Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
That's why Bernie Sanders correctly called climate change a far bigger security risk than ISIS.
Sand
Footballguy
No, I thought (and expressed) that he was pretty damn smart based on that conversation. I concluded he's not racist by virtue of his record of an AG in Alabama and his service as a senator.Remember, Sand swears up and down that Jeff B Sessions isn't a racist because he had wonderful conversations with him. He's like bueno, jr. You aren't changing minds here, but if you want to play debate club, I'll get out of your way.
As far as being like Bueno, recall (which you obviously are deficient at based on the above) that I, more than anyone else in this forum, backs up arguments with links to papers, graphs, facts, etc. And, hell, I don't even know who you are. Whose alias are you? That will help explain a lot.
Global warming has some benefits. Most humans wouldn't be aware of global warming, since the rate is slow and there is natural variability due to el nino, etc. However, those of us who live near the east coast are aware of an accelerating sea-level rise due to global warming and the resulting increase in nuisance flooding. Its gonna be a huge insurance issue in the decades to come.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Riversco
Footballguy
There is really only one quote you need to "get" to understand what's happening with the global warming issue:
"Comparing health care and Benghazi to climate change policy seems a non sequitur. But as David Abshire could attest, they aren’t. A president’s credibility is fungible, and if voters conclude their commander-in-chief misleads them for partisan advantage about one thing, they assume he does it about others."
You could be 100% correct about global warming but if the message is coming from a source that the public believes is tainted, then the message is lost. Unfortunately, the climate change message has been co-opted by the democrat party. This is the same party that told America Obamacare would fix healthcare, that you could keep your doctor, that unemployment was fixed, that we had gained sufficient high quality jobs, that America was doing good. So as the democrat party brand gets severely damaged by lack of results, the global warming message will take huge collateral damage.
For this, you must blame the scientific community for NOT standing up and saying the democrat party and the scientific community are not one and the same.
"Comparing health care and Benghazi to climate change policy seems a non sequitur. But as David Abshire could attest, they aren’t. A president’s credibility is fungible, and if voters conclude their commander-in-chief misleads them for partisan advantage about one thing, they assume he does it about others."
You could be 100% correct about global warming but if the message is coming from a source that the public believes is tainted, then the message is lost. Unfortunately, the climate change message has been co-opted by the democrat party. This is the same party that told America Obamacare would fix healthcare, that you could keep your doctor, that unemployment was fixed, that we had gained sufficient high quality jobs, that America was doing good. So as the democrat party brand gets severely damaged by lack of results, the global warming message will take huge collateral damage.
For this, you must blame the scientific community for NOT standing up and saying the democrat party and the scientific community are not one and the same.
joffer
Footballguy
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549
I encourage everyone to listen to this episode, or to read and share its transcript online. Today I'm going to talk about some simple factual observations that anyone can make, that unambiguously prove human activity is driving warming of the Earth. I'm not going to mention climate models, politics, predictions, economics, or how many scientists agree or disagree — any of the topics on which there is debate. I'm only going to share a few of the most solid basics, the results of absolute measurements, over which there is no debate. These are the things nobody disagrees with, but so few people understand. Despite its contentious topic, this episode is intended to be — and should be — completely non-controversial.
I am only going to make two points today, and they are to share two of the "smoking guns" by which we know that this is happening. They are simple to understand, and they are based on basic science that everyone should remember from school. They do not depend on models or predictions, but upon simple direct observations. They are that the rising CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere is definitely produced by human activity, and that that same CO2is warming the planet. Nothing in this episode is disputed, or is subject to alternate explanations, but too few people are aware of these facts. So let's begin with:
Proof that the atmosphere's excess CO2 is human generated
You might think that carbon is carbon, and that if we find there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, its source can't easily be proven. But chemistry is a bit more complicated than that; there are different kinds of carbon, as there are of most elements. They're called isotopes. One isotope of carbon is carbon-14. Cosmic rays bombard the Earth at a rate that is more or less constant over time. When they do, they strike atoms in the upper atmosphere, kicking out neutrons. These neutrons then collide with the most common atoms in our atmosphere, nitrogen. This collision kicks a proton out of the nucleus and turns the nitrogen into carbon with two neutrons too many: the unstable and radioactive carbon-14, instead of the normal stable carbon-12.
