Ready for the next Ice Age? Winter is coming.

redrumloa said:
Humans cannot control weather or natural disasters.
Click to expand...
Then why build levees? Why build storm drains?
No, I do not think we should be as arrogant enough to think we can reverse the natural order of the world.
Click to expand...
We can and we plainly do. We have deforested vast tracts, we have concreted and paved over huge amounts of land causing local heating in our environments and we have measurably changed the chemistry of the atmosphere and the oceans and not just a little bit.
The people of Easter Island didn't think they could destroy their environment either but they were utterly wrong. Species are going extinct because we hunt them or destroy their habitat. We can and DO overturn the natural order - with great carelessness and disregard.
In the 70s the "settled science" was we should have dusted the polar icecaps with black coal dust to melt the ice caps and stave off the impending ice age.
Click to expand...
That was not the settled science. Yes, the earth is due for an ice age under normal circumstances (we should be in the slide which will last a few thousand years if we hadn't intervened, but we did and we have changed the natural course - we have known since the late 1800s what greenhouse gasses do and sure enough - they still do it. THAT is settled science. The Milankovitch cycle is also settled science, and we can see which of these is winning.

Under current technology there is no way we'd have the energy, let alone the understand, to make any positive impact. We probably will never have the energy required, as it would be the energy of a star, just like light speed travel.
Click to expand...
What we need to do is ... stop doing what we are currently doing. That is not such a great reach because we can replace all fossil carbon source fuel with other energy sources that DON'T release new carbon into the air. We understand nuclear if we need that much energy, but we can access wind and solar etc as well, and we also know how to make cars that use far less energy over their lifetimes, and we know how to build houses that use far less energy over their life times and we don't need a new phone every year and we don't need and endless supply of plastic do-hickies and we don't need to run our airconditioners to arctic temperatures, and we CAN save for the future because if we want to live it all now, we can but then we're dead... and so are our kids.

Strawman.
Click to expand...
Analogy - if mine is straw then so is yours - which was the point of the analogy.

I've said a thousand times I have no issue with "green" technologies, as long as they are viable. LED lighting is approaching that viability, or it is already here in many applications. Wind mills? No, they do little more than kill birds and decimate natural habitats of countless species. Advancing "green" technologies in and of itself is not the problem. The problem is that's not the goal of the AGW cult. That goal is Global Communism and total control of the populace.
Click to expand...
Green technologies are currently viable, more will become rapidly viable with investment, and all of them need to be developed NOW while we still have other energy we can use to get the job done. If we come to a hard stop with fossil fuels we cannot develop the alternatives. That stop will happen one day and it will be particularly hard if we don't prepare for the switch over - and if we prepare for the switch over then your totalitarian fear will have a hard time taking hold - but if we don't prepare for a necessary change over - even if AGW was not real, then we will be plunged into the grip of a very strict regime or we will take our chances in the chaos as civilisation crumbles.
 
71511213_10163666678360354_8152254085685313536_n.jpg


Greta Thunberg to World Leaders at United Nations: ‘How Dare You?’

 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Then why build levees? Why build storm drains?
Click to expand...

Why live in a house? Stop with the low hanging fruit.

We can and we plainly do. We have deforested vast tracts, we have concreted and paved over huge amounts of land causing local heating in our environments and we have measurably changed the chemistry of the atmosphere and the oceans and not just a little bit.
The people of Easter Island didn't think they could destroy their environment either but they were utterly wrong. Species are going extinct because we hunt them or destroy their habitat. We can and DO overturn the natural order - with great carelessness and disregard.
Click to expand...

That was not the settled science. Yes, the earth is due for an ice age under normal circumstances (we should be in the slide which will last a few thousand years if we hadn't intervened, but we did and we have changed the natural course - we have known since the late 1800s what greenhouse gasses do and sure enough - they still do it. THAT is settled science. The Milankovitch cycle is also settled science, and we can see which of these is winning.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur, has no relevance top the current conversation.

What we need to do is ... stop doing what we are currently doing. That is not such a great reach because we can replace all fossil carbon source fuel with other energy sources that DON'T release new carbon into the air. We understand nuclear if we need that much energy, but we can access wind and solar etc as well, and we also know how to make cars that use far less energy over their lifetimes, and we know how to build houses that use far less energy over their life times and we don't need a new phone every year and we don't need and endless supply of plastic do-hickies and we don't need to run our airconditioners to arctic temperatures, and we CAN save for the future because if we want to live it all now, we can but then we're dead... and so are our kids.
Click to expand...

So you are for the mass genocide of the third world, and the creation of a modern day feudal system in the west based on Communism. That is 100% the end goal.

Green technologies are currently viable, more will become rapidly viable with investment, and all of them need to be developed NOW while we still have other energy we can use to get the job done. If we come to a hard stop with fossil fuels we cannot develop the alternatives. That stop will happen one day and it will be particularly hard if we don't prepare for the switch over - and if we prepare for the switch over then your totalitarian fear will have a hard time taking hold - but if we don't prepare for a necessary change over - even if AGW was not real, then we will be plunged into the grip of a very strict regime or we will take our chances in the chaos as civilisation crumbles.
Click to expand...

