TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
HOTTEST OCTOBER EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
*And by ever, we mean about 100 years.
*And by ever, we mean about 100 years.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
The_Man
Footballguy
Sheik, you're a smart guy, so I'm curious. Do you genuinely believe that manmade global warming isn't happening?
To my admittedly inexpert eye, not only is it happening, it's starting to accelerate. When month after month after month (and year after year) produce results that are not just a little higher than the previous year's record highs, but a lot, it's hard for me to believe otherwise.
To my admittedly inexpert eye, not only is it happening, it's starting to accelerate. When month after month after month (and year after year) produce results that are not just a little higher than the previous year's record highs, but a lot, it's hard for me to believe otherwise.
Sand
Footballguy
Even if all this is true and accurate (and to be completely honest I have lots of reservations about their treatment of data and outright refusal to discuss those adjustments) we don't control this party. And, even if we did, the compact with China ensured that emissions will continue unabated for 50+ years.
We're going about this all wrong. Given the growth rates around the world really nothing we do domestically will make a dent. On top of that, monies are being put in places that will do absolutely no good if you believe this is an imminent threat. Subsidies, climate research for the sake of climate research, payments to foreign companies are all black holes from which there is basically no return. We should be throwing money left and right at energy research that will add a commercially competitive clean source of power. For developing countries only something cheaper than coal, wood, etc. is going to get used - it's all economics. To make a dent in this problem there has to be a commitment to making something else work. I'd suggest nuclear (based on the thorium cycle) and fusion.
I don't get why this is so hard to see. And yet our energy policy going back pretty much as far as I remember has been complete ####.
Because your facts are mostly spun up crap that even if you buy into all the fear-mongering, nothing that is being proposed will make any difference.
The_Man
Footballguy
Great point - are there any fossil fuel industry-funded real facts you care to share? Those guys don't have an agenda, unlike all the conniving professors and government scientists at NOAA and NASA.
FYI. People who use the word 'ever' to mean the last 140 years when talking about climate history of a 4.5 billion year old planet are spinning facts horribly. Really it is beyond spin, it is an outright lie.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
I would never say that we may not have some effect on the global warming. And I do believe that there is global warming. But it is my belief that there is no "perfect temperature." The Earth's temp will always fluctuate. It always has. Do humans have some effect on it? Possibly. But I believe that there are a ton of other factors, as well. And those factors have been going on for millions of years, yet the Earth has survived.
I just don't like when everything is blamed on GW. For instance, I was at the doctor the other day and I was talking about how nice it was to be able to golf in November. He said, "You can thank global warming for that." But that's not true. We are in an El Nino year and that is the direct cause. And it's not even the biggest El Nino we've ever had. At the same time, you'll hear people say "We broke the all time high record today. Thanks Global Warming." Yet, if you look, the previous record was set back in 1940 or something. So why was it so hot then?
I am in the camp that thinks it's wrong to think either extreme. I'm not denying that the Earth may be warming, but I'm not on board with saying we are the reason for it. And I'm definitely not a huge fan of throwing billions of dollars at a problem we're not sure if a) it truly exists or b) we could even fix it. When people say things like, "Climate change is our number one threat", it comes off as fairly ridiculous.
Mother Nature has a way of healing itself. I could be completely wrong on this, but this is just where I stand right now.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Hang 10
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
So you think the earth should settle in at one comfortable temp and stay there? I guess if you ignore that radiation from the sun varies pretty significantly on its own cycle you might be able to delude yourself into thinking this should be so.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
I like my planet to be right in that "hospitable to human life" sweet spot. But that's just me.
culdeus
Footballguy
There's more to this than just temperature. There's the acidity of the oceans, and the saturation of water in the atmosphere, neither of which have any direct link to the sun's radiation and have a major impact on our way of life.
Water acidity, specifically, may be the single biggest disaster the world will ever face but gets very little in the way of attention.
matuski
Footballguy
The left got the upper hand on capitalizing from the issue, they own the issue now. It has become a political topic instead of a problem to be solved.
For this reason and no other reason that I can see, the Right is against it. Against it to the point of denying its existence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Galileo
Footballguy
Rove!
Footballguy
shadrap
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-most-ambitious-emissions-pledges-on-the-table-in-paris-would-still-result-in-catastrophic-warming/
Pretty depressing article from The Nation. It basically says that the pledges being made in Paris are already too little, too late...
Pretty depressing article from The Nation. It basically says that the pledges being made in Paris are already too little, too late...
The_Man
Footballguy
ExxonMobil admits climate change is real and believes governments should take action to combat it and that the most sensible action would be a revenue-neutral tax on carbon — in other words, a tax on oil, gas and coal, with the proceeds returned to taxpayers for them to spend as they choose. With no government action, Exxon experts said during a visit to The Washington Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible.
Also, while posing as representatives from oil and gas companies, Greenpeace U.K. investigators struck deals with academics from Princeton and Penn State to publish academic articles that promoted the positive benefits of carbon dioxide and the positive impacts of coal for the poor.
One of the academics exposed, William Happer of Princeton, is actually testifying at Ted Cruz's Senate hearing on protecting climate denial.
In the case of Frank Clemente of Penn State University, investigators asked Clemente, a sociologist, if he could publish a paper to “counter damaging research linking coal to premature deaths (in particular the WHO’s figure that 3.7 million people die per year from fossil fuel pollution).”
Clemente said that he could be quoted in support of the report using his university job title, and that it would cost $15,000 for the 8-10-page paper. Asked for assurance that the oil and gas funding would be kept secret, Clemente referenced past articles and even testimony in front of state legislatures and said, “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is publised as an independent scholar.”
“There is no requirement to declare source funding in the U.S.,” he explained.
Clemente also took home the biggest paycheck of any in this particular sting. He said he was paid $50,000 for a report titled "The Global Value of Coal," which was actually published by the International Energy Agency in 2012.
Also, while posing as representatives from oil and gas companies, Greenpeace U.K. investigators struck deals with academics from Princeton and Penn State to publish academic articles that promoted the positive benefits of carbon dioxide and the positive impacts of coal for the poor.
One of the academics exposed, William Happer of Princeton, is actually testifying at Ted Cruz's Senate hearing on protecting climate denial.
In the case of Frank Clemente of Penn State University, investigators asked Clemente, a sociologist, if he could publish a paper to “counter damaging research linking coal to premature deaths (in particular the WHO’s figure that 3.7 million people die per year from fossil fuel pollution).”
Clemente said that he could be quoted in support of the report using his university job title, and that it would cost $15,000 for the 8-10-page paper. Asked for assurance that the oil and gas funding would be kept secret, Clemente referenced past articles and even testimony in front of state legislatures and said, “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is publised as an independent scholar.”
“There is no requirement to declare source funding in the U.S.,” he explained.
Clemente also took home the biggest paycheck of any in this particular sting. He said he was paid $50,000 for a report titled "The Global Value of Coal," which was actually published by the International Energy Agency in 2012.
"The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.
If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world." - John Kerry
there ya go
new method to suck carbon from the air and make stuff
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540706/researcher-demonstrates-how-to-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/
it seems this would help, but since its not in anybody's political interest, nobody is talking about it....
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540706/researcher-demonstrates-how-to-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/
it seems this would help, but since its not in anybody's political interest, nobody is talking about it....
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Yeah, why isn't anyone talking about this brand new experimental technology that's been written about in Wired, BBC, New Scientist, Popular Science...
I tell Tim this all the time but it goes in one ear and out the other. China's increases alone will offset anything we could possibly do and Obama's agreement with China cemented the doom.
We had the technology decades ago, but we banned it. Re-opening up the ozone holes by pumping CFC into the atmosphere fixes global warming.
a few science geeks may have mentioned it, but not a single politician has cited pursuing an alternative solution to carbon taxes and/or reducing carbon. Unless we are willing to tell the developing world to stop developing, then whatever is done is Paris is not solving anything.
Sand
Footballguy
This is why the recent articles talking about Africa, Central America, and other countries demanding renumeration from advanced countries is a total waste (which is why our govt. will probably do it).FlapJacks said:
Until an economically viable non-carbon energy source is developed this track simply won't change. See: Tragedy of the Commons. The best thing advanced economies can do is to plow all this ancillary money into basic and applied research.
I'm just going to throw a few things out there:
-- remuneration is going to be a sticking point to any agreement
-- actual temperatures have been well under the forecasts -- a trend worth watching as the window is small and there is too much variability and there are too many adjustments to have a strong confidence in the numbers
-- technological advancements create better options for managing carbon and any impacts
I'm optimistic that even with no agreement that the picture is a lot brighter than some people think.
I think we need to invest in
-- more research -- climate science is extremely complex and we have barely scratched the surface.
-- nuclear
-- fusion
-- solar
-- carbon sucking machines
-- remuneration is going to be a sticking point to any agreement
-- actual temperatures have been well under the forecasts -- a trend worth watching as the window is small and there is too much variability and there are too many adjustments to have a strong confidence in the numbers
-- technological advancements create better options for managing carbon and any impacts
I'm optimistic that even with no agreement that the picture is a lot brighter than some people think.
I think we need to invest in
-- more research -- climate science is extremely complex and we have barely scratched the surface.
-- nuclear
-- fusion
-- solar
-- carbon sucking machines
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
True all that and we really need the NOAA to stop ####### with the temperature record. They create these "adjustments" and every single time it shows things getting worse - even to the point now where they pulled the temperatures in the 70s down to show that there was no "hiatus" and that temperature have increased over the last 30 years - it's abominable. While it's likely we are having an effect on the atmosphere having data manipulation on this scale (in which they continue to get caught doing it) isn't helpful at all to generate a real story.
Rove!
Footballguy
I understand the need to get it right, but when we almost always lowering the older readings, it tends to make skeptics more skeptical...
Rove!
Footballguy
Tornado fatalities at a record low
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/12/11/2015-will-likely-end-as-the-least-deadly-tornado-year-on-record-in-the-u-s/
EF 3 Tornadoes in 2015 less than half the average...only one EF4 (avg 7)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/12/11/2015-will-likely-end-as-the-least-deadly-tornado-year-on-record-in-the-u-s/
EF 3 Tornadoes in 2015 less than half the average...only one EF4 (avg 7)
Last edited by a moderator:
New measurements are always worse than previously predicted. In low-lying Miami and Miami Beach, a few inches in sea-level rise is a big deal. Due to tides, lunar condition, wind and many other factors, it's not easy to calculate an accurate sea-level rise over a short period of time. But, data complied by Brian McNoldy, a researcher at the University of Miami Marine School, shows an alarming sea-level rise in the Miami area. The average high tide was increasing a few mm per year, but in the last 5 years, it has accelerated to over an inch per year.
Nuisance flooding (as it's called) was very bad in some parts of Miami Beach during the latest king tides. Miami Beach is spending half a billion to mitigate the flooding and buy some time. Many other communities in Florida and elsewhere don't have the resources to elevate streets and put in pumps. The question is how much time do coastal communities have?
This hasn't stopped rich people from buying in at-risk properties. Phil Collins just spent 33mil on a low-lying bayfront house in Miami Beach. A hedge fund investor just spend $60mil on a 3-story ocean-front condo in Miami Beach. The most direct path to his condo was a road which was closed several times per day over a 1-week period during king tides. Global warming hasn't yet affected the psychology of real estate buyers in Miami. But it will.
Nuisance flooding (as it's called) was very bad in some parts of Miami Beach during the latest king tides. Miami Beach is spending half a billion to mitigate the flooding and buy some time. Many other communities in Florida and elsewhere don't have the resources to elevate streets and put in pumps. The question is how much time do coastal communities have?
This hasn't stopped rich people from buying in at-risk properties. Phil Collins just spent 33mil on a low-lying bayfront house in Miami Beach. A hedge fund investor just spend $60mil on a 3-story ocean-front condo in Miami Beach. The most direct path to his condo was a road which was closed several times per day over a 1-week period during king tides. Global warming hasn't yet affected the psychology of real estate buyers in Miami. But it will.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Part of the scare tactics from the chicken littles is to claim that severe weather conditions will get worse and EVERY ####### time their is a weather event global warming is the suggested cause whether their is one shred of scientific backing or not.
culdeus
Footballguy
The one effect of GW has to saturate the air with more water, then when it compacts over air disturbance it empties all on one spot. Therefore you get these huge swaths of drought and huge swaths of flooding. Also, having a more saturated atmosphere is worse for severe weather like tornado and hurricane development, which is one nice feature of GW. It's not just all about temperature.
COP21: James Hansen, the father of climate change awareness, says Paris agreement is a 'fraud'
The professor and environmental activist said denounced the draft deal agreed on Saturday saying 'there is no action, just promises'
Climate change activist James Hansen denounced the deal as 'worthless words' Getty ImagesA leading climate scientist has denounced the Paris climate change agreement as a “fraud” - saying there is "no action, just promises”.
Professor James Hansen - credited as being the “father of climate change awareness” - told the Guardian the talks that culminated in a deal on Saturday were just “worthless words”.
Speaking as the final draft of the deal was published on Saturday afternoon, he said: “It’s just b******t for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises.
“As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
The professor and environmental activist said denounced the draft deal agreed on Saturday saying 'there is no action, just promises'
Climate change activist James Hansen denounced the deal as 'worthless words' Getty ImagesA leading climate scientist has denounced the Paris climate change agreement as a “fraud” - saying there is "no action, just promises”.
Professor James Hansen - credited as being the “father of climate change awareness” - told the Guardian the talks that culminated in a deal on Saturday were just “worthless words”.
Speaking as the final draft of the deal was published on Saturday afternoon, he said: “It’s just b******t for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises.
“As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
Rich Conway
Footballguy
For those living out west (timschochet, tGunZ, et. al.), and pushing carbon taxes and other limits...
Is it OK that the administration is giving the Navajo coal plant a pass? This plant is basically what keeps water flowing to the west. However, it burns 15 tons of coal a minute, 24x7. It accounts for 29% of all carbon emissions in Arizona.
https://projects.propublica.org/killing-the-colorado/story/navajo-generating-station-colorado-river-drought
Is it OK that the administration is giving the Navajo coal plant a pass? This plant is basically what keeps water flowing to the west. However, it burns 15 tons of coal a minute, 24x7. It accounts for 29% of all carbon emissions in Arizona.
https://projects.propublica.org/killing-the-colorado/story/navajo-generating-station-colorado-river-drought
Apple Jack
Footballguy
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/us-town-rejects-solar-farm-after-residents-say-it-would-suck-up-the-sunlight-20151213-glmqa6.html
The good burghers of Woodland, North Carolina, have successfully torpedoed plans for a solar farm, arguing the panels would suck up all the sun's energy, cause cancer and drive young people out of town.
The good burghers of Woodland, North Carolina, have successfully torpedoed plans for a solar farm, arguing the panels would suck up all the sun's energy, cause cancer and drive young people out of town.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't know.Rich Conway said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Hilarious that you of all people would quote this guy. Anyhow, here is a more positive (and IMO much more reasonable) assessment of Paris:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8799764?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000090
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Ive seen other copy/paste Republicans quoting Hansen, as well. Im not sure what they think they're accomplishing.
spreagle
Footballguy
No one wants to live next to a power plant, what makes a solar farm different?http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/us-town-rejects-solar-farm-after-residents-say-it-would-suck-up-the-sunlight-20151213-glmqa6.html
The good burghers of Woodland, North Carolina, have successfully torpedoed plans for a solar farm, arguing the panels would suck up all the sun's energy, cause cancer and drive young people out of town.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
A lot. But that's not the point. This is about the brilliance of their rationale.No one wants to live next to a power plant, what makes a solar farm different?http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/us-town-rejects-solar-farm-after-residents-say-it-would-suck-up-the-sunlight-20151213-glmqa6.html
The good burghers of Woodland, North Carolina, have successfully torpedoed plans for a solar farm, arguing the panels would suck up all the sun's energy, cause cancer and drive young people out of town.
BowieMercs
Footballguy
I still maintain that it's all Al Gore's fault. Had he not invented the internet, all the heat generated from the tubes that power the internet would not cause the melting at the north pole, etc. The obvious solution is to shut down the internet until the climate returns to what it was. Not sure how we send out an email to let people know when to turn on the internet again 
.
PS - Stockpile flip phones & firewood.
. PS - Stockpile flip phones & firewood.
Why is it hilarious? Hansen is pointing out the obvious about the major flaws in the agreement, but it is coming from the pro-global warming side. If I pointed it out, you would not believe me. The Huffington Post piece is putting all positive spin on the agreement. Both articles are one-sided spin pieces and to understand the issue you have to understand both. I would not classified either piece as being 'more reasonable', as there is very little balance provided.