You've heard of carbon dating; this is done by comparing the relative amounts of carbon-12 and carbon-14 in a sample. Living things, like animals and trees, are in equilibrium with the atmosphere. As they eat and breathe and interact, they contain the same proportions of carbon isotopes as the atmosphere. When they die, that carbon-14 decays over a long time, and since the organism is no longer eating and breathing, no new carbon-14 comes in, and eventually the only carbon remaining is carbon-12 (and some carbon-13). Fossil fuels like oil and natural gas come from plants that died millions of years ago and have no carbon-14 left. The CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels contains only carbon-12.
When a forest fire burns, the CO2 in the smoke came from living or recently dead fuel, so the smoke contains the same proportions of carbon-12 and carbon-14 as the atmosphere. This is the case with nearly all natural sources of CO2. We can carbon date the CO2 in the atmosphere, and tell exactly how much of it comes from humans burning fossil fuels. It's a hard measurement. It leaves no room for interpretation.
There is one natural source of CO2 that contains only carbon-12, and which is often pointed out by climate deniers as the real source of all of this new carbon-12: volcanoes. Volcanoes worldwide constantly erupt, both on land and under the sea. They do so at a fairly constant rate. We measure their output, and we know that annually, worldwide volcanic activity averages about 200 million tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere, all with carbon-12, which is indistinguishable from the carbon-12 produced by burning fossil fuels. However, each year, we measure a total of about 29 billion tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere. That's more than 100 times the amount volcanoes can account for. The only possible source of all the rest of that new CO2 is fossil fuel burned by humans.
This, in short, is the "smoking gun" that proves the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans burning fossil fuel. It's not a conjecture or a model or a prediction, it's a measurement that anyone can reproduce, and isotopes are isotopes, and don't have alternate explanations.
Some have said that 29 billion tons is not a problem, because of how small that is compared to the atmosphere's total existing carbon load. It's true that 29 billion tons is a drop in the bucket compared to the 750 billion tons that moves through the carbon cycle each year, which is our name for the natural processes by which carbon is exchanged between the atmosphere and the oceans and vegetation. Each year, of that 750 billion tons, the ocean absorbs a net gain of about 6 billion, and vegetation absorbs a net gain of about 11 billion. They're only able to absorb about half of the 29 billion we're adding. The other half — about 15 billion tons each year — remains in the atmosphere, after maxing out the Earth's ability to absorb it into its system. These numbers, too, are reproducible measurements; not conjectures, models, or predictions. The system is provably absorbing all it can, but still unable to keep up.
Proof that that human-generated CO2 is warming the planet
We also do not need models or predictions to directly measure the source of heat in the atmosphere. There are five gases that are primarily responsible for the greenhouse effect. They are CO2, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and ozone. We can tell this because of spectroscopy.
Spectroscopy is a method of detecting elements by looking at how electromagnetic radiation passes through them. Different elements have electrons in orbits at varying energy levels, and this affects the way they resonate. It's the reason why neon lights produce different colors depending on what gases we fill them with. It's also the way we're able to tell what proportions of hydrogen, helium, and other elements are in distant stars: the spectrum of light coming from them has peaks and valleys that are chemical fingerprints of exactly what gases are in them.
The Earth's surface is warmed by the sun, and as a warm globe in space, the Earth itself emits that same heat right back out, as infrared radiation. If we go outside and point a spectrometer at the sky, we can see there are peaks and valleys in the infrared spectrum. Some wavelengths of heat fly right out into space unhindered, while other wavelengths are absorbed by the atmosphere, and that heat stays there, where we're able to detect its wavelength with our spectrometer. And exactly the same way as we're able to identify the elements in a distant star, we're able to identify exactly which greenhouse gases are trapping the Earth's radiative heat. This is how we were able to identify those five main gases. And this isn't new; we've understood this for 200 years. It's a direct measurement that anyone with a spectrometer can reproduce. Not a model, not a prediction, not a guess.
Water vapor, which is the most prominent, defines the basic shape of the greenhouse spectrum. Most of the infrared radiation that escapes the Earth goes through a window left open by water vapor, which we call the infrared window. This window in the spectrum, which is pretty wide, is centered around a wavelength of about 10 µm (micrometers). At higher and lower wavelengths, water vapor absorbs much of the Earth's radiated heat, so the Earth has always relied on this open window in the spectrum to allow the excess heat to escape. One end of the infrared window is overlapped by CO2's absorption range, which is centered around 15 µm. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a sliding door which widens or narrows the infrared window. As CO2 increases, the infrared window is narrowed, less radiation escapes into space, and more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. At the other end of the infrared window, around 7.5 µm, methane has a similar effect, contributing about 1/4 as much warming as CO2.
