Forums

Join The Community
RegisterLogin

Warning..... Very Strong Language

This is for my buddy Brian.

I fell off my chair laughing but, be warned, the language is foul!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/louis-ck-animation-destroys-glo...

@mackhmike....the science clearly shows if the temp rises over 2 centigrade overall, the negative effect on the world is going to be very significant. U r truly underestimating the seriousness of global warming...and global warming is a reality...it is happening and it will keep going to a point of catastrophic level unless there is drastic change is implemented soon in the developed and fast developing countries like China....i suggest u research what over 2 centigrade global warming will do to different sectors of society including the agriculture industry....the cost to human and financial terms in huge...it's disasterous! And I will guarantee u one thing....the fossil fuel industry will never let u know this...........

The solution is simple... AWG isn't worth the risk, go solar, drive electric and be happy :)

j;
Stuffed to the gills with idiot stereotypes, aincha?

The earth has fortunately been warming up from the depths of the LIA since the late 1800s. Nothing to do with humans, except to make life far easier and safer. Long may warming continue! There's a long way to go before we get back to the lovely Medieval, Roman, Minoan, or Holocene Warming levels.

@Brian H.....the earth has also suffered catastrophic natural events which can't be avoided, some weather related..but to let a man made catastrophic event is what is truly IDIOTIC!

Brian H
You blame science all the time for being wrong in spite of all evidence collected. Do you have anything better to offer?
How can you foresee that it is beneficial to all around the globe? Global warming does not mean, that you'll be able to comfortably sit in your garden all year long. Instead storms will get more powerful due to more evaporation, while other regions may get longer draughts or severe winters, without elNin* phenomena.

Major insurance companies, like Munich Re, acknowledge that global warming is happening since the '70s to help their risk management analysis. Or is that for you just another conspiracy to raise insurance fees by bad companies?

What do you think you could personally benefit from climate change?

Brian H,

You seem to be thinking that the mere existence natural variations is proof that AGW can not happen. The opposite is true: the climate has changed in the past, so it can change again. All the climate needs is a forcing.

Past climate changes were natural and not anthropogenic because there were simply not enough humans. The Mauna Loa measurements clearly show that we now are in a position to make significant changes to the composition of the atmosphere. Over the past few centuries, humans have acquired the numbers and technology for the first time in the history of this planet.

We are already above MWP levels and unstoppingly heading for temperatures well above anything witnessed during our 10,000 year history. As far as this planet goes, we are going into uncharted territory, largely ignorant of how the planet will react. You will not witness the full consequences, they will become clear only after you have lived your life. Nonetheless, you seem to be hellbent on pushing this irreversible experiment forward. That is not something to be proud of.

As Elon said, GW aside, we are in the middle of a huge experiment with the only possible good outcome being very short term gain.

Rich or poor, anyone with common sense does not crap where they sleep. I'm sure there is a bunch of science to back that statement up but you do not need it. It is simple common sense.

Yawn. Actual, real climate science informs us that warmth reduces the gradient from tropics (stable) to poles (variable), and reduces and calms severe weather. The storminess of the LIA, e.g., exceeded anything in more recent history. And we are currently setting new records for consecutive days (almost 3000) without US Cat 3 or greater landfalling hurricances. And tornado frequency (F3 or higher) is also way down for the last 10 years. Etc. Even droughts and floods, if you look at the real numbers, are way below average.

Obeano's "Accelerating warming" etc. is 180° off the truth. As usual.

typo: hurricances hurricanes

Cherry picking a short timeframe again?

Hurricane windspeeds alone do not mean that less damage is done, see Sandy (2012), Ike (2008), Dolly (2008) etc.
Costliest recent years were e.g. 2004 and 2005; 7 or 8 of those hurricanes made landfall (Katrina amongst those) and amounted to USD ~195 billion of damages (without inflation).

Hurricanes (cat. 3,4,5) that made landfall by recent decades:
1971-1980: 4
1981-1990: 4
1990-2000: 5
2000-2010: 7
Also, both the average numbers of tropical storms and hurricanes are going upwards (since 1850s).
Sources: NOAA (USA, 2011)

This data can be found in mere seconds.

Brian H knows less about climate change than newb tesla troll knows about the Model S.

Please stick to the Tesla, where your knowledge is prodigious.

Your understanding of the science is a huge fail.

Actually, I was as unknowing as you years ago, then got into a discussion dispute, which caused me to do my own investigation. I warrant I've read and studied as much or more material than all the posters on this thread put together.

AGW theory is a moribund horse, and no amount of "stick" will revive it.

Another thread devolved into a Global Warming debate, awesome.

I dont believe in Macro-evolution, anyone want to flame me with "evidence" it does exist? Thats another fun topic to superfluously argue about. :)

@Brian
Please refrain from posting 'facts' which are nonsense.
Your quote 'Actual, real climate science informs us that warmth reduces the gradient from tropics (stable) to poles (variable), and reduces and calms severe weather. ' is a typical example.
Have a read of this:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/30/2064511/the-jet-stream-how-i...

How much reading of the actual science have you done? When I say science, I mean published papers with raw data; I do not mean denier blogs.
At the end of the day though, you are more interested in holding your (erroneous) opinion, than taking a prudent considered position given the possible costs and benefits. The benefits of moving to a sustainable, renewable economy are worthwhile regardless of the issue of Global Warming. Why spend your time trying to stop a move to a better world?