Most "green" tech is not currently viable. It is laughable to suggest it. If you banned fossil fuels, coal and wood as fuel tomorrow, you would kill off 80% or more of the world's population. Then again, that's the point of AGW.
 
redrumloa said:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=522835788530890
Click to expand...

The segments about the ozone hole are particularly noteworthy. The announcer in 1990 said that if something isn't done about the ozone hole there would be millions of new skin cancers - and even if something were done the ozone hole wouldn't be repaired for a couple of generations.
The Montreal Protocol on Ozone destroying gasses was signed in 1987 and went into effect in 1989. In 25 years production of ozone depleting CFCs were reduced 98%. The ozone hole stopped growing and basically held steady to close out the 90s and ride out the 00s. It is now very slowly on a healing trend and if things go well should be back to the base state by 2060 to 2080 -
in summary, they said:
If we don't do anything it'll get real bad. If we do what we need to it will take generations to get back to normal.
How'd it turn out?
They did what was needed. When it gets back to normal it will have taken generations.
 
redrumloa said:
Why live in a house? Stop with the low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...
You missed the point of the question.

Non sequitur, has no relevance top the current conversation.
Click to expand...
You say we can't change nature. I show you that we already do. You say that's not relevant. You clearly are not a fan of logic. I write two paragraphs specifically directed at and dismantling your mistaken opinions - but you don't like being corrected so you call it irrelevant.

Do you know what a non sequitur is?
This is one:
So you are for the mass genocide of the third world, and the creation of a modern day feudal system in the west based on Communism. That is 100% the end goal.
Click to expand...
That's right - I tell you exactly what we need to do to avoid a mass genocide of the third (and first) world without feudalism and Communism and then you say that.

Most "green" tech is not currently viable. It is laughable to suggest it. If you banned fossil fuels, coal and wood as fuel tomorrow, you would kill off 80% or more of the world's population. Then again, that's the point of AGW.
Click to expand...
A lot of green tech is passably viable but nuclear is fully viable - and if we actually put in the effort to pursue other nuclear and fusion technologies we stand better a chance of attaining them then if we pretend we should just use oil until it runs out - because after the cheap energy is gone we won't be able to do the work we need to do to build these next generations of energy.
If we banned coal and oil tomorrow (wood is carbon neutral if managed) then people would definitely die - which is why no-one advocates stopping oil and coal tomorrow - we need to ween off, and the sooner we start, the better. yes, cold turkey kills - but cold turkey is what you will certainly arrive at when the cheap energy runs out if you don't start building new energy sources well in advance of that time.
 
redrumloa said:
They live, we sleep.

71019866_10163668075830354_2830941806697381888_n.jpg


PRC_86332997.jpg
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, I saw that ludicrously reachy comparison to Nazi propaganda the other day and immediately thought of you and how much you'd lap it up. :lol:
 
Robert said:
Funnily enough, I saw that ludicrously reachy comparison to Nazi propaganda the other day and immediately thought of you and how much you'd lap it up. :lol:
Click to expand...

It is making people lose their shit, because it hits too close to home for them. Take out personal feelings for any of this, and he is objectively accurate.
 
500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’

The scientists underscored the importance of not rushing into enormously expensive climate action before fully ascertaining the facts.

“There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent,” they declared. “However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.”

The signatories of the declaration also insist that public policy must respect scientific and economic realities and not just reflect the most fashionable frenzy of the day.

“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm,” they note. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.”
 
redrumloa said:
500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’

The scientists underscored the importance of not rushing into enormously expensive climate action before fully ascertaining the facts.
[...]
“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm,” they note. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.”
Click to expand...
The statement lives here.
I was hoping to find the 500 names. They are not given. Nor does it say they are climate scientists but "500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields".
Of the names given we have:
Professor Guus Berkhout - Engineer
Professor Richard Lindzen - Atmospheric physicist
Professor Reynald Du Berger - geophysics (geological engineering and seismology)
Professor Ingemar Nordin - Department of Culture and Communication
Terry Dunleavy - inaugural CEO of the Wine Institute of New Zealand and then mostly political and PR stuff since then
Jim O’Brien - politician
Viv Forbes - Degree in Applied Science Geology
Professor Alberto Prestininzi - geologist/engineer by the look of it
Professor Jeffrey Foss - Philosopher
Professor Benoît Rittaud - Mathematician
Morten Jødal - biologist
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt - politician/industrialist
Rob Lemeire - civil engineer / "energy specialist"
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - AKA Lord Monkton, hereditary peer and public speaker

Even when they just hand pick a few of their 500 they can't muster more than one guy who has expertise near the topic under discussion. Hasn't Lord Monkton been at this for years now? He should have a better crew than this by now.
 
redrumloa said:
500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’