Spectroscopy is hard science. We don't have to model or predict. Simply by pointing our instruments at the sky, we can, right now, directly observe and identify the greenhouse gases, and measure exactly how much radiative energy the atmosphere is absorbing and keeping here on Earth. This direct, non-ambiguous spectroscopic reading is the "smoking gun" that proves the excess heat energy being trapped in our atmosphere is due to CO2. That excess CO2 is produced by humans burning fossil fuels.
We've also measured the Earth's infrared spectrum from space, looking down from satellites, to see which wavelengths of heat energy are being trapped by gases in the atmosphere, and which wavelengths are escaping. We started this in 1970 with the IRIS satellite, giving us a baseline to compare against future measurements. It was followed in 1996 with the Japanese IMG satellite, and again with the AIRS satellite in 2003, and the AURA satellite in 2004. They paint a very clear picture. We subtract new readings from the old readings to see the delta, to see exactly where in the spectrum any change has occurred. Within that infrared window defined by water vapor, there is one big spike. It is the 15 µm range of CO2. This is explicit, unambiguous proof that the increased heat in our atmosphere is due to CO2. It has nothing to do with models or predictions; it is a direct observation, it is hard chemistry and basic physics, not guesswork or extrapolation.
As we burn fossil fuels, the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the infrared window narrows, less heat radiates away from the Earth, and more heat goes into the Earth's system. These are simple, solid facts.
In this episode, I've tried to limit everything to just facts that are not in dispute. That means I haven't included any estimates or predictions. Why? Because I'm trying to take opinion and ideology-driven spin completely out of the picture. I don't have an answer or a solution for people who prefer to view this particular science question through the filter of an ideology. Earth science measurements and facts are ideology-free, just like astronomy and mathematics and zoology. The impact that human use of fossil fuels is measured to have already made to the Earth system is bewildering. It is from this point, from the non-ambiguous, factual, black-and-white characterization of our atmosphere and oceans, that we must ask ourselves whether any ideological twisting of the facts is truly the best path forward. We have to accurately understand a problem in order to devise a properly informed solution.
Please, if you have any curiosity about any of the topics we've just discussed, see the references section at the bottom of this transcript, where you'll find links to articles and videos that are both thorough and easy to understand. You can go into much greater depth if you're so inclined. What's important is what you choose to do with this information, and that part I will leave up to you.
I encourage everyone to listen to this episode, or to read and share its transcript online. Today I'm going to talk about some simple factual observations that anyone can make, that unambiguously prove human activity is driving warming of the Earth. I'm not going to mention climate models, politics, predictions, economics, or how many scientists agree or disagree — any of the topics on which there is debate. I'm only going to share a few of the most solid basics, the results of absolute measurements, over which there is no debate. These are the things nobody disagrees with, but so few people understand. Despite its contentious topic, this episode is intended to be — and should be — completely non-controversial.
I am only going to make two points today, and they are to share two of the "smoking guns" by which we know that this is happening. They are simple to understand, and they are based on basic science that everyone should remember from school. They do not depend on models or predictions, but upon simple direct observations. They are that the rising CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere is definitely produced by human activity, and that that same CO2is warming the planet. Nothing in this episode is disputed, or is subject to alternate explanations, but too few people are aware of these facts. So let's begin with:
Proof that the atmosphere's excess CO2 is human generated
You might think that carbon is carbon, and that if we find there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, its source can't easily be proven. But chemistry is a bit more complicated than that; there are different kinds of carbon, as there are of most elements. They're called isotopes. One isotope of carbon is carbon-14. Cosmic rays bombard the Earth at a rate that is more or less constant over time. When they do, they strike atoms in the upper atmosphere, kicking out neutrons. These neutrons then collide with the most common atoms in our atmosphere, nitrogen. This collision kicks a proton out of the nucleus and turns the nitrogen into carbon with two neutrons too many: the unstable and radioactive carbon-14, instead of the normal stable carbon-12.
You've heard of carbon dating; this is done by comparing the relative amounts of carbon-12 and carbon-14 in a sample. Living things, like animals and trees, are in equilibrium with the atmosphere. As they eat and breathe and interact, they contain the same proportions of carbon isotopes as the atmosphere. When they die, that carbon-14 decays over a long time, and since the organism is no longer eating and breathing, no new carbon-14 comes in, and eventually the only carbon remaining is carbon-12 (and some carbon-13). Fossil fuels like oil and natural gas come from plants that died millions of years ago and have no carbon-14 left. The CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels contains only carbon-12.
When a forest fire burns, the CO2 in the smoke came from living or recently dead fuel, so the smoke contains the same proportions of carbon-12 and carbon-14 as the atmosphere. This is the case with nearly all natural sources of CO2. We can carbon date the CO2 in the atmosphere, and tell exactly how much of it comes from humans burning fossil fuels. It's a hard measurement. It leaves no room for interpretation.
There is one natural source of CO2 that contains only carbon-12, and which is often pointed out by climate deniers as the real source of all of this new carbon-12: volcanoes. Volcanoes worldwide constantly erupt, both on land and under the sea. They do so at a fairly constant rate. We measure their output, and we know that annually, worldwide volcanic activity averages about 200 million tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere, all with carbon-12, which is indistinguishable from the carbon-12 produced by burning fossil fuels. However, each year, we measure a total of about 29 billion tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere. That's more than 100 times the amount volcanoes can account for. The only possible source of all the rest of that new CO2 is fossil fuel burned by humans.
This, in short, is the "smoking gun" that proves the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans burning fossil fuel. It's not a conjecture or a model or a prediction, it's a measurement that anyone can reproduce, and isotopes are isotopes, and don't have alternate explanations.
Some have said that 29 billion tons is not a problem, because of how small that is compared to the atmosphere's total existing carbon load. It's true that 29 billion tons is a drop in the bucket compared to the 750 billion tons that moves through the carbon cycle each year, which is our name for the natural processes by which carbon is exchanged between the atmosphere and the oceans and vegetation. Each year, of that 750 billion tons, the ocean absorbs a net gain of about 6 billion, and vegetation absorbs a net gain of about 11 billion. They're only able to absorb about half of the 29 billion we're adding. The other half — about 15 billion tons each year — remains in the atmosphere, after maxing out the Earth's ability to absorb it into its system. These numbers, too, are reproducible measurements; not conjectures, models, or predictions. The system is provably absorbing all it can, but still unable to keep up.
Proof that that human-generated CO2 is warming the planet
We also do not need models or predictions to directly measure the source of heat in the atmosphere. There are five gases that are primarily responsible for the greenhouse effect. They are CO2, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and ozone. We can tell this because of spectroscopy.
Spectroscopy is a method of detecting elements by looking at how electromagnetic radiation passes through them. Different elements have electrons in orbits at varying energy levels, and this affects the way they resonate. It's the reason why neon lights produce different colors depending on what gases we fill them with. It's also the way we're able to tell what proportions of hydrogen, helium, and other elements are in distant stars: the spectrum of light coming from them has peaks and valleys that are chemical fingerprints of exactly what gases are in them.
The Earth's surface is warmed by the sun, and as a warm globe in space, the Earth itself emits that same heat right back out, as infrared radiation. If we go outside and point a spectrometer at the sky, we can see there are peaks and valleys in the infrared spectrum. Some wavelengths of heat fly right out into space unhindered, while other wavelengths are absorbed by the atmosphere, and that heat stays there, where we're able to detect its wavelength with our spectrometer. And exactly the same way as we're able to identify the elements in a distant star, we're able to identify exactly which greenhouse gases are trapping the Earth's radiative heat. This is how we were able to identify those five main gases. And this isn't new; we've understood this for 200 years. It's a direct measurement that anyone with a spectrometer can reproduce. Not a model, not a prediction, not a guess.
Water vapor, which is the most prominent, defines the basic shape of the greenhouse spectrum. Most of the infrared radiation that escapes the Earth goes through a window left open by water vapor, which we call the infrared window. This window in the spectrum, which is pretty wide, is centered around a wavelength of about 10 µm (micrometers). At higher and lower wavelengths, water vapor absorbs much of the Earth's radiated heat, so the Earth has always relied on this open window in the spectrum to allow the excess heat to escape. One end of the infrared window is overlapped by CO2's absorption range, which is centered around 15 µm. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a sliding door which widens or narrows the infrared window. As CO2 increases, the infrared window is narrowed, less radiation escapes into space, and more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. At the other end of the infrared window, around 7.5 µm, methane has a similar effect, contributing about 1/4 as much warming as CO2.
Spectroscopy is hard science. We don't have to model or predict. Simply by pointing our instruments at the sky, we can, right now, directly observe and identify the greenhouse gases, and measure exactly how much radiative energy the atmosphere is absorbing and keeping here on Earth. This direct, non-ambiguous spectroscopic reading is the "smoking gun" that proves the excess heat energy being trapped in our atmosphere is due to CO2. That excess CO2 is produced by humans burning fossil fuels.
We've also measured the Earth's infrared spectrum from space, looking down from satellites, to see which wavelengths of heat energy are being trapped by gases in the atmosphere, and which wavelengths are escaping. We started this in 1970 with the IRIS satellite, giving us a baseline to compare against future measurements. It was followed in 1996 with the Japanese IMG satellite, and again with the AIRS satellite in 2003, and the AURA satellite in 2004. They paint a very clear picture. We subtract new readings from the old readings to see the delta, to see exactly where in the spectrum any change has occurred. Within that infrared window defined by water vapor, there is one big spike. It is the 15 µm range of CO2. This is explicit, unambiguous proof that the increased heat in our atmosphere is due to CO2. It has nothing to do with models or predictions; it is a direct observation, it is hard chemistry and basic physics, not guesswork or extrapolation.
As we burn fossil fuels, the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the infrared window narrows, less heat radiates away from the Earth, and more heat goes into the Earth's system. These are simple, solid facts.
In this episode, I've tried to limit everything to just facts that are not in dispute. That means I haven't included any estimates or predictions. Why? Because I'm trying to take opinion and ideology-driven spin completely out of the picture. I don't have an answer or a solution for people who prefer to view this particular science question through the filter of an ideology. Earth science measurements and facts are ideology-free, just like astronomy and mathematics and zoology. The impact that human use of fossil fuels is measured to have already made to the Earth system is bewildering. It is from this point, from the non-ambiguous, factual, black-and-white characterization of our atmosphere and oceans, that we must ask ourselves whether any ideological twisting of the facts is truly the best path forward. We have to accurately understand a problem in order to devise a properly informed solution.
Please, if you have any curiosity about any of the topics we've just discussed, see the references section at the bottom of this transcript, where you'll find links to articles and videos that are both thorough and easy to understand. You can go into much greater depth if you're so inclined. What's important is what you choose to do with this information, and that part I will leave up to you.
bueno
In a class by himself
You seriously see it that way? Most climate scientists think Gore could keep his mouth shut because he exaggerates the problems and the effects. He is one of those politicians with no scientific expertise whatsoever that wants his carbon credits exchange company to make hm a bunch of money.
Are 99% of climate scientists falsifying data? No. But they are using a computer model that gives the same answer even when random data are inputted. Is that falsifying data?
Of course if you look at climate, ratios of water/land surfaces and atmospheric composition in the Carboniferous you had the same global temperature as today - with 800 ppm CO2 (NOAA data). Going from 280 to 300 ppm CO2? Yawn. If you want to worry about something, worry about the ocean warming and exsolving oxygen to the point where there is too much in the atmosphere for us to live. Stupid humans.
bueno
In a class by himself
Sea levels haven't risen enough to spur massive migrations - what nonsense. And guess what? If we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the temperature would still rise. We are in a warming trend. have been for 10,000 years, will be for a least another 50,000. Learn how to deal with it rather than trying to stop something you can't.
bueno
In a class by himself
Hey - no need to show graphs to monkeys with thumbs - they don't believe data they disagree with anyway.
joffer
Footballguy
very misleading statement. not nearly that simple.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
joffer
Footballguy
another misleading statement. the "warming trend" is much, much, MUCH faster with the addition of CO2. Natural ups/downs occur over 10s of thousands of years, not 100.
bueno
In a class by himself
Actually, they don't. In the past 3500 years, we have had the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period, the Medieval Warm Period and now the modern warm period (which still isn't quite as warm as the previous three mentioned. Previous warming trends show no correlation to atmospheric carbon dioxide.
bueno
In a class by himself
Of course it is not that simple, because NOAA data presents CO2 content for the entire Carboniferous. However, that article you linked also includes this statement: "Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ). What we are seeing today is an anomaly in geologic history. The earth is warming - it will continue to warm no matter what we do. Deal with it.
joffer
Footballguy
It's warming much, much faster because of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Deal with it.
joffer
Footballguy
http://xkcd.com/1732/
the medieval warming period was a drop in the bucket compared to the last 100 years. And it wasn't global.
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno
In a class by himself
Because some kid writing a master's thesis couldn't find it in tree rings in the southern hemisphere? That was one of the worst pieces of pseudo-science I have ever seen.
Oh wait - you're still dealing with cartoons rather than the original research. My bad.
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno
In a class by himself
Gr00vus
Footballguy
You're wrong and you've been wrong for years. Against the preponderance of evidence, provided to you over and over again in this very thread, you keep spouting nonsense that's been debunked many times over. Your opinions on this are uneducated and worthless.
Last edited by a moderator:
joffer
Footballguy
the sources of the data is right there on the side of the graphic.
we eagerly await your peer-reviewed paper on the subject. should be easy since it's so obvious.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove!
Footballguy
NOAA pause buster paper based on unsound "science"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
whistleblower comes forward
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
whistleblower comes forward
Not surprising. It will be interesting what the real data looks like. There is way too much politics in the global warming science. It is not too much different than in 1998 when the global warming community went off with cries of the acceleration of warming knowingly ignoring the fact we had just experienced one of the largest El Nino in history. But most on the left has no issues with these kind of lies since it helped accomplished their goal.
timschochet
Footballguy
When you find one leftist who is vocally troubled about this one tell me. Besides, I used 'most' in this case and it is in all likelihood an understatement.And you accuse me of over-generalizing? Get the #### out of here.
msommer
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Mario Kart
Footballguy
I didn't read it but I thought I saw a headline that Elon Musk, or someone doing a lot of research on it, will have a solar roof for houses that are much cheaper than a traditional roof. The labor will surely cost plenty but the roof should pay dividends if you have it. That will be awesome.
msommer
Footballguy
Prices already came out for two of the four types of tiles. Not cheaper than a traditional roof but cheaper than a traditional roof+solar panel+battery installation
Preordering has started and production should start in October
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Friendly reminder that a large majority of Evangelical Christians believe in talking snakes, virgins getting pregnant, all the world's animals fitting on to one boat and dead men coming back to life after 3 days.... but climate change is too far fetched for them to believe in.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
How is pointing out the Christian belief system, bigotry? Do you know the true definition of bigotry? Do you deny your belief in talking snakes, virgins getting pregnant, animals fitting on one boat, and a dead man rising after 3 days?jon_mx said:
You are mocking their beliefs and then grossly over-generalizing to be-little their opinion. Bashing Christians has no place in this thread and it was uncalled for.
Also, the fact is your assertion that a majority of Christians believe those things is just wrong. When polls give a couple of limited non-nuanced answers most will select they believe the Bible literally vs. not. But if a pollster would bother providing more nuanced alternatives, that number goes down to about 20-30 percent.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/creationism_poll_how_many_americans_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html
Let’s start with the number at the top. When Americans are asked whether “God (or some other intelligent force) was involved in any way with the origin of humans,” two-thirds say yes. But when they’re asked to choose among three versions of this divine role—“direct involvement by miraculously creating humans,” “direct involvement but through the ordinary laws of nature,” or “indirect involvement by creating the laws of nature which led to the emergence of humans”—only half choose the “direct involvement” version. And when these people are asked about their level of certainty, the percentage who say they’re “absolutely” or “very” certain about a direct role drops to 30. (The next option below “very certain” was “somewhat certain.” Saying you’re only somewhat certain is basically a way of saying you’re not certain.)
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
Are there people that really believe this? So much misinformation on the AGW (or MMCC or whatever acronym fits as the goal posts keep moving) side.
msommer
Footballguy
It takes equipment and infrastructure which all depreciates and requires land and plants to distribute the energy and labor to run the plants and maintain equipment. To produce more energy you need to increase the scale. None of which is essentially free.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
SO what you're saying is you don't really get what marginal costs are.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
No, what I'm saying is that I know first hand about the real costs of renewables. Those costs are not being accurately reported. How about your experience in the industry?
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
msommer
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
How is that related to climate change?
Obviously I'm elated that Tuvalo may no disappear under the waves as quickly as previously thought
ETA: It should be mentioned that growing landmass and higher elevation of landmass are not synonymous
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
Melting ice caps = higher sea levels. Climate change.
Tuvalu was asking for monetary help in dealing with their impending doom. Which is evidently still pending.
But, basically, I'm stuck at work on a Friday night and I'm bored. Thought the article was interesting and thought I'd throw it in here. Not a comment on climate change, but definitely a comment on how these countries are trying to use climate change to garner payola.
The_Man
Footballguy
Well that's it:
https://apnews.com/7fd1d533c53d46629c842d201145ab73
"Oceans absorb more than 90% of the excess heat from carbon pollution in the air, as well as much of the carbon dioxide itself. The seas warm more slowly than the air but trap the heat longer with bigger side effects — and the report links these waters with Earth’s snow and ice, called the cryosphere, because their futures are interconnected."
The oceans have reached the limit of what they can absorb.