Some people define themselves by being against. Logic, common sense or basic rational thought does not matter as to abandon the path is to loose what "makes you different".

Sleep in crap if you must just do not expect me to respect you for the decision.

"Moving to a sustainable" green economy was the position I used to espouse. When I deconstructed the per-job and per-product costs etc. I realized what a loser the idea was.

It's bafflegab, essentially. Nothing is infinitely sustainable in the material world -- and trying to preserve past practice is a fool's errand.

@BrianH
You are wrong again. There are many examples I could give you, but how about this one.
I am currently installing a solar PV system for my home in New Zealand. There are absolutely no subsidies or incentives available to me so I am paying the entire cost myself. The system should more than cover my electricity requirements including charging my Tesla S (when I get it). The payback will be be between 7 and 10 years depending on how you calculate everything out. After that I will be saving about $2500-$3000 per year in power costs.
How can you reasonably describe this personal example as babblegab and a fool's errand?

Brian
Unless the oil/gas industry will flood markets with natural gas, all oil-derived products' prices can only go up in the future. I won't argue here that it will happen soon or even in both our lifetimes, but it's a future certainty. At that time everyone, customers and industry alike, must act upon higher prices and economically decide for green(er) solutions. And when the resources are completely gone (or no longer feasible to produce), it's over.
Better to start way ahead of that, get problems solved and be prepared, if not for our own sake, at least for the next generations to come.

(1st sentence: oil/gas are different sectors, but still)

bb0tin;
because running a house on private power doesn't a) begin to address the system needs, b) still depends on the grid at night, etc., c) if implemented on a large scale (>~15% of system load) deranges and destabilizes the grid, d) doesn't apply well above moderate latitudes, e) has at best (even making all sorts of dubious assumptions) immeasurably small and far in the future benefits, f) does not address the fundamental "sustainability" and "renewable" logic and category errors. Etc.

I could show you at length how each of your statements is incorrect but the short answers to your points are:
a) wrong
b) wrong
c) wrong
d) wrong
e) wrong
f) wrong

As a start on the longer answers, here are two links showing you why you are wrong.

This is where Germany now is with their 34GW of installed solar PV
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/12/sunday-solar-sunday-germany-solar-po...

New Zealand is now almost exclusively installing renewable power, mostly wind. This is not mandated or suppoerted by the government, but is instead driven by the power companies themselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_Zealand#Propo...

I have provided you with these two links, and can provide links refuting each of your points. Would you please supply links to data which back up your points. Opinion does not make a factual argument.

a lot of wasted typing on an ostrich. Natural selection will take care of this.

Everything isn't sunny in Germany's green energy future:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10079798/IEA-warn...

All the statements are verifiable, if you dare to look beyond the captive rent-seekers promo.

AGW is a fairy tale, told by incompetents, signifying nothing. There's a reason no advocates dare engage in public, recorded debate. They get humiliated.

Brian H
There's a reason no advocates dare engage in public, recorded debate. They get humiliated.

Strange, I thought you were talking about yourself.
Take a serious read here and come back if you still think you have something serious to debate.

Brian,

You're way outside mainstream thinking on that one.

I was down at Scripps in La Jolla, CA about this time last year. They are one of the oldest and largest research centers for earth science and oceanography.

Their thoughts... Not only is AGW in progress, it's happening at a much faster rate than expected. This can be measured in atmospheric CO2, temp, polar ice loss, ocean acidification, sea level change, etc.

My thought, we're probably already past the tipping point, and well on our way to drastic environmental changes.

Slightly off topic, but as far as evolution/ID, many scientists do NOT debate in public to a lay audience. A casual audience many times lacks the background to absorb and evaluate subtle evidence, or understand the scientific method. For example, if I try to explain that the goal of a scientist with a theory is to prove his theory wrong, scientists will agree. An ID debater will jump up with a bumper sticker slogan that's quicker to say, and misrepresents the nature of scientific inquiry or falsifying a theory. Always much easier to say a bumper sticker slogan than present a complicated analysis.

That's also true with AGW. Unless you want to sit through an hour of pH, decalcification of bivalve larvae, seawater buffering, blah, blah, it's much easier to say, "it's really cold in Toronto every January". People grasp that.

@Omnilord
The document on the IEA site itself does not have the same negative tone as the report you linked to:
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2013/may/name,38340,e...
Regardless, the article you linked to was not talking about the technical issues of whether or not you can have have more than 15% load of 'intermittent' renewables. It has been shown that you can have most of your power from 'intermittent' sources as long as they are geographically spread and have other sources as back up. Here is a link with lots of detail and links o studies:
http://skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-renewable-baseload-energy.html

@BrianH
You say "AGW is a fairy tale, told by incompetents, signifying nothing. There's a reason no advocates dare engage in public, recorded debate. They get humiliated."
I am an AGW advocate. I am engaging in public recorded debate with you. Perhaps you think I have been humiliated, but I beg to differ. You have made a series of nonsense statements and have not attempted to back any of them up with data. I have provided links to you which you have not responded to. Your opinions are hollow and should be disregarded.

@bb0tin
Little OT, but you might be interested to see this:
Hyper Earth: the New World in 4k UHD

It's a great visual watching it in HD.
Cheers

+1 bb0tin, who has not been humiliated in any way. Brian's anti-AGW arguments so far have been vacuous.


X Deutschland Site Besuchen