The scientists underscored the importance of not rushing into enormously expensive climate action before fully ascertaining the facts.
[...]
“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm,” they note. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.”
Click to expand...
The statement lives here.
I was hoping to find the 500 names. They are not given. Nor does it say they are climate scientists but "500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields".
Of the names given we have:
Professor Guus Berkhout - Engineer
Professor Richard Lindzen - Atmospheric physicist
Professor Reynald Du Berger - geophysics (geological engineering and seismology)
Professor Ingemar Nordin - Department of Culture and Communication
Terry Dunleavy - inaugural CEO of the Wine Institute of New Zealand and then mostly political and PR stuff since then
Jim O’Brien - politician
Viv Forbes - Degree in Applied Science Geology
Professor Alberto Prestininzi - geologist/engineer by the look of it
Professor Jeffrey Foss - Philosopher
Professor Benoît Rittaud - Mathematician
Morten Jødal - biologist
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt - politician/industrialist
Rob Lemeire - civil engineer / "energy specialist"
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - AKA Lord Monkton, hereditary peer and public speaker

Even when they just hand pick a few of their 500 they can't muster more than one guy who has expertise near the topic under discussion. Hasn't Lord Monkton been at this for years now? He should have a better crew than this by now.
 
redrumloa said:
Maybe should go in the propaganda thread, since this girl is clearly either a puppet or an actor, or both.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=700523373789770
Click to expand...
Whether she is a puppet or not is immaterial to the facts. When the facts aren't on your side, argue against the messenger.
We have been losing species at an increasing rate just due to the fact that when humans have arrived in a new habitat they have invariably out-competed or eaten many of the larger species already there (including other kinds of hominids). Agriculture has also pushed species out and destroyed habitat.
Now with human populations having atomised what's left of the natural world, as local climates change flora and fauna that could have migrated cannot. This happens with natural barriers too, of course. As temperatures warm, species on mountains that like it cooler have moved to higher elevations, by the run into limits like reduced atmospheric pressure and ... mountains stop going up at some point.
There are also physical limits to the conditions animals and plants can handle and limits on how fast species can adapt to change. Too hot? You die. Too cold? You die. Not enough food (or the wrong food) you die. Water too high, you die. The faster the change, the less likely a species can evolve to adapt - and evolving means all the ones that can't handle the weather are killed by it, leaving the survivors to reproduce. Evolution happens only on generational time scales and is by no means certain to find a solution. If you are a species that reproduces hourly then a moderate change in a decade could be expected to be handled, but if it takes more than a decade for the next generation to even become sexually mature, evolution is not likely to save you.
Many areas will have immediate losers and temporary winners but it all depends on how much change you get.

But even if none of that was true, why do you need energy from oil and coal instead of energy from other sources that don't put new carbon into the atmosphere?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Whether she is a puppet or not is immaterial to the facts. When the facts aren't on your side, argue against the messenger.
Click to expand...

I thought that you were a person that liked facts, despite being influenced by people with certain political motives. Are you defending the hysteria pushed by the handlers of this autistic girl? Are you really arguing that Ecosystems are collapsing due to AGW? Is this what you want to hitch your wagon to?

There is emotions, and then there is reality.
 
Last edited:
redrumloa said:
I thought that you were a person that liked facts, despite being influenced by people with certain political motives. Are you defending the hysteria pushed by the handlers of this autistic girl? Are you really arguing that Ecosystems are collapsing due to AGW? Is this what you want to hitch your wagon to?

There is emotions, and then there is reality.
Click to expand...
Did I not make myself clear? Greta is completely irrelevant. the hysteria is perhaps necessary but also irrelevant - though it is likely to get something done it will probably be the wrong thing for the benefit of the wrong people as usual). Yes, we are already having a massive effect on the ecosystem by our appetites and our effluent. Yes we are poisoning the oceans and depleting the land. Yes we are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and the planet cannot NOT react to that because it is bound by the simple inevitable laws of physics. Some ecosystems are already collapsing because we have directly damaged them by our activities, some are beginning to collapse because the of changes we have already forced (the maths say the CO2 should have kept extra heat in and the measurements have found much of it) and as the temperature continues to rise (we lag the equilibrium we should have for this amount of CO2 and we will continue to put more CO2 in) then ecosystems will start to collapse, not tomorrow, but what we have already done will be raising the temperature for decades. There is inertia in the system which you love to "forget about"
when you pretend that people are saying the world will end in 8 years when what they are saying is we have 8 years to act. If we are lucky some very bad things won't happen. The Arctic ice is already very thin. We were near a record low extent this September and maybe a record low total mass, but the more open ocean there is in the summer the more heat the ocean will absob from the sun. The warmer the Arctic ocean gets the less ice will form in the winter (which reflects back heat bin the spring and summer) and the more likely it is that the methane clathrates will start to evaporate putting amounts of methane into the atmosphere that will utterly dominate the CO2 effects. We are pushing on the house of cards - and while we may only knock over one card we can't stop the rest coming down. We can't fix the house, we just have to stop kicking at the foundations. We use coal and oil and gas like we are suffering from the junkie's delusion - the drug can't be killing us because it feels so good.

As they say, if Greta is wrong then we have moved to a cleaner form of energy for no reason. If she is right we are all dead.
So, again, why is it so necessary to you that your energy to come from oil, coal and gas instead of non-carbon sources?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top