No One Can Understand My Global Warming Argument

[gfm7175]

Are you saying there's no need to change our burning of fossil fuels until they run out?

We don't use fossils for fuel... We use things such as coal, oil, and natural gas... Oil and natural gas are both renewable fuels. As for coal, we don't know whether it is or not... We aren't going to run out of any of these resources anytime soon...

 

[gfm7175]

We have several things that are better and cleaner now but that doesn't mean we'll change.

They aren't nearly as efficient though... in cost nor power production...

Too much money still to be made from fossil fuels,

We don't burn fossils... As to coal, oil, and natural gas, they are currently the most viable and efficient sources of energy...

pollution from them is secondary to some, money comes first.

Define what 'pollution' you are talking about... Also, define 'pollution'...

 

[gfm7175]

Very good!

Now, why can't the climate alarmists understand this argument?

They can... But they dismiss it because it goes against their fundamentalist religious beliefs... (Church of Global Warming... Church of Green... Church of Karl Marx...)

 

[Phys251]

They can... But they dismiss it because it goes against their fundamentalist religious beliefs... (Church of Global Warming... Church of Green... Church of Karl Marx...)

:lamo

I just love this argument considering that a significantly higher percentage of Evangelicals deny climate science than American atheists do.

How Religion Impacts Americans' Views on Climate Change and Energy Issues

 

[gfm7175]

The same reason they don't understand any of the other arguments. The same reason the religious nuts don't get why an atheists does not need to proove there is no god.

This part is wrong... It is the Atheist who typically doesn't understand what constitutes a religion, and how religions function...

You're right in that atheists don't need to prove the non-existence of god... In fact, they can't... and they'd be committing a circular argument fallacy if they tried to... Same with some religion other than Atheism trying to prove their initial circular argument...

 

[longview]

We have several things that are better and cleaner now but that doesn't mean we'll change. Too much money still to be made from fossil fuels, pollution from them is secondary to some, money comes first.

Money is not profit, currently refining oil into fuel is more profitable, but that will not always be the case.
Oil will continue to get more expensive to find and extract, while the technology store energy in packages of our own making
will continue to decrease. Audi-Sunfire is now saying the scaled up energy to liquid fuel will be up to 80% efficient.
this is up from 60 to 70% efficient a few years ago.
The Naval research labs has also been getting good results.
The big players, Exxon, Shell, Ect, have been mute on the topic, but the CEO of Exxon says he supports a Carbon tax!!!!
If Exxon has a good process for making carbon neutral fuels, and their competitors do not, I bet they would love a carbon tax.

 

[gfm7175]

Energy, at the end of the day is heat.

Heat is NOT energy. Heat is the movement of thermal energy from one location to another...

Heat runs our country.

???

The only reliable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear energy.

Depends upon many factors as to which forms of energy are the most viable for any given location... Some locations can make great use of hydro...

The wind, solar, waves, etc, do not have what it takes to run an industrialized country.

Correct... You are generally going to be better off using coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear...

 

[gfm7175]

:lamo

I just love this argument considering that a significantly higher percentage of Evangelicals deny climate science than American atheists do.

...deleted 'holy poll'...

Polls are meaningless.

Atheism is also a religion.

There is no such thing as a 'global climate', and we are currently incapable of measuring 'global temperature'... How many thermometers would you use? Where would you place them (how would you space them out)? Would they be evenly spaced? When would you read them? Would they all be read simultaneously? and etc. etc. etc... We are also incapable of measuring global CO2 content for similar reasoning...

"Global Warming" itself is a circularly defined buzzword, which is meaningless, and any argument based on that buzzword is a Void Argument... Define "global warming" for me... What is it, even?

 

[VanCleef]

:lamo

I just love this argument considering that a significantly higher percentage of Evangelicals deny climate science than American atheists do.

How Religion Impacts Americans' Views on Climate Change and Energy Issues

I don't get why they are so anti-science.

 

[cabse5]

Very good!

Now, why can't the climate alarmists understand this argument?

SIAP. Because they are, at heart, clean air and water alarmists. That's why climate alarmists detest one of the cleanest fuels (least carbon emitting) out there, nuclear power.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I have a solid argument to the effect that there has been no significant change in global temperatures for the last 100 years. Unfortunately, it's based on advanced statistical data analysis concepts, and nobody can understand it.

It starts with the idea that the temperature record is a time series with a high degree of autocorrelation.

See? Lost you already.

I could simplify the argument by using an analogy -- Brownian Motion!

Not any better, eh?

Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize for this, so I guess it's not that easy.

Regardless, if you put a tiny pollen particle in a Petri dish filled with pure water the fact that the particle will wander all the way from one side of the dish to the other is not evidence that there are water currents in the dish. It's just random motion.

OK


And I have seen other material similar.

But, what it can't explain is the increase in severe weather. It does not explain the disappearance of my glacier in ten short years (I've been climbing it since 1975). It does explain the super intense fire storms we are now getting. When I moved here there was no such thing as a "crossover fire" (where forest fires over run cities) now they are in multiples every year.

It does not explain the dryness despite the fact presipitation has increased greatly every year. How can the ground be so dry with more rain?

Here's how. With warmer temperatures the presiptation comes down as rain, which runs off immediately. Snow stays until it warms up, creating ground water for forests through to June and even August in some higher elevations.

Post all the charts you can find, post all the deniers, post whatever you can find, but until I see, better, alternate explanations for **** that has NEVER happened before, explanations that make sense, then no. I ain't buying.

Further, just about everything they said would happen is happening....until that stops no way!

 

[VanCleef]

OK


And I have seen other material similar.

But, what it can't explain is the increase in severe weather. It does not explain the disappearance of my glacier in ten short years (I've been climbing it since 1975). It does explain the super intense fire storms we are now getting. When I moved here there was no such thing as a "crossover fire" (where forest fires over run cities) now they are in multiples every year.

It does not explain the dryness despite the fact presipitation has increased greatly every year. How can the ground be so dry with more rain?

Here's how. With warmer temperatures the presiptation comes down as rain, which runs off immediately. Snow stays until it warms up, creating ground water for forests through to June and even August in some higher elevations.

Post all the charts you can find, post all the deniers, post whatever you can find, but until I see, better, alternate explanations for **** that has NEVER happened before, explanations that make sense, then no. I ain't buying.

Further, just about everything they said would happen is happening....until that stops no way!

He thinks a meme thread is more impactful than over 90% of peer reviewed studies.

AGW and CC are facts, no matter what they say.

 

[Into the Night]

Are you saying there's no need to change our burning of fossil fuels until they run out?

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.

We are not running out of oil or natural gas. These are renewable fuels. We actually have a glut of both fuels at the moment. Prices are down.

Markets determine the price for a commodity such as oil or natural gas. That price is set by the availability of the commodity and the demand for it. In other words, if a shortage DOES happen to develop, the price of that commodity will go up. That will spur development into new sources for that commodity.

 

[Fearandloathing]

He thinks a meme thread is more impactful than over 90% of peer reviewed studies.

AGW and CC are facts, no matter what they say.

I no longer reference the terms. I have come to see this as real having first bought into it in 1983, when the science world thought it take thousands of years, dropped out amid the early 2000's fear mongering and exaggerated claims, but am a realist. When I first saw the decline of my glacier I stared to wonder. I spent some time in the interior assisting in the Cutoff Creek fire (127 families lost their homes in less than two hours) and found there is no other explanation.

On old time logger and firefighter I guess on his last gig told me in 40 years of "fighting these fires I've never seen a monster like this". There is no way to describe it - a wall of fire shooting sparks the size of basketballs and advancing at about 30 miles and hour! Those basketballs sometimes fly 100 meters or more

What we are NOT talking about is the Arctic, where low lying habitats have already been wiped out. A village in north Alaska along the coast lost it playing field four years ago, this year the school was shut as it had become unstable and was flooding. This is a village that has been there for two to three centuries!

 

[Into the Night]

OK


And I have seen other material similar.

But, what it can't explain is the increase in severe weather.

What increase in severe weather? Void argument fallacy.

It does not explain the disappearance of my glacier in ten short years (I've been climbing it since 1975).

Some glaciers are growing, others are receding. I don't know what glacier you've been climbing, or why you figure 50 years is significant in the life of a glacier.

It does explain the super intense fire storms we are now getting.

What super intense fire storms? Void argument fallacy.

When I moved here there was no such thing as a "crossover fire" (where forest fires over run cities) now they are in multiples every year.

No city has been burned. A few towns have, but that sort of thing has happened for a long time.

It does not explain the dryness despite the fact presipitation has increased greatly every year.

Paradox. Which is it, dude?

How can the ground be so dry with more rain?

It can't.

Here's how. With warmer temperatures the presiptation comes down as rain, which runs off immediately.

Do you know what a lake is?

Snow stays until it warms up, creating ground water for forests through to June and even August in some higher elevations.

Still does in the mountains, just like always.

Post all the charts you can find,
post all the deniers,
post whatever you can find, but until I see, better, alternate explanations for **** that has NEVER happened before, explanations that make sense, then no. I ain't buying.

It has happened before. These are normal events.

Further, just about everything they said would happen is happening....until that stops no way!

It will not stop. They are normal events.

 

[iguanaman]

SIAP. Because they are, at heart, clean air and water alarmists. That's why climate alarmists detest one of the cleanest fuels (least carbon emitting) out there, nuclear power.

Clean fuel does not produce the most toxic substances on Earth that must be kept isolated for 100,000 years or more.

 

[Into the Night]

He thinks a meme thread is more impactful than over 90% of peer reviewed studies.

AGW and CC are facts, no matter what they say.

Nope. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are denying science.

 

[Into the Night]

I no longer reference the terms. I have come to see this as real having first bought into it in 1983, when the science world thought it take thousands of years, dropped out amid the early 2000's fear mongering and exaggerated claims, but am a realist. When I first saw the decline of my glacier I stared to wonder. I spent some time in the interior assisting in the Cutoff Creek fire (127 families lost their homes in less than two hours) and found there is no other explanation.

On old time logger and firefighter I guess on his last gig told me in 40 years of "fighting these fires I've never seen a monster like this". There is no way to describe it - a wall of fire shooting sparks the size of basketballs and advancing at about 30 miles and hour! Those basketballs sometimes fly 100 meters or more

What we are NOT talking about is the Arctic, where low lying habitats have already been wiped out. A village in north Alaska along the coast lost it playing field four years ago, this year the school was shut as it had become unstable and was flooding. This is a village that has been there for two to three centuries!

Well, since ecology twits have prevented forest management, wildfires are getting worse.

 

[VanCleef]

Nope. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are denying science.

Please post the peer reviewed study directly showing AGW and CC are false using those laws.

Thanks. Meanwhile, I have an entire field of science directly backing the fact of AGW and CC with thousands of peer reviewed studies and massive reports. None of which were debunked.

 

[cabse5]

Clean fuel does not produce the most toxic substances on Earth that must be kept isolated for 100,000 years or more.

I understood clean fuels to be the least carbon emitting. The criteria of carbon emission has nothing to do with clean fuels? I see garbage trucks trundle around my neighborhood that have the slogan green and powered by liquified natural gas on their sides. Does the garbage truck no longer run on green energy when it gets into an accident?

 

[longview]

Please post the peer reviewed study directly showing AGW and CC are false using those laws.

Thanks. Meanwhile, I have an entire field of science directly backing the fact of AGW and CC with thousands of peer reviewed studies and massive reports. None of which were debunked.

Please point to the peer reviewed study that validates the predicted effects of added CO2?
Just one would do it!

 

[cabse5]

Please post the peer reviewed study directly showing AGW and CC are false using those laws.

Thanks. Meanwhile, I have an entire field of science directly backing the fact of AGW and CC with thousands of peer reviewed studies and massive reports. None of which were debunked.

I don't have an entire field of science backing me up I just use simple logic. AGW climate change focuses on reductions of CO2 emissions, primarily. That and methane.
Methane and CO2 combined account for less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere. I suppose you wish to make me believe there's a crisis of climate change when you wish to only reduce 5 percent of all greenhouse gases?

 

[VanCleef]

I don't have an entire field of science backing me up

That's too bad. Do you at least have a massive amount of peer reviewed studies specifically stating AGW is false?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Well, since ecology twits have prevented forest management, wildfires are getting worse.

"Forest management?"


Describe that please.

Warning, I live in a province where softwood is THE largest distributed product. The surface area of our forests is three times the land mass of the province. How? They are called mountains, as in the Canadian Rocky Mountains with elevations to over 2000 meters and practically straight up.

We have over the years cut firebreaks and more recently created skirts around towns and villages, removing trees etc.

So, please explain to me how you "manage" a forest at 70 degrees angle and 2000 hectares?

I recall your idiot president suggested "raking". Please drop by British Columbia and demonstrate how management works

Further, please explain how it is these forests got along fine for 10,000 years without major catastrophe, but all of a sudden are consumed because of "improper management" -- there was NO ONE to manage the forest until man came along, how is it they are still standing as if your comment has any accuracy there would be fires 24/7.

The world laughed and Swedes mocked the stupidity of your president. If you had two minutes to see an "average" forest here you would see just how idiotic and stupid your comment is.

Lastly, what will you use for a rake on logs that weight 30 tons? How will you "manage" fallen trees 2.5 meters in diameter, without destroying the forest around it?

YOu are all going to have to learn and accept that Donald Trump is very stupid.

 

[longview]

I understood clean fuels to be the least carbon emitting. The criteria of carbon emission has nothing to do with clean fuels? I see garbage trucks trundle around my neighborhood that have the slogan green and powered by liquified natural gas on their sides. Does the garbage truck no longer run on green energy when it gets into an accident?

We can make hydrocarbon fuels which are 100% carbon neutral,
Gasoline, Diesel, Jet fuel, whatever is in demand.
At this point the product would not be as cheap as the fuels made from oil, but the curves are in motion.
As technology improves, and surplus energy in the form of electricity get cheaper (Duck Curve),
there will come a point when man made fuel is the least expensive pump selection.
The Naval Research Labs did find one idiosyncrasy, the process seem to only make high octane fuels, no regular!