Climate Change Denial

[eevee-fan]

Admitting what? 0 point.

You're either trying to be funny or have severe Alzheimer, go see a doctor. LOL

 

[nwdiver]

Bureaucrats are by far more of a burden than a benefit to society. A primary example is the enforcement of our convoluted income tax law. Enormous time and resources are spent to comply with the thousands of rules. And many of those rules are subject to interpretation. Bureaucrats will target people they don't like politically, look through their taxes and see if the taxpayer took a proper write-off or not. This is highly unproductive, but this what happens when the statists get in charge. Bureaucrats harass Americans they don't like. And that is why I don't like bureaucrats!

???? So you don't think we should have nuclear power, $1/w solar, Teslas or Fracking? .... and you miss Small Pox?

You.... you realize that 'not liking' something doesn't mean it isn't necessary...... right?

 

[Norbert]

This fossil fuel age we are living in is just a mere infinitesimal increment of time compared to the paleoclimate time scale.

So? How is that a response to anything anyone has said? That sounds like the "we will die anyway" attitude I was talking about.

 

[MitchP85D]

So he can out debate a Mechanical Engineer, great job, LOL!

BTW, he agreed that a 2 degree rise would be a big concern... we surpassed 1 degree already and it's accelerating.

Dr. Lindzen has also debated Dr. Lawrence Krauss. Check out 37:30.

The human effect is small, and is not a big concern.

 

[nwdiver]

The human effect is small, and is not a big concern.

??? A > 40% increase in CO2 levels is 'small' ???? What do you define as large?

 

[Norbert]

Here is a brief little debate between Dr. Richard Lindzen and your hero, Bill Nye the "science guy" back in 2007. This is why not too many global warming zealots want to debate Lindzen.

Total waste of time. Lindzen merely deflected from the fact that he is in a vast minority among scientists. Were I to judge based on that video, by mere personal impression, it would be that his only intent is to distract.

 

[MitchP85D]

So? How is that a response to anything anyone has said? That sounds like the "we will die anyway" attitude I was talking about.

Well, we are all going to die. But in the meantime, let's not do something that will economically disrupt the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the western countries. China and India sure as shoot won't abide by any carbon restrictions.

 

[MitchP85D]

??? A > 40% increase in CO2 levels is 'small' ???? What do you define as large?

Are you assuming all of that is human? That is an awfully big assumption if you are.

 

[nwdiver]

let's not do something that will economically disrupt the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the western countries.

.... how economically disruptive do you think these large scale shifts in weather patterns are? Our society isn't adapted to a world where CO2 is >400ppm.

 

[nwdiver]

Are you assuming all of that is human? That is an awfully big assumption if you are.

.... It is because math. We've added ~2x more CO2 to the atmosphere than would be required for that rise. If it's not anthropogenic you have two questions to answer. Were did the 2,000B tons we've added go?... and where did the ~1,000B tons responsible for the 40% increase in CO2 come from?

No assumptions... just math.

..... these are basic BASIC questions that have answers;;;; Explain something to me..... how did you form an opinion on a topic that's you're clearly incredibly.... INCREDIBLY ignorant of? Seems that you found a conclusion that you wanted and you're just collecting bits of nonsense that reinforce this view.....

 

[MitchP85D]

Total waste of time. Lindzen merely deflected from the fact that he is in a vast minority among scientists. Were I to judge based on that video, by mere personal impression, it would be that his only intent is to distract.

You call it a waste of time because you don't like to hear the hard cold realism from one of the most knowledgeable atmospheric scientists in the world.

 

[Norbert]

Well, we are all going to die. But in the meantime, let's not do something that will economically disrupt the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the western countries. China and India sure as shoot won't abide by any carbon restrictions.

There it is. Just find someone to blame....and leave it to the next generation.

 

[eevee-fan]

There it is. Just find someone to blame....and leave it to the next generation.

Yep, just like that SNL visit, sadly so true.

 

[MitchP85D]

.... how economically disruptive do you think these large scale shifts in weather patterns are? Our society isn't adapted to a world where CO2 is >400ppm.

You must have a highly overactive imagination if you think the presence of humans causes large scale weather pattern shifts.

 

[MitchP85D]

There it is. Just find someone to blame....and leave it to the next generation.

The next generation will not be concerned about global warming because they will be living in a multidecadal cooling cycle.

 

[nwdiver]

You must have a highly overactive imagination if you think the presence of humans causes large scale weather pattern shifts.

.... increasing CO2 by 40% will change weather patterns. It's adding ~2E22J/yr of thermal energy... how could it not?

 

[MitchP85D]

.... increasing CO2 by 40% will change weather patterns. It's adding ~2E22J/yr of thermal energy... how could it not?

You are still making that faulty assumption.

 

[Norbert]

The next generation will not be concerned about global warming because they will be living in a multidecadal cooling cycle.

I was expecting that sentence to end with: they will be living in a multidecadal fairy tale...

 

[nwdiver]

You are still making that faulty assumption.

What part of that is an assumption? CO2 levels are 40% higher. Math. 40% more CO2 results in an increase of radiative forcing of 1.5w/m^2 which is ~2E22J/yr. Which of that is an 'assumption'?

Straight up math and physics. ..... these are basic BASIC questions that have answers;;;; Explain something to me..... how did you form an opinion on a topic that's you're clearly incredibly.... INCREDIBLY ignorant of? Seems that you found a conclusion that you wanted and you're just collecting bits of nonsense that reinforce this view.....

 

[MitchP85D]

???? So you don't think we should have nuclear power, $1/w solar, Teslas or Fracking? .... and you miss Small Pox?

You.... you realize that 'not liking' something doesn't mean it isn't necessary...... right?

Those things you mentioned have very little, if any to do with bureaucrats.