Climate Change

"COVID ≠ climate change"

means

"But it's different this time"

"But it wasn't real communism"
 
no fat chicks said:
You already got wrecked in this thread

The dots your dispshits connect to draw up this nonsense blows me away.

As I have stated repeatedly, people doing something shitty with something that science has shown to be true, does not invalidate the science.

"Omg globalists are using climate change to control us"

"That means climate change must be a hoax!"

Is this roughly correct?

@lilelvis @Super_Nintendo
Click to expand...
Lol
 
lilelvis said:
Sure man.
The government or a corporation funds scientists to prove a predetermined theory designed to meet an end. If they don’t, they don’t get anymore funding and if they find something other than what they were paid to find and speak out about it they get smeared by the media and shunned by the “consensus”.
Modern science. LOL
Click to expand...

So when scientists from Exxon determined that it was a real issue that was going to have very serious consequences, you think that's what Exxon wanted them to find?

Seriously man, you guys are such fucking rubes it's sad. Literally everything you believe on this subject is propaganda that was fed to you by the fossil fuels industry, you're just too stupid to see it.
 
boxingskills said:
Anything like the stats.

Click to expand...


https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ones-and-hurricanes-from-the-new-ipcc-report/

"Scientists cannot yet make claims with a high level of confidence about long-term trends in the frequency of all tropical cyclones."

From 2007 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-spm-1.pdf

"Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones"

<{vega}>
 
Voodoo_Child906 said:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ones-and-hurricanes-from-the-new-ipcc-report/

"Scientists cannot yet make claims with a high level of confidence about long-term trends in the frequency of all tropical cyclones."

From 2007 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-spm-1.pdf

"Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones"

<{vega}>
Click to expand...

It's a lot easier to reaffirm your views by just making up what you think the science says, rather than actually taking the time to learn what the science says.
 
dirtypablo said:
So when scientists from Exxon determined that it was a real issue that was going to have very serious consequences, you think that's what Exxon wanted them to find?

Seriously man, you guys are such fucking rubes it's sad. Literally everything you believe on this subject is propaganda that was fed to you by the fossil fuels industry, you're just too stupid to see it.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure the Koch brother's loved the fact that they funded Berkely Earth's Surface Temperature study and it actually confirmed the current temperature data. LOL

https://berkeleyearth.org/funders/

https://charleskochfoundation.org/n...t-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project/
 
Voodoo_Child906 said:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ones-and-hurricanes-from-the-new-ipcc-report/

"Scientists cannot yet make claims with a high level of confidence about long-term trends in the frequency of all tropical cyclones."

From 2007 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-spm-1.pdf

"Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones"

<{vega}>
Click to expand...
Leading hurricane expert Christopher Landsea's research paper on a warming climate/ocean did claim that a warming Atlantic basin would weaken the low atmospheric trough ,thus creating less storms on average The models also show this according to him. It was never published in the IPCC's Fourth assessment report because of a disagreement between the two. The paper excludes Typhoons and Cyclones, only Atlantic storms.
I'd read this was theorized before him in the past. There appears to be a goldilocks water temp for Atlantic storm creation.
I believe in 2012 , a few years after , I do remember. reading the IPCC stating that in a warming climate, the frequency of Atlantics storms will not increase and may even decrease.
 
So this story came up in my news feed the other day and I was like WTF! This can't really be a "green" alternative to coal. I've never heard of such a thing being used for energy on such a large scale so maybe some of our green aficionados can educate me.
In short Drax purchased a large area of forest in BC, which includes old growth forest. They said they wouldn't cut it down but they did apparently. Then had lots of excuses as to why they would cut down forest to make wood pellets to burn...
https://vancouversun.com/business/e...s-cutting-bc-primary-forests-for-wood-pellets
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-63123774
 
scouter said:
Leading hurricane expert Christopher Landsea's research paper on a warming climate/ocean did claim that a warming Atlantic basin would weaken the low atmospheric trough ,thus creating less storms on average The models also show this according to him. It was never published in the IPCC's Fourth assessment report because of a disagreement between the two. The paper excludes Typhoons and Cyclones, only Atlantic storms.
I'd read this was theorized before him in the past. There appears to be a goldilocks water temp for Atlantic storm creation.
I believe in 2012 , a few years after , I do remember. reading the IPCC stating that in a warming climate, the frequency of Atlantics storms will not increase and may even decrease.
Click to expand...

Ya, the variables and combinations involved in hurricane formation and power are complex. I have no idea how higher water surface temperature may effect vertical wind shears which are key to hurricane formation and all the other feedback loops present. Interesting topic though.
 
Last edited:
dirtypablo said:
So when scientists from Exxon determined that it was a real issue that was going to have very serious consequences, you think that's what Exxon wanted them to find?

Seriously man, you guys are such fucking rubes it's sad. Literally everything you believe on this subject is propaganda that was fed to you by the fossil fuels industry, you're just too stupid to see it.
Click to expand...

It's funny, so many of these guys salivate at the hint of a conspiracy in anything, now that they're faced with real evidence of a conspiracy in the energy industry #ExxonKnew, they just ignore it.
 
jimjamjammer said:
So this story came up in my news feed the other day and I was like WTF! This can't really be a "green" alternative to coal. I've never heard of such a thing being used for energy on such a large scale so maybe some of our green aficionados can educate me.
In short Drax purchased a large area of forest in BC, which includes old growth forest. They said they wouldn't cut it down but they did apparently. Then had lots of excuses as to why they would cut down forest to make wood pellets to burn...
https://vancouversun.com/business/e...s-cutting-bc-primary-forests-for-wood-pellets
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-63123774
Click to expand...

There are two separate issues here, cutting down old growth forests and using wood pellets as an energy source. Generally speaking, the logging industry tends to be sustainable/green because most trees that are cut down now are trees that were specifically planted to be cut down. I'm sure there are plenty of loggers cutting down old trees, but again, generally speaking the logging industry realized long ago if they don't re-plant the trees they are cutting down they would find themselves without any trees to cut down in a few decades. No idea whether or not this specific company was cutting down old growth forest, and even if they were, it seems unlikely that they were using that wood for wood pellets, for the reasons explained in that article - it doesn't really make economic sense to chop up good wood for pellets, because pellets sell for substantially less than wood used for lumber. Its like taking a million dollar diamond and smashing it into a power to be used on industrial abrasive tools - you're taking something worth $10 and turning it into something worth $1.

As far as using wood pellets as an energy source, here's an article on the subject. In short, no, they're not really 'green' in that they emit substantial amounts of greenhouse gases, but this company seems to be trying to cash in on green initiatives governments provide by claiming to be net zero because they're adding new trees. Longer term, perhaps if they were planting enough trees the could actually be net zero, but the short term I think they are going to be emitting substantial greenhouse gases, which is not what we need. In either case, a company trying to cash in on the issue and government funding for companies that claim net zero doesn't mean the whole issue is made up, its just people being people.

https://www.wired.com/story/how-green-are-wood-pellets-as-a-fuel-source/
 
Voodoo_Child906 said:
Ya, the variables and combinations involved in hurricane formation and power are a complex. I have no idea how higher water surface temperature may effect vertical wind shears which are key to hurricane formation and all the other feedback loops present. Interesting topic though.
Click to expand...

Its why scientific consensus is important, especially with regards to highly complex problems, like hurricane formation. These guys scoff at it as if its a bad thing, when in reality that is the only way you can figure out complex systems. I could do a study on a particular problem that says one thing, you do another that says something completely different. But if 100 teams do studies, each with different methodologies and 85 of them come to similar conclusions, there is a good chance they're at least pointed in the right direction. Of course these guys don't get that, and just assume it means that one scientist claims to have figured something out, and everyone else just blindly agrees with him.
 
dirtypablo said:
Its why scientific consensus is important, especially with regards to highly complex problems, like hurricane formation. These guys scoff at it as if its a bad thing, when in reality that is the only way you can figure out complex systems. I could do a study on a particular problem that says one thing, you do another that says something completely different. But if 100 teams do studies, each with different methodologies and 85 of them come to similar conclusions, there is a good chance they're at least pointed in the right direction. Of course these guys don't get that, and just assume it means that one scientist claims to have figured something out, and everyone else just blindly agrees with him.
Click to expand...
What are you saying, that the IPCC is wrong ? I doubt they were only basing their statement on Landsea's one paper? That was 6-7 years after.
 
Last edited:
scouter said:
What are you saying, that the IPCC is wrong ? I doubt they were only basing their statement on Landsea's one paper? That was 6-7 years after.
Click to expand...

I'm confused, where are you getting that? As voodoo noted earlier, the IPCC hasn't made a definitive statement on how climate change will effect the frequency of hurricanes - the consensus is that we don't know.

I was mentioned hurricanes but was referring to the subject in general. Read through this thread or listen to climate change deniers and a common theme is the dismissal of scientific consensus, as if it's unscientific to have a consensus on a topic. I think that when many people say that, it's because they don't really understand how that consensus came about - it wasn't one study that everyone decided to agree with, it's a mountain of research all pointing in the same direction.


Edit - I re read my post and could see how it sounds like I was referring specifically to hurricanes, implying that we have a consensus there - we don't. I just meant that with any complex system, you can't really say you understand it unless there is a consensus based on a broad set of research.
 
scouter said:
What are you saying, that the IPCC is wrong ? Were they only basing their statement on Landsea's one paper?
Click to expand...
dirtypablo said:
I'm confused, where are you getting that? As voodoo noted earlier, the IPCC hasn't made a definitive statement on how climate change will effect the frequency of hurricanes - the consensus is that we don't know.

I was mentioned hurricanes but was referring to the subject in general. Read through this thread or listen to climate change deniers and a common theme is the dismissal of scientific consensus, as if it's unscientific to have a consensus on a topic. I think that when many people say that, it's because they don't really understand how that consensus came about - it wasn't one study that everyone decided to agree with, it's a mountain of research all pointing in the same direction.


Edit - I re read my post and could see how it sounds like I was referring specifically to hurricanes, implying that we have a consensus there - we don't. I just meant that with any complex system, you can't really say you understand it unless there is a consensus based on a broad set of research.
Click to expand...

I was passing on info. regarding Landsea's paper, what was theorized before him by experts, and what I'd read the IPCC stated a few years after. I'm 100% sure on what I read from them. Is that still their stance today? Not sure.
Is Landsea, others before him, and the IPCC's statement I'd read from them in 2012 correct? I don't know, Maybe.

Was the "These guys" a dig at me? Lol. I can assure u I'm no climate change denier or skeptic. Well , I guess it's possible I'd be considered a skeptic to some if I do not believe 100% of warming since 1850 is attributed to man.
 
scouter said:
I was passing on info. regarding Landsea's paper, what was theorized before him by experts, and what I'd read the IPCC stated a few years after. I'm 100% sure on what I read from them. Is that still their stance today? Not sure.
Is Landsea, others before him, and the IPCC's statement I'd read from them in 2012 correct? I don't know, Maybe.

Was the "These guys" a dig at me? Lol. I can assure u I'm no climate change denier or skeptic. Well , I guess it's possible I'd be considered a skeptic to some if I do not believe 100% of warming since 1850 is attributed to man.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to you at all when I made that post - there's a few regular posters in this thread on both sides of the spectrum, I was referring to the guys who are consistently posting from what I would call climate change denial standpoint - some combination of denying that its happening, that we're causing it, and that its a big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chardog
Crime More Climate Change Shenanigans
2
Replies
33
Views
886
Stump
Stump

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,994
Messages
55,460,023
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top