Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#8,126
#8,126
MT LeConte said:
That's because you're watching and reading right wing news outlets instead of scientific journals. Also there's a difference between fact and belief.

The 97% consensus on global warming - From Sceptical Science




.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is the mindset we are dealing with her in the US and it's a uniquely US phenomenon. The lack of deductive reasoning by the climate science deniers is mind boggling. Of course, it doesn't help when the President is a moron and thinks it's a good idea to burn more coal, not less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,127
#8,127
TN Ribs said:
Unfortunately, this is the mindset we are dealing with her in the US and it's a uniquely US phenomenon. The lack of deductive reasoning by the climate science deniers is mind boggling. Of course, it doesn't help when the President is a moron and thinks it's a good idea to burn more coal, not less.
Click to expand...

We could just lie about what we are doing. Like the rest of the world is. Preach it and don't live it.
 
#8,128
#8,128
MT LeConte said:
Ok, I will accept it's only 84%. Considering the possible serious consequences it's pretty risky to outright deny it and just do nothing.
Click to expand...

I dont deny climate change. I disagree with how much humans have to do with it. Also, there isnt much we can do about it. Wind power? Solar? They all require fossil fuels.
 
#8,129
#8,129
TN Ribs said:
Unfortunately, this is the mindset we are dealing with her in the US and it's a uniquely US phenomenon. The lack of deductive reasoning by the climate science deniers is mind boggling. Of course, it doesn't help when the President is a moron and thinks it's a good idea to burn more coal, not less.
Click to expand...

Uniquely US phenomenon? Lol. Man you post some of the dumbest crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,130
#8,130
I don't know what's worse denying climate science. Or screaming that the sky is falling while duping a bunch of climate morons.
 
#8,133
#8,133
I never know if it's autocorrect or fat fingering. But it never comes out right the first time.
 
#8,135
#8,135
LouderVol said:
Biofuels plant in Hull stops production and may not reopen - BBC News

is it about saving the environment or making money?
Click to expand...

Gotta love articles like this. 5% ethanol supposed equals taking 180,000 cars off the road, but 10% equals removing 700,000 cars? The articles all have great prognostications, and never address how much oil and other carbon emissions are released while producing a gallon of ethanol, and never address how much more oil and ethanol are consumed because of the decrease in mileage over straight gasoline.

In the end without subsidies and governments forcing ethanol on us, it would be a dead industry - just like this article hints. Also in the end what we all have to keep in mind is that this isn't atomic energy - no large change in mass to energy, so basically for every ounce of fuel and air that goes into the engine an ounce of water vapor and other compounds comes out the tailpipe. Burn more gas because of larger car/more weight or poorer efficiency due to ethanol polluting the gasoline and there's more exhaust.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,136
#8,136
theFallGuy said:
Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
Click to expand...
BigOrangeTrain said:
For every sicnetific report about how bad climate change is, there seems to be a scientific report refuting it. Why is it, that for something that seems so irrefutable as guys like armchair say, that scientists cannot agree with each other?
Click to expand...
The overwhelming majority of scientists agree. You just can’t tell the difference between "sicnetists" and the right-wing bloggers who intentionally misrepresent their research.

When media sceptics misrepresent our climate research we must speak out
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,139
#8,139
#8,140
#8,140
Weezy said:
Carbon trading markets haven't worked. It's just another government power grab. A carbon tax is really the only solution and I'm not sure any government is doing that.
Click to expand...

Emissions trading schemes worked for lead pollution, acid rain, and ozone depletion. But I do agree that a well-designed carbon tax is superior to emissions trading. I was just commenting on the irony.

There are a number of governments that have enacted carbon taxes. British Columbia's revenue-neutral (actually revenue-negative) carbon tax is probably the most successful.

Where is Carbon Taxed?

World-Bank-_-State-and-Trends-of-Carbon-Pricing-2016-_-Fig-1-_-downloaded-18-Jan-2017.png
 
#8,142
#8,142
AM64 said:
Gotta love articles like this. 5% ethanol supposed equals taking 180,000 cars off the road, but 10% equals removing 700,000 cars? The articles all have great prognostications, and never address how much oil and other carbon emissions are released while producing a gallon of ethanol, and never address how much more oil and ethanol are consumed because of the decrease in mileage over straight gasoline.

In the end without subsidies and governments forcing ethanol on us, it would be a dead industry - just like this article hints. Also in the end what we all have to keep in mind is that this isn't atomic energy - no large change in mass to energy, so basically for every ounce of fuel and air that goes into the engine an ounce of water vapor and other compounds comes out the tailpipe. Burn more gas because of larger car/more weight or poorer efficiency due to ethanol polluting the gasoline and there's more exhaust.
Click to expand...

There is no corn ethanol subsidy. There was a blenders credit but that went to the gas companies, not the ethanol producers. Furthermore, we continue to subsidize the largest five oil companies in the US. We also subsidize the coal industry. Most importantly, renewable is the future whether it be bio, wind, or solar, etc. To continue promoting carbon emissions as opposed to promoting cleaner energy is just plain stupid (see: Trump).
 
#8,147
#8,147
You guys do understand that global warming means warming of the entire Earth ecosystem, right? As in mean temperature of the Earth as a whole? Even if temperatures rise by several degrees on the average, we are still going to have cold areas on Earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#8,148
#8,148
zeppelin128 said:
You guys do understand that global warming means warming of the entire Earth ecosystem, right? As in mean temperature of the Earth as a whole? Even if temperatures rise by several degrees on the average, we are still going to have cold areas on Earth.
Click to expand...

Just like it has happened hundreds of times before?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,149
#8,149
hog88 said:
Just like it has happened hundreds of times before?
Click to expand...

Yes. The argument today is whether humanity is accelerating/altering the process. And by argument I mean numerous verifiable scientific studies that are reproducible versus what slightly racist, retired Uncle Joe heard on Fox News.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8,150
#8,150
zeppelin128 said:
Yes. The argument today is whether humanity is accelerating/altering the process. And by argument I mean numerous verifiable scientific studies that are reproducible versus what slightly racist, retired Uncle Joe heard on Fox News.
Click to expand...

Nope and nope.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top