WTF That was funny! Sorry yodude
|
|
|
cc facts
- Thread starter yodude
- Start date
WTF That was funny! Sorry yodude
I especially like this bit
Still does nothing to explain why/how there has been no significant trend in atmospheric temp readings. You know, where the warming is supposed to be happening. These guys believe, so the start with that and cherry pick data sets which back their beliefs... nothing new here.
Again, this completely ignores satellite data of atmospheric temp... Again, where the models predict it should be warming out of control, and all our austerity measures and taxes are based upon....
Since that isn't happening we present you... lmao
Given they have to qualify statements like this
with this
Combined with the lack of atmospheric temperature integration, the most accurate by all accounts.......
A narrative to protect I guess.
Since that isn't happening we present you... lmao
Given they have to qualify statements like this
with this
Combined with the lack of atmospheric temperature integration, the most accurate by all accounts.......
A narrative to protect I guess.
Last edited:
Wait. I get to say it this time. Weather is not Climate. Oops, actually it is. Just very short term.
The problem with both sides of the argument, is that there is no definitive proof one way or the other.
Well, unless we make things so bad that we can't survive, but even then, some will argue that it's just the natural cycle.
In the meantime can we at least try to minimize our impact on the environment somewhat, without putting ourselves out too much?
We have for many many years. Reduction of VOC's and Smog producing substances such as NOx and sulfur dioxides have made measurable improvement... but there's the rub; those emissions had a concrete verifiable theory of impact behind them. The case for CO is still a rather unproven hypothesis as the models and climate haven't exactly cooperated in proving the theory, particularly the wild doomsday scenarios. If anything the lack of extreme weather and atmospheric temp increase, two pillars of the anti carbon crusade, have shown the positive feedback climate models are largely flawed.
So here we are, wasting billions trying to mitigate a naturally occurring gas based on the doom and gloom of a theory still largely unproven... In the words of Patrick Moore (Green-peace co-founder) "true environmentalism has been hijacked"
PS I'm not sure where your first line comes from but I was referring to atmospheric temp data on multi-decade time scale, which have hardly moved despite a near doubling of CO2.. Also to clarify, when I say weather is not climate, I specifically mean weather events like "oh my, snow in a desert"
Bjorn is also the subject of a pretty good doc of a few years back. You can find it on YT
.... hope you're ready for the PC punch down after posting something from the "creationist" Dr. Spencer's blog.... don't you know his thoughts on God nullify any work he's ever done in climate lol
If I told you I believe in pixies just before delivering a scientific lecture I'm sure you'd just take everything at face value wouldn't you. Nothing PC about it. It's just a case of questioning the ability of the speaker/author to distinguish between facts and "feelings".
Want to buy a bridge?
Edit...to be clear, it's more the literal creationists and those that take a literal interpretation of the bible that I have issues with.
Want to buy a bridge?
Edit...to be clear, it's more the literal creationists and those that take a literal interpretation of the bible that I have issues with.
Last edited:
If you were lecturing on microprocessors and came from a position of 40 years expertise, I don't really care what you believe outside of microprocessors if that's what I came to learn about. What if your FA, who's for 20 years done nothing but hit home runs for you shows you a personal collection of big foot photos, you gonna fire them? Probably not. Spencer co-invented the satellite temperature measurement technique... he's been attacked with whatever means necessary since openly questioning the "consensus"
I have absolutely no issue with clean energy, once it's affordable. Flip side, what if the all the positive feedback hypothesis are right and CO is the only thing staving off another ice age? Oopps. I think rational debate, and EQUAL funding to the people on both sides should be whats tweeted about, because any honest climate scientist will admit there are still many massive holes in our understanding of climate. What day should I have my bike ready to ride again?
Is California doing something different, or are they in the same boat as Ontario?
Honestly haven't looked into it, but when I have some time to digest the below link...
https://energy.gov/eere/femp/energy-incentive-programs-california
https://energy.gov/eere/femp/energy-incentive-programs-california
the only way it's affordable with out subsidization is if it hits a critical mass. though oil shouldn't need any subsidization either
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/g20-fossil-fuel-subsidies-450b-1.3314291
450 BILLION dollars... that's a lot of oil subsidy.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/g20-fossil-fuel-subsidies-450b-1.3314291
450 BILLION dollars... that's a lot of oil subsidy.
|
|
|
|
|