And there we have it.....the Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theory argument rears its ugly head again.
Nobel Prize winning Scientist ridicules Obamas take on Climate Change.
- Thread starter Aegon_Targaryen
- Start date
And there we have it.....the Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theory argument rears its ugly head again.
Why else would you cite it, if you know it isn't accurate?
To get your allies to stop claiming AGW is a hoax. This isn't hard, stop being daft.
Carbon dioxide doesn't singularly run everything. Also, more of it isn't automatically bad. Ask yourself why greenhouses are good according to those who use them?
"Gun control is less about guns and more about control" HRIC
"Climate change is less about climate and more about change, . . . the anti-market totalitarian collectivist kind of change." HRIC
"Anyone ever notice that all the solutions for global warming include less personal freedom and the abolition of free markets?" HRIC
This disappearing Medieval Warm Period & Little Ice Age
When political science majors ^^^^^ become experts in climatology.
Where is all the damage that AGW was supposed to cause? You keep speaking doomsday scenarios, yet you aren't able to show us anything actually happening.
When people are saying it's a hoax, most are talking about the doomsday scenarios, and the necessity for non-market energy policies that would upset our (and world) economy. On the list of list of 100 problems this country faces we believe it ranks about 99 or 100.
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum). While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939. It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850, though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Imagine the headlines from the current eco-nazis if they had lived during the little ice age?
"THE WHOLE WORLD FROZEN INTO A SOLID CUBE UNLESS WE CAN DISCOVER A WAY TO RELEASE MORE CARBON DIOXIDE!!!!!!!!"
^^^^^^^^^^ Headline from the "Daily Alarmist" circa 1849
And then of course there was the fact that models developed in 1880 showed that unless government sharply limited the use of horses, the streets of American cities would be 11 feet deep in horse crap by 1955.
Generally, this is true. However, there ARE people who deny just about everything regarding the AGW subject. Rush Limbaugh is one of them.
The alarmists are the ones that created the doubt. It should be approached with a long term plan on how to make things better instead of an all,or nothing type argument.
No I don't speak about doomsday. Other than WWJD, few posters here speak about doomsday. I say it's going to be more expensive for your great grandkids to live a decent life. Then I say I'm willing to behave ethically for your future brats if you are. But if you want to roast them, I'll belly up to the bar for my pound of flesh too. AGW is not going to seriously impact most anyone posting on HROT. It's all about people who will live after 2100 and how difficult we want to make their lives.
Not here on HROT. We never get to that point in the discussion because the deniers won't accept the reality.
Where do you see this argument? Environmental improvements have been implemented incrementally for decades. All future proposals are constructed just as you propose. You are getting what you want.
It'll be more expensive for my grandchildren as it is, due to your government constantly mingling with every thing they possibly can and allowing the Fed to control the economy. My children and grandchildren will adapt and overcome.
I honest don't think there are too many people speaking against climate changing, as Phantom said, it's the doomsday scenarios that keep getting thrown out there. I think we are more likely to destroy ourselves via war, than climate change doing it.
Even those who are not alarmists no longer believe that, natural.
While I share your disdain for those who won't even act to save their own kids or grandkids, there are plenty of people around the world who are not only doing their bit but begging for governments and corporations to act responsibly. They are NOT showing disregard for their kids or grandkids, they just lack the power to turn the tide without powerful polluting nations like ours doing our share.
Maybe you should read this thread again. You start it off with the claim that we don't even possess the ability to know the temperature. The conclusion being its not real and we should do nothing. And in this reply you agin advocate doing nothing because Armageddon will come soon anyway.
This thread isn't full of reasonable people debating when ocean levels will raise and the most effective way to deal with that. It's entirely filled with people saying their is nothing to see here and others trying to get them to see the obvious. It's the same thread we have every week on this topic. We never discuss the harms or solutions because you won't admit they exist.
What are the danger benchmarks and what is the consensus on when they will hit?
The IEA says we need to stop increasing the amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere by 2017 if we are going to have a shot at keeping under the predicted 2 degree C rise.
What suggestions do you have to achieve that goal?
What's obvious is that we would be in a lot better shape if we hadn't spent the last couple of decades denying what was going on. We could have taken gentle remedial steps.
This is like the Social Security debate. The sooner we make the tweaks to keep it solvent going forward, the smaller those tweaks have to be. So let's stop screwing around. On both issues.
I doubt we make that goal. So what happens after 2017 and how fast will we see it? What happens when temps go up 2 degrees? How fast will the world change?
My environmental philosophy is all premised on the belief that people will not long suffer inconvenience to marginally impact a long term problem. So environmental policy must be easy, comfortable and inexpensive. Nuclear is the main option that I know of that hold this potential.
I'm not sure there is a consensus on a question that precise. But sould we wait for one? This year-old article in Scientific American suggests that we'll hit 2 degrees around 2036 and are heading for a 3.2 degree rise by the end of the century.
One of the problems we face is that even may deniers accept that warming is happening, and even don't challenge the 2 degree part, but take the attitude: "So what? We're on the 2 degree path and things aren't that bad. BFD."
