cc facts | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

cc facts

The 97% consensus is a crock of **** btw..I just read how they arrived at the number and it's laughable at best. For something so commonly touted, it's essentially propaganda.
 
MLadin said:
Leanardo DiCaprio - Before The Flood. Sure makes Canada look bad!
Click to expand...

I prefer scientists to celebrities.

When It happens the other way around you risk people like Jenny McCarthy "educating" (using the term entirely sarcastically) the masses about things like vaccines.
 
Neil_V said:
I agree


[video=youtube;ttNg1F7T0Y0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttNg1F7T0Y0[/video]
Click to expand...

A lot of what he says is **** and I'm just 4 mins in

Wind apparently accounts for 3% of global power, he says it doesn't register at all. Don't know where he found his breakdown at all, but I see 77.2% fossil fuel, and 22.8% renewable, with 3.1% total as wind and 0.9% as solar in 2015.

http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/REN12-GSR2015_Onlinebook_low1.pdf
http://www.c2es.org/energy/source/renewables#Wind

CO2 doesn't increase food production
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/

"CO2 invigorates biosphere." What does that even mean? How is that quantifiable? He just wanted another "green" point on his list before the "red" one I'm sure

Neil, Neil, Neil. I don't know about this guy :rolleyes:
 
tricky said:
A lot of what he says is **** and I'm just 4 mins in

Wind apparently accounts for 3% of global power, he says it doesn't register at all. Don't know where he found his breakdown at all, but I see 77.2% fossil fuel, and 22.8% renewable, with 3.1% total as wind and 0.9% as solar in 2015.

http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/REN12-GSR2015_Onlinebook_low1.pdf
http://www.c2es.org/energy/source/renewables#Wind

CO2 doesn't increase food production
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/

"CO2 invigorates biosphere." What does that even mean? How is that quantifiable? He just wanted another "green" point on his list before the "red" one I'm sure

Neil, Neil, Neil. I don't know about this guy :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He's been a leading climatologist for 30 years and compiles one of the 4 major temperature data sets used by everyone, including the IPCC
 
Neil_V said:
He's been a leading climatologist for 30 years and compiles one of the 4 major temperature data sets used by everyone, including the IPCC
Click to expand...

He helped put up a cool satellite system. But that shouldn't allow the first few slides of his nifty powerpoint to be so far out of whack
 
haha... compared to what you've done.. I like what he has to say. I also bothered to watch the whole presentation before posting anything here.

Bet you wiki'd that tid bit.. slow clap
 
Neil_V said:
haha... compared to what you've done.. I like what he has to say. I also bothered to watch the whole presentation before posting anything here.

Bet you wiki'd that tid bit.. slow clap
Click to expand...

That cuts Neil, that cuts.

And I'm not gonna sit through an hour if I know he's hocking ******** at 4 minutes.

I've said it before, I hope you're right and I look like an idiot in 2050. But right now, you're twisting "skeptic" into something not worthy of the title, Neil.

Edit: I mean "scientific skeptic." I believe you are taking the "other" skeptic in exactly the right direction.
 
Last edited:
mmmnaked said:
The 97% consensus is a crock of **** btw..I just read how they arrived at the number and it's laughable at best. For something so commonly touted, it's essentially propaganda.
Click to expand...

sheep luv it tho & swallow whole
 
lmao

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by inreb

Excellent point. Also let's not overlook the suns role in this unfortunate debacle. I believe the sun contributes to the vast majority of global warming. You can't really blame the earth anymore than you can blame the bread when toast gets burnt. Think about it.
Click to expand...

crankcall said:
Thatsfunnystuff
Click to expand...
 
tricky said:
That cuts Neil, that cuts.

And I'm not gonna sit through an hour if I know he's hocking ******** at 4 minutes.

I've said it before, I hope you're right and I look like an idiot in 2050. But right now, you're twisting "skeptic" into something not worthy of the title, Neil.

Edit: I mean "scientific skeptic." I believe you are taking the "other" skeptic in exactly the right direction.
Click to expand...

The highlighted bit is the crux of the problem with ever having this discussion. 4 mins in he makes statements contradictory to your beliefs​, and in turn, you tune out, and run to source your rebuttal. I'm sorry it hurts, but it's what you did. Don't be mad I called you on it.

The simple fact is, satellite data sets contradict the rapid warming theory of the models, even though (according to the models) the warming is supposed to be happening in the troposphere, precisely where these satellites measure temperature. Now you can believe surface data is most accurate, even though it takes not much imagination to grasp all the different ways we change our landscapes having an influence on that; or you can believe the latest conflated argument which states the oceans have absorbed the warming; or you can ask yourself why we keep pushing a theory that hasn't truly held up to honest scrutiny
 
Neil_V said:
The highlighted bit is the crux of the problem with ever having this discussion. 4 mins in he makes statements contradictory to your beliefs​, and in turn, you tune out, and run to source your rebuttal. I'm sorry it hurts, but it's what you did. Don't be mad I called you on it.
Click to expand...

Statements contradicting my beliefs are fine. Statements contradicting facts are where I tune out and run to source my rebuttal.

And we've had this discussion before, you know I am not a climate change crusader. I just believe we should plan for the worst.

And also I don't like people who make up facts, which is probably why I keep popping up here.
 
tricky said:
Statements contradicting my beliefs are fine. Statements contradicting facts are where I tune out and run to source my rebuttal.

And we've had this discussion before, you know I am not a climate change crusader. I just believe we should plan for the worst.

And also I don't like people who make up facts, which is probably why I keep popping up here.
Click to expand...

As much as I hate making this argument, your sources are Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, REN21 (promoters of renewables by their own account) and a weekly mag... Normally I would never go there, but realize you are willingly ignoring all of what is presented on the premise of fact from the sources you believe to be most reliable... That's always a very subjective argument, particularly when they are of the type above; and you're using them to discredit a man, and his argument, which are essentially based on empirical temperature data. If it was me posting a pdf from exxon I could only imagine the response. Like I said, not an argument I like to make... honestly, more an observation.
 
yodude said:
sez the touchy whiner who reports posts (& gets away with it) when referred to as a loser
Click to expand...

Who reported you? You obviously don't know. And you referred to me as a loser? Good thing I didn't see that, I would have lost my sH1T. I'm very touchy about that.
 
Neil_V said:
As much as I hate making this argument, your sources are Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, REN21 (promoters of renewables by their own account) and a weekly mag... Normally I would never go there, but realize you are willingly ignoring all of what is presented on the premise of fact from the sources you believe to be most reliable... That's always a very subjective argument, particularly when they are of the type above; and you're using them to discredit a man, and his argument, which are essentially based on empirical temperature data. If it was me posting a pdf from exxon I could only imagine the response. Like I said, not an argument I like to make... honestly, more an observation.
Click to expand...

Yup, that was lazy work on my part, you are absolutely right to make that point.

The US Energy Information Administration shows in Fig. ES-6 the break down of worldwide energy sources. They claim, on the same page, nonhydropower renewables accounted for 5% of total world generation in 2012, which is in line with the other sources as well

http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/0484(2016).pdf
 
tricky said:
Yup, that was lazy work on my part, you are absolutely right to make that point.

The US Energy Information Administration shows in Fig. ES-6 the break down of worldwide energy sources. They claim, on the same page, nonhydropower renewables accounted for 5% of total world generation in 2012, which is in line with the other sources as well

http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/0484(2016).pdf
Click to expand...

I've just realized where your contention lies. Please understand his percentiles in that slide are not solely representative of electricity production, but of transportation and industrial consumption as well (clearly stated as such)... i.e. to support the things "we're addicted to" on the right of that slide..

This is a good example of what I pointed out earlier about leading with beliefs when this sort of discussion breaks out. Predispositions often lead us to overlook the simple.

In fact if you go to page 27 of the REN21 PDF you posted you'll see figure 1 is more in line with what he presents, though different in terms of FF's to nuclear. What it does show is 1.3% total for wind in solar in "Estimated Renewable Energy Share of Global Final Energy Consumption, 2013", which as he said, "barely blips the scale". I don'tt think he was being disingenuous in any way if I'm honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom