Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2017, 04:06 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(16-05-2017 03:24 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Mann says that sucking the carbon out of the atmosphere is the best geoengineering possibility. It would cost $500 per ton, but costs would come down with an economy of scale.

It's really that cheap? I'm surprised. Although I don't see anyone being willing to do that anyway.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
16-05-2017, 08:00 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(16-05-2017 04:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(16-05-2017 03:24 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Mann says that sucking the carbon out of the atmosphere is the best geoengineering possibility. It would cost $500 per ton, but costs would come down with an economy of scale.

It's really that cheap? I'm surprised. Although I don't see anyone being willing to do that anyway.

I don't know any more so far than what I read in that one book. I have a copy of Bill Nye's Unstoppable about applying technological solutions to climate change, but haven't read it yet. If I get to it soon, I will let you know what I find out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2017, 09:14 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(02-05-2017 08:27 AM)morondog Wrote:  For fucks sake you idiot, post links to studies or something. Just throwing shit to see what sticks isn't anything to do with science.

Thanks for the reply.

You want to ignore 60 years of science fraud (confirmation bias for delicate ears) with respect to the lipid/heart hypothesis which is still being promoted by government scientists and applauded by Big Food and Big Pharma. And that fraud, saturated animal fat fear mongering, is still going on. Jesus Christ!

And all perfectly dandy for 97% of this site’s members.

Which of the 50,000 peer reviewed nutrition studies, confirming that hypothesis, would you like me to link?

And now thinking atheists give more credibility to Michael Mann and Bill Nye than to Michael Crichton and William Happer. Good God.

But of course, I am the idiot. That is just great. And too damn funny. Use that skeptical brain which God bestowed on you. I always wonder how skepticism can be so easily switched on (the supernatural, nutrition science) and off (climate science). How do you do that?

Science fails when adopting a creed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Walter's post
16-05-2017, 09:18 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(16-05-2017 09:14 AM)Walter Wrote:  
(02-05-2017 08:27 AM)morondog Wrote:  For fucks sake you idiot, post links to studies or something. Just throwing shit to see what sticks isn't anything to do with science.

Thanks for the reply.

You want to ignore 60 years of science fraud (confirmation bias for delicate ears) with respect to the lipid/heart hypothesis which is still being promoted by government scientists and applauded by Big Food and Big Pharma. And that fraud, saturated animal fat fear mongering, is still going on. Jesus Christ!

And all perfectly dandy for 97% of this site’s members.

Which of the 50,000 peer reviewed nutrition studies, confirming that hypothesis, would you like me to link?

And now thinking atheists give more credibility to Michael Mann and Bill Nye than to Michael Crichton and William Happer. Good God.

But of course, I am the idiot. That is just great. And too damn funny. Use that skeptical brain which God bestowed on you. I always wonder how skepticism can be so easily switched on (the supernatural, nutrition science) and off (climate science). How do you do that?

Science fails when adopting a creed.

You posted no evidence for your shit, you again posted no evidence but chose to waffle about a separate topic. If you're gonna claim something ONE REFERENCE is a start. You fucking idiot.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
16-05-2017, 09:21 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(16-05-2017 04:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(16-05-2017 03:24 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Mann says that sucking the carbon out of the atmosphere is the best geoengineering possibility. It would cost $500 per ton, but costs would come down with an economy of scale.

It's really that cheap? I'm surprised. Although I don't see anyone being willing to do that anyway.

I think this is one of the next big investment opportunities. Carbon capture and sequestration, along with flood mitigation, genetically-engineered crops that can survive flood and drought, and the development of vaccines against spreading tropical diseases.

Private security will probably be big too. Conflicts exacerbated by climate change are going to cause huge migrations of people from affected areas to arable land. It's already started: the conflict in Syria was likely sparked by an ongoing drought. Source: Global warming contributed to Syria's 2011 uprising, scientists claim

If you think the immigration and refugee problem is bad now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
16-05-2017, 10:14 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(16-05-2017 09:14 AM)Walter Wrote:  And now thinking atheists give more credibility to Michael Mann and Bill Nye than to Michael Crichton and William Happer.

You are jumping to conclusions again. Michael Mann is a creditable climatologist of course, and his books are footnoted to relevant research.

I know very little about Bill Nye except that he teaches science in the most general ways to TV audiences. Since I haven't read his book, I don't know what to think of him yet. If I don't find him creditable, I will find some other book on applying technological solutions to the problems of climate change. It may only be a start for me, since I read a lot.

Crichton is a fiction writer. About Happer:

"Happer’s record of getting scientific papers published in leading journals on climate change science is at, or very close to, zero. Simply, he knows a lot about some stuff, but he is not a climate scientist. While he has a distinguished career as an atomic physicist, previously serving the administration of George HW Bush as a science director, the 77-year-old’s views on climate science are outnumbered by all the credible evidence, all the credible science agencies and are also being laughed at by the Earth’s thermometers and its melting ice sheets and glaciers."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...-theorists
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
16-05-2017, 10:49 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
Crichton's not only a fiction writer, his book State of Fear was a poor re-hash of Heritage Foundation talking points that have been refuted by every climate scientist who had to sit there in front of Congress and listen to some politician tell the scientist about science.

If you'd like to know what's wrong with Crichton's work, the Union of Concerned Scientists of America did a good piece on it:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sol...te-of.html

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
16-05-2017, 11:06 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(16-05-2017 10:49 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  If you'd like to know what's wrong with Crichton's work, the Union of Concerned Scientists of America did a good piece on it:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sol...te-of.html

Thanks for the link. That article was very interesting.

This is exactly why no one should depend on amateurs and non-specialists for their science. The temptation to cherry-pick and misinterpret is obviously too great for them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thoreauvian's post
16-05-2017, 12:26 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(16-05-2017 11:06 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  This is exactly why no one should depend on amateurs and non-specialists for their science. The temptation to cherry-pick and misinterpret is obviously too great for them.

No doubt our gifted student Walter will have an explanation for why he brought up this guy?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
16-05-2017, 02:39 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(16-05-2017 12:26 PM)morondog Wrote:  No doubt our gifted student Walter will have an explanation for why he brought up this guy?

Walter reminds me of the theists with whom I have argued for so many years. They told me again and again that I was "obviously wrong" but had a hard time pointing out why.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: