Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#5,051
#5,051
BartW said:
What baffles me is how the anti-environmentalists believe guys like Fred Singer who just so happen to oppose the scientific consensus on every issue that is inconvenient for industry (aka "junk science"). And they call themselves "skeptics"

I mean, this guy a cold war physicist who claims he should've gotten credit for inventing the satellite. Do you really think he can also simultaneously be an expert on tobacco, acid rain, ozone, asbestos, climate, etc.? Do you really think he knows more about epidemiology than, say, someone who has trained their entire life in epidemiology? Do you think he knows more about atmospheric chemistry than atmospheric chemists?

The charade is just so painfully obvious sometimes
Click to expand...
Singer has had a varied career, serving in the armed forces, government, and academia. He designed mines for the U.S. Navy during World War II, before obtaining his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University in 1948 and working as a scientific liaison officer in the U.S. Embassy in London.[5] He became a leading figure in early space research, was involved in the development of earth observation satellites, and in 1962 established the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center. He was the founding dean of the University of Miami School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences in 1964, and held several government positions, including deputy assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, and chief scientist for the Department of Transportation. He held a professorship with the University of Virginia from 1971 until 1994, and with George Mason University until 2000.[3] [6]...wiki

So, what is it that is so baffling?
 
#5,052
#5,052
Sandvol said:
Singer has had a varied career, serving in the armed forces, government, and academia. He designed mines for the U.S. Navy during World War II, before obtaining his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University in 1948 and working as a scientific liaison officer in the U.S. Embassy in London.[5] He became a leading figure in early space research, was involved in the development of earth observation satellites, and in 1962 established the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center. He was the founding dean of the University of Miami School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences in 1964, and held several government positions, including deputy assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, and chief scientist for the Department of Transportation. He held a professorship with the University of Virginia from 1971 until 1994, and with George Mason University until 2000.[3] [6]...wiki

So, what is it that is so baffling?
Click to expand...
What's baffling is how you eat it up.

He has no expertise whatsoever in the fields in which he is claiming to overturn broad scientific consensus. He hasn't done any research since ~1980. He's just held (government, ironically) administrative positions and worked on his PR projects at "thinktanks". He uses his credentials in one field to fake expertise in a host of others. Do you really think he's the Galileo of every environmental science?

You really should go see (or read) Merchants of Doubt
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,053
#5,053
BartW said:
No, just pointing out the obvious logical fallacy in that dumb denier talking point.

...but we can go there if you like. Do you not believe that the fossil fuel industry is employing many of the same PR tactics, actors, and organizations as tobacco? It's not a theory; it's a real-life conspiracy. They do exist, but it can (understandably) be hard to tell the difference. Would you like to see documentation?
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure you'll come up with all sorts of good documentation. Doesn't mean it's going to change ****-all with my opinion on this.

By the way, when the record high was set in Antacrtica in 1961, did they blame global warming, call it climate change or just say "it's unusually warm today?"
 
#5,054
#5,054
Grand Vol said:
Oh, I'm sure you'll come up with all sorts of good documentation. Doesn't mean it's going to change ****-all with my opinion on this.

By the way, when the record high was set in Antacrtica in 1961, did they blame global warming, call it climate change or just say "it's unusually warm today?"
Click to expand...
Who is "they"? Who cares?

So your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will change it? Figures
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,055
#5,055
BartW said:
Who is "they"? Who cares?

So your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will change it? Figures
Click to expand...

I've already said I think climatic change is a naturally occurring event that the earth undergoes every so often. I even think there are major temperature changes during those events. I'll even give you that humans aren't helping matters.

Where I draw the line, as I've stated all along, is the level of impact from the doomsday predictions by the environmentalist crowd. And the automatic knee jerk reaction to each and every power source on the planet that suddenly has drawbacks from that same environmentalist crowd.

Coal power - CO2 emissions and other harmful by products
Nuclear power - scary and meltdowns will happen so frequently we'll melt the earth
Petroleum - CO2 emissions and save the bunnies
Solar power - takes up arable land and can cause damage to the wildlife
Wind power - Harmful to the birds
Hydro electric - damages ecosystems
Natural Gas - fracking is bad
Geothermal - harmful byproducts
Ethanol - Takes up arable land, reduces food supply and increase food prices

Did I miss anything? Is there any power source the environmental crowd actually approves of?

And don't get me started on cow farts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,056
#5,056
Grand Vol said:
I've already said I think climatic change is a naturally occurring event that the earth undergoes every so often. I even think there are major temperature changes during those events. I'll even give you that humans aren't helping matters.

Where I draw the line, as I've stated all along, is the level of impact from the doomsday predictions by the environmentalist crowd. And the automatic knee jerk reaction to each and every power source on the planet that suddenly has drawbacks from that same environmentalist crowd.

Coal power - CO2 emissions and other harmful by products
Nuclear power - scary and meltdowns will happen so frequently we'll melt the earth
Petroleum - CO2 emissions and save the bunnies
Solar power - takes up arable land and can cause damage to the wildlife
Wind power - Harmful to the birds
Hydro electric - damages ecosystems
Natural Gas - fracking is bad
Geothermal - harmful byproducts
Ethanol - Takes up arable land, reduces food supply and increase food prices

Did I miss anything? Is there any power source the environmental crowd actually approves of?

And don't get me started on cow farts.
Click to expand...

clearly you're just a shill, paid for by the tobacco companies, who has the chairman of Exxon-Mobil on your speed dial
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,058
#5,058
mrorange211 said:
Reached 64 degrees in Antartica today. Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

Yea but the average temp for the whole continent that day was -0.13c below average.

@MPalmerTWC: Temp anomalies for #Antarctica at time of record high. Warm bulge in an overall below average temp (-0.13C) regime. http://t.co/q4Q8TjkJ64
Click to expand...

@MPalmerTWC: Dramatic cooling of #Antarctica since all-time heat record few days ago. An incredible -2.09C below average. http://t.co/tz4TOKzmej
Click to expand...
ThinkProgress report on that?
 
Last edited:
#5,059
#5,059
mrorange211 said:
When people try to demean the profession of teaching, I get mad. Especially since in most cases those people have no idea what it means to actually be a teacher. But even more especially when they use that same GBS quote to imply that I am not creative or good at what I do. Here's another quote by GBS: "A lifetime of happiness! No man alive could bear it: It would be hell on earth!" See a bit of cynicism there? If you had actually read GBS in any depth you would know that cynicism ran through his veins. The quote about teachers is par for the course concerning GBS.
Click to expand...

How do you think the millions of hard working, blue collar workers who provide you and your school with power, feel?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,062
#5,062
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Do you think we should be burning coal? Do you think we should be Fracking for oil & gas?
Click to expand...

Tennessee gets 61% of its power from coal. I'm not for shutting down every coal plant, man. I'm for switching those plants over to clean coal, at the minimum, and developing our infrastructure in the meantime to more renewable sources. I fail to see how and why Tennessee can't use hydroelectric power more affluently in the area, but I am by no means an expert here.

And yes, I absolutely believe that we must stop fracking, immediately. It requires entirely too much water, and causes severe groundwater pollution; so much so that people can light their faucets on fire.

Read this story, just happened last week with a farmer from Nebraska. Kinda scary:

WATCH: Nebraska farmer silences oil and gas committee with invitation to drink water tainted by fracking
 
#5,064
#5,064
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Well then you just gave the bird to a few million blue collar workers
Click to expand...

So Teddy Roosevelt gave the bird to thousands of loggers when he sat aside millions of acres of land for federal protection. These are sites that we now tie to our national pride, like the Redwoods and Yosemite. Was he wrong to do this because he cost thousands of people their jobs?

I don't understand fracking, or the news networks don't understand fracking? Cause that's where I get my information.
 
#5,065
#5,065
mrorange211 said:
So Teddy Roosevelt gave the bird to thousands of loggers when he sat aside millions of acres of land for federal protection. These are sites that we now tie to our national pride, like the Redwoods and Yosemite. Was he wrong to do this because he cost thousands of people their jobs?
Click to expand...

No because trees are renewable & plentiful
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,069
#5,069
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Both. Let me guess, you watched gasland?
Click to expand...

I have never seen it. Honestly. What's the subject?

And yes I am making that comparison. TR made that choice for the benefit of all Americans. The same decision needs to be made concerning fracking in the Dakotas and other Western (and some Eastern states). Those companies fracking in those areas are permanently destroying those lands forever. FOREVER.
 
#5,070
#5,070
You are being overdramatic. Which is par for the course. Louisiana has been Fracking longer and has turned their state into Swiss cheese with all the holes drilled. Minimal issues.
 
#5,072
#5,072
mrorange211 said:
Read this story, just happened last week with a farmer from Nebraska. Kinda scary:

WATCH: Nebraska farmer silences oil and gas committee with invitation to drink water tainted by fracking
Click to expand...

Come on.

In the video, uploaded to YouTube by BoldNebraska, Nebraskan James Osborne used his 3 minutes before the committee to visually explain what fracking waste can do to the water table, dramatically pouring out water containing his own “private mixture” of fracking additives.
Click to expand...

And

Explaining that he has ties to the oil industry and that he is still on the fence about fracking, Osbourne explained fluid dynamics to the board while pouring out three cups of the sludgy water that could result from spills or from seeping into the water table.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm averaging a couple of earthquakes each and every time Halliburton decides to start fracking north of me. Hasn't affected my groundwater though. (I have a well and I'm not getting a flame thrower coming out of the garden hose...which would be kinda cool though) But I'm also about energy independence from the Middle East if we can. And until alternative fuels vehicles are as efficient as gas and diesel, I will continue to support fossil fuels until the following occurs:

A: Infrastructure is in place for the alternative fuels. I'm all about Tesla cars and whatnot, but the infrastructure to support said vehicles is not in place. And it brings me to my next problem...

B: Price must be comparable to standard fossil fuel vehicles. Not a darn one of the alternative vehicles, save the Prius and that's a stretch, is comparable to what I can get out of a Ford or Toyota.

C: Efficiency. I have a flex fuel vehicle. I refuse to run E85 in it since I lose anywhere from 5-7 MPG per tank. And when E85 is only ten cents cheaper a gallon than regular gasoline, I'm not spending additional money out of my pocket to feel good about the environment. And furthermore, like many Americans, I can't afford to spend more money out of my pocket to feel good about the environment.

So once the flex fuel and alternative fuels vehicles start getting comparable in MPG of fossil fuel based vehicles, I'll start considering running it more often. And continue to support fracking and getting our own resources out of our backyard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,073
#5,073
#5,075
#5,075
mrorange211 said:
I-Team: Fracking boosts north Louisiana economy but not without problems | New Orleans - WDSU Home

Link to a local news source, not national.


Gotta work for a bit GrandVOl, to be continued...
Click to expand...

I'm failing to see a major problem here. Shocker that the county that doesn't have gas under it is mad at the one that does have Nat gas. Desoto parish got $30 million, just to lease the land under their airport. Do you know what they are doing with that money? Upgrading schools. Do you have any idea how poor Desoto parish is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top