Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
wanna-b-fanboy

The Anthropogenic Climate Change Thread

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, JCon said:

There are lots of things we can do to address our waste and I would start there.

Incremental changes to farming are necessary and I hope they can be done without killing off the last of the family farms or affecting the supply chain. Ultimately, I think we're going to rely more on legumes for our diet in the future and meat will be produced in labs. It's not terribly appealing, I know, but we'll get over it. It's not about eliminating meat but reducing our reliance on it and the environmental impact. 

Agreed. Anything that is not legitimate needs to be ruthlessly eliminated.  

Eg. recycling programs that don't really recycle; 'organic' food imported from Asia; Electric cars in areas where electricity is generated from coal; etc. etc.

Things that look good on the surface but really accomplish nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark F said:

 Also, in Asia, growing vegetables in factories. a lot of vegetables.

Here, greenhouses have a hard time finding workers.  In fact, the local greenhouse in Petersfield relies mostly on immigrants and refugees.

That mentality needs to change - or it won't matter how many programs we come up with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Indoor vertical farming is often derided as a pipe dream and completely infeasible on a commercial scale, but Shigeharu Shimamura's farm proves that indoor farming is not only possible, but profitable. Shimamura started Mirai, an indoor farming company in 2004. When the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami devastated Japan, sparking the Fukushima nuclear disaster and causing food shortages, Shimamura seized the opportunity to turn an abandoned, semiconductor factory into what is now the world's biggest indoor farm.

At 25,000 square feet, the farm can yield up to 10,000 heads of lettuce a day"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, pigseye said:

• Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/2/the-overblown-and-misleading-issue-of-global-warmi/

 

WHy do you value his opinion over other scientists? What makes him special?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

WHy do you value his opinion over other scientists? What makes him special?

Mainly because Tsonis is not an independent researcher at all, he's a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation which is linked by donations from the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), which takes funding from fossil fuel companies and has argued against climate change mitigation for more than a decade.   Tough to get rich as a climate scientist, shilling for oil companies helps put bread in the pockets and pork on the table....but I guess Pigseye wouldn't know anything about that agenda. 

I figured out the connections in under 3 mins., do you honestly believe you will deceive people into accepting the articles you provide as evidence when they are presented by paid researchers working on behalf of special interest groups?  Do you actually believe your own **** or are you just putting us on like KBF?

Edited by Throw Long Bannatyne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

figured out the connections in under 3 mins., do you honestly believe you will deceive people into accepting the articles you provide as evidence when they are presented by paid researchers working on behalf of special interest groups?  Do you actually believe your own **** or are you just putting us on like KBF?

Thanks. Took me three minutes too. 

This scientist he cites,  recently said/wrote that  the world is going into a cold phase. 

The planet just had the four hottest years since record keeping began. 

 Pigseye contributes less than nothing.

problem is, somebody might think he knows something.

 

Edited by Mark F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Mainly because Tsonis is not an independent researcher at all, he's a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation which is linked by donations from the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), which takes funding from fossil fuel companies and has argued against climate change mitigation for more than a decade.   Tough to get rich as a climate scientist, shilling for oil companies helps put bread in the pockets and pork on the table....but I guess Pigseye wouldn't know anything about that agenda. 

I figured out the connections in under 3 mins., do you honestly believe you will deceive people into accepting the articles you provide as evidence when they are presented by paid researchers working on behalf of special interest groups?  Do you actually believe your own **** or are you just putting us on like KBF?

So you would throw out his entire body of work because he joined the other side? 

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/38936282_Anastasios_A_Tsonis

I only posted the article because he reminds people of what science is supposed to be, what you can prove or disprove, not what you believe. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pigseye said:

I only posted the article because he reminds people of what science is supposed to be, what you can prove or disprove, not what you believe. 

 

Well, well - that tired old argument.

Do you believe in evolution? Because according to that logic, you shouldn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Well, well - that tired old argument.

Do you believe in evolution? Because according to that logic, you shouldn’t. 

You know the answer but I will refresh your memory anyways.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

Back to the funding issue, who is funding all those private jets that landed in Davos recently?

You can't be so naive to not see what this all about, can you? A trillion dollar industry making millionaires out people on both sides of the argument, governments and politicians using it as an election issue. It's all about power, literally, and he who controls it controls society. Wake up already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Well, well - that tired old argument.

Do you believe in evolution? Because according to that logic, you shouldn’t. 

Check out the American museum of natural history in New York sometime. 589 million years ago, life began on earth. Three and a half billion years Earth is a life-less rock like Mars, and then boom! Life begins. How? Why? No one has answered these questions.  Evolution can tell us how we got here, but it can't answer why we are here.

I'm not sure why evolution and the man-made climate change hypothesis always get mentioned together. Makes no sense to me, other than certain people like to make fun of others' religious beliefs, which just serves to further the divide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pigseye said:

You know the answer but I will refresh your memory anyways.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

Back to the funding issue, who is funding all those private jets that landed in Davos recently?

You can't be so naive to not see what this all about, can you? A trillion dollar industry making millionaires out people on both sides of the argument, governments and politicians using it as an election issue. It's all about power, literally, and he who controls it controls society. Wake up already. 

Ok Morpheus, open my eyes- what is it all about? 

"subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously." 

Refinement... not doing a 180 and suddenly subscribing to the fact "Oh, snap Gravity is not real- it's pixie dust and magic that keep us from flinging out into space."

 

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I'm not sure why evolution and the man-made climate change hypothesis always get mentioned together. Makes no sense to me, other than certain people like to make fun of others' religious beliefs, which just serves to further the divide.

I no one mentioned anything about the Bible or Adam and Eve. Just that there is no scientific consensus about evolution yet- it is a pretty rock solid- hence the comparison.

 

Also, you lament the furthering of the divide- yet you share Mark Shouldice videos. That kinda undermines the sincerity of your desire not to further the divide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Ok Morpheus, open my eyes- what is it all about? 

"subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously." 

Refinement... not doing a 180 and suddenly subscribing to the fact "Oh, snap Gravity is