways in the next fifty years. Aren't I the optimist!

[Alfred909]

One of the holes I see is that he won't acknowledge the idea that Global Warming might be good.

Since we don't know, there should be a column for Worst, and a column for best. As in, we did nothing about global warming, it turned out to be good. All the moisture in the air create better crops, the evaporation from the heat actually creates more land then takes away. Icebergs grow bigger from the added moisture as well.

It turns out that our spending on global warming actually made it worse. As in, we come up with a solution to A, but cause B and C to happen. We all act really shocked. The windmills kill off thousands of bird species, this causes crop failure. Our attempts to cool the earth go to far.

So thats my two cents as well.

[sasquatch2]

Calbeck

Quote:

If we're going to do anything realistic about global climate change, it is going to have to be in terms of technological control solutions. The new consensus that appears to be emerging from the scientific community is that we could cut back to ZERO emissions tomorrow and still be buggered.

So, since simple conservation of carbon emissions won't help, we need to work on ways to remove excess climate-affecting gases and particles from the atmosphere. Technologically, I think we can do this already, but the question then becomes whether or not we can cope with the sheer scale of the project.

Here goes the insane consensus BS again.

Consensus if it did exist would prove little.

Hard science not theory.

Little ice age was followed by a warming that ended about 1940, a period of stability and then a cooling from 1960 to 1980, a warming trend to about 1998 that has stabilized.

The smart money is not on causation of an unobserved warming.....which exists solely in a stupid theory and a media driven campaign.....supported by a UN body the IPCC which now relies solely on silly computer models not observed scientific findings.

In the meantime stupid twits blather about non-existing melting polar bears and Polar ice caps....

[sasquatch2]

Alfred909

Quote:

One of the holes I see is that he won't acknowledge the idea that Global Warming might be good.

No! The major hole is the lack of any evidence of any warming trend.

Why would you ponder the effects of a non-existant condition?

Why would you ponder a control mechanism for a non-existant condition?

The only tangeable factor with CO2 AGW is the existance of this politically driven notion to begin with.

What is the motive? Who is behind it?

[BartSimpson]

Thanos wrote:

It's called an interglacial period. The current one's only been going on for about 18000 years.

Environmentalism is just another ridiculous religion, complete with it's own nonsensical dogma, cultish leaders, and brainwashed fanatic followers. What makes it dangerous, aside from it's cherry-picking of barely-understood science, is it's ability to manipulate the media into become an unquestioning vehicle to promulgate its message.

THAT is the simplest, keenest observation of the AGW crowd I think I've ever seen.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

Thanos wrote:

It's called an interglacial period. The current one's only been going on for about 18000 years.

Environmentalism is just another ridiculous religion, complete with it's own nonsensical dogma, cultish leaders, and brainwashed fanatic followers. What makes it dangerous, aside from it's cherry-picking of barely-understood science, is it's ability to manipulate the media into become an unquestioning vehicle to promulgate its message.

THAT is the simplest, keenest observation of the AGW crowd I think I've ever seen.

Sure that's not just because you agree with it?

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Thanos wrote:

It's called an interglacial period. The current one's only been going on for about 18000 years.

Environmentalism is just another ridiculous religion, complete with it's own nonsensical dogma, cultish leaders, and brainwashed fanatic followers. What makes it dangerous, aside from it's cherry-picking of barely-understood science, is it's ability to manipulate the media into become an unquestioning vehicle to promulgate its message.

THAT is the simplest, keenest observation of the AGW crowd I think I've ever seen.

Sure that's not just because you agree with it?

No, not just because I agree with it but because he just spells out in an artistic brevity of words several concepts I've written pages and pages on.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Thanos wrote:

It's called an interglacial period. The current one's only been going on for about 18000 years.

Environmentalism is just another ridiculous religion, complete with it's own nonsensical dogma, cultish leaders, and brainwashed fanatic followers. What makes it dangerous, aside from it's cherry-picking of barely-understood science, is it's ability to manipulate the media into become an unquestioning vehicle to promulgate its message.

THAT is the simplest, keenest observation of the AGW crowd I think I've ever seen.

Sure that's not just because you agree with it?

No, not just because I agree with it but because he just spells out in an artistic brevity of words several concepts I've written pages and pages on.

It was quite poetic, wasn't it?

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Thanos wrote:

It's called an interglacial period. The current one's only been going on for about 18000 years.

Environmentalism is just another ridiculous religion, complete with it's own nonsensical dogma, cultish leaders, and brainwashed fanatic followers. What makes it dangerous, aside from it's cherry-picking of barely-understood science, is it's ability to manipulate the media into become an unquestioning vehicle to promulgate its message.

THAT is the simplest, keenest observation of the AGW crowd I think I've ever seen.

Sure that's not just because you agree with it?

No, not just because I agree with it but because he just spells out in an artistic brevity of words several concepts I've written pages and pages on.

It was quite poetic, wasn't it?

In it's own way, yes, it was. And it is the poetry (if you will) of the thing that I am complimenting the most here. I think I'd be just as pleased with it were the message something I disagreed with.