What does it mean for the temps to rise 2 degrees or more? That's pretty squishy. And it seems the only people who have bothered to take a stab at it are people who are knowledgeable AND concerned about climate change. Which means that the right will reflexively reject their assessments as biased. But here's one such view if you are interested.
Since we are now talking about hitting 3 degrees or more this century, here's what they say about that touchstone:
BETWEEN TWO AND THREE DEGREES OF WARMING
Up to this point, assuming that governments have planned carefully and farmers have converted to more appropriate crops, not too many people outside subtropical Africa need have starved. Beyond two degrees, however, preventing mass starvation will be as easy as halting the cycles of the moon. First millions, then billions, of people will face an increasingly tough battle to survive.
To find anything comparable we have to go back to the Pliocene – last epoch of the Tertiary period, 3m years ago. There were no continental glaciers in the northern hemisphere (trees grew in the Arctic), and sea levels were 25 metres higher than today’s. In this kind of heat, the death of the Amazon is as inevitable as the melting of Greenland. The paper spelling it out is the very one whose apocalyptic message so shocked in 2000. Scientists at the Hadley centre feared that earlier climate models, which showed global warming as a straightforward linear progression, were too simplistic in their assumption that land and the oceans would remain inert as their temperatures rose. Correctly as it would turn out, they predicted positive feedback.
Warmer seas absorb less carbon dioxide, leaving more to accumulate in the atmosphere and intensify global warming. On land, matters would be even worse. Huge amounts of carbon are stored in the soil, the half-rotted remains of dead vegetation. The generally accepted estimate is that the soil carbon reservoir contains some 1600 gigatonnes, more than double the entire carbon content of the atmosphere. As soil warms, bacteria accelerate the breakdown of this stored carbon, releasing it into the atmosphere.
A three-degree increase in global temperature – possible as early as 2050 – would throw the carbon cycle into reverse. Instead of absorbing carbon dioxide, vegetation and soils start to release it. So much carbon pours into the atmosphere that it pumps up atmospheric concentrations by 250 parts per million by 2100, boosting global warming by another 1.5C. In other words, the Hadley team had discovered that carbon-cycle feedbacks could tip the planet into runaway global warming by the middle of this century – much earlier than anyone had expected.
All of that sounds bad, but it also supports my position that this is a fight for your great grandkids' future. We will all be on our way out before this gets bad. Which is why we must focus on solutions that are painless, people just don't like kids that much.
I hope our opponents in this debate weigh in on this. Is this prediction an example of alarmist thinking in your mind or is this the reasonable conclusion you claim to hold? If this isn't the reasonable future you see, what is?
Last edited:
Well, at least the people who call these studies alarmist will all be dead by the time it happens and they won't be around to have people tell them "I told you so".
We already are feeling the impacts. We will see the effects increase as well. It won't be so bad for us here in the upper midwest, but if you live in the desert southwest or the gulf coast things could get rough. First, and we are already seeing this beginning to happen, the desert southwest is going to run out of water. California will be able to adapt and build desalinization plants but if you live in Nevada, Arizona, and parts of New Mexico, Utah, and Texas you're kind of screwed and could end up being forced to move away or pay enormous prices for water. To put it in perspective, Lake Mead is only about 6 inches above the point where water restrictions will kick in for Nevada and Arizona. Here is an article that shows what happens at certain depths.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/what-really-happens-if-lake-mead-stays-below-the-1-075-ft-mark
The timing on all this depends on how long the drought lasts and if governments take steps to minimize water usage.
I just read another story about how brain eating amoeba cases have happened in Minnesota over the last three years. Up until then the only known cases were found in the southern states. Many, many other cases like this exist.
On the flip side, this could cause a migration north so we might see people and businesses start moving back to the rust belt. So that could actually be good for us.
We already are feeling the impacts. We will see the effects increase as well. It won't be so bad for us here in the upper midwest, but if you live in the desert southwest or the gulf coast things could get rough. First, and we are already seeing this beginning to happen, the desert southwest is going to run out of water. California will be able to adapt and build desalinization plants but if you live in Nevada, Arizona, and parts of New Mexico, Utah, and Texas you're kind of screwed and could end up being forced to move away or pay enormous prices for water. To put it in perspective, Lake Mead is only about 6 inches above the point where water restrictions will kick in for Nevada and Arizona. Here is an article that shows what happens at certain depths.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/what-really-happens-if-lake-mead-stays-below-the-1-075-ft-mark
The timing on all this depends on how long the drought lasts and if governments take steps to minimize water usage.
I just read another story about how brain eating amoeba cases have happened in Minnesota over the last three years. Up until then the only known cases were found in the southern states. Many, many other cases like this exist.
On the flip side, this could cause a migration north so we might see people and businesses start moving back to the rust belt. So that could actually be good for us.
Our master plan for Big Ten football dominance. Take that SEC.
The irony is we've already been on a path of good stewardship since at least 1970. Which begs the question, since we were already heading in a responsible direction (EPA, NOAA, etc.) why have they gone into full panic mode? Simple, their original goal (if you go back and read their treatise from 1970 and after) was somewhat of a smoke screen. Yes, they (and everyone else) wanted a cleaner planet. But the underlining rhetoric (for those listening) was, YOU CAN ONLY ACHIEVE WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IF YOU CHANGE THE ECONOMIC MODEL WHICH HAS LIFTED BILLIONS OUT OF POVERTY.
Yep, market economies have lifted more people out of poverty than anything else. Those behind the current hysteria won't admit that, and therein lies the problem. When you can't see something that is glaringly obvious, how can you see zillions of microscopic bio-interactions every nanosecond? And simultaneously have the knowledge to fully understand and then predict the future of those interactions? Their omniscience reminds of religious teachings: "And not a sparrow falls from the tree without our Lord knowing." I guess that makes sense since CAGW has more in common with religion than science.
I think that's beautiful that LC, HR and OiT are having a little bromance. It makes me smile on several levels. I hope everyone is happy.I like you. I really really like you.
Ummm...greenhouses keep plants warm by trapping warm air. The functioning of a greenhouse actually has no connection to carbon dioxide, you know.
Maybe not.
Are you planning on publishing a book to collect your pithy quotes?
Sutter: What else do we know about a 6-degree world?
Lynas: Most of the planetary surface would be functionally uninhabitable. Agriculture would cease to exist everywhere, apart for the polar and subpolar regions, and perhaps the mid-latitudes for extremely heat-tolerant crops. It's difficult to see how crops could be grown elsewhere. There's a certain level above which plants just can't survive. There's a certain level where humans biologically can't survive outside, as well. We get close enough already in the Arabian Peninsula and some other parts of the world. Remember, 6 degrees is a global average. It would be probably twice that over land and somewhat less than that over the oceans. The oceans would probably stratify, so the oceans would become oxygen deficient, which would cause a mass extinction and a die off in the oceans, as well -- which would then release gases and affect land. So it's pretty much equivalent of a meteorite striking the planet, in terms of the overall impacts.
More here
Lynas: Most of the planetary surface would be functionally uninhabitable. Agriculture would cease to exist everywhere, apart for the polar and subpolar regions, and perhaps the mid-latitudes for extremely heat-tolerant crops. It's difficult to see how crops could be grown elsewhere. There's a certain level above which plants just can't survive. There's a certain level where humans biologically can't survive outside, as well. We get close enough already in the Arabian Peninsula and some other parts of the world. Remember, 6 degrees is a global average. It would be probably twice that over land and somewhat less than that over the oceans. The oceans would probably stratify, so the oceans would become oxygen deficient, which would cause a mass extinction and a die off in the oceans, as well -- which would then release gases and affect land. So it's pretty much equivalent of a meteorite striking the planet, in terms of the overall impacts.
More here
Yes, but that is a tiny percent and I'm not even sure Rush would say there's been NO warming over the past 100 years. He may think any of it's manmade, however, he likely thinks the amount attributable to man is minor and he definitely doesn't buy anything the alarmists would be selling here.
Yes, even here it's true. It's just people settle for shorthand instead of spelling it out. We don't get to the discussion because the "deniers" (as I've defined them) don't think it's a problem to worry about or invest large dollars fixing. However, the other side thinks we need to have immediate action with little, or no regards to cost. Even someone like yourself, has said, I don't care if the pro-doom science is good or not (or right or wrong), the consequences of being wrong is too high, the consensus says theirs a problem, so let's spend money to cut CO2.
Sometime in the not to distant future fusion will be the primary energy source. In the time being increase nuke usage, and build floodwalls, etc. In the meantime, let's spend the money to fix REAL problems that are hurting people TODAY. Not some maybe problem in the long distant future.
Oh, and if we do invest money, let's invest some in helping other countries do a better job in monitoring temps in their country. The US has done an excellent job of this buy placing measuring away from population growth and throughout the US. Then the scientists wouldn't have to "tweak" the actual temp results and we could get less controversial measurements. We have had this the past 10 years in the US so scientists no long have to adjust the actual temp data collected.
Last edited:
Do you think a 2-3 degree increase in temp by 2100 is an alarmist position or reasonable? If you are for switching from fissile fuels and building flood walls it sounds like you think that prediction is likely. And if you are for doing those things and investing in fusion, it sounds like you are for spending every bit as much money as any "alarmist" might. I think you're one of us Phantom.
Sad sad sad. Poor natural and wwjd must live totally depressed.
I feel bad for you boys losing sleep over all of this. Sit down and enjoy life, have a drink.
I feel bad for you boys losing sleep over all of this. Sit down and enjoy life, have a drink.
I like disaster movies just as much as the next guy. How exciting to think that I may witness one up close and personal.
Rush Limbaugh? He's not even part of this debate and it's silly that libs are trying to drag him into it. He's not advocating that every power plant should be coal-fired. His only real opinion on the topic is that Liberals aren't interested in scientific integrity, they want economic CHANGE, and if the voters won't give it to them they will hold the entire planet hostage and threaten everyone with extinction in order to get what they want.
We already know you like watching other's suffer in a catastrophe, whether it be on the screen or up close. It's not a coincidence that many of your brethren have that same guilty pleasure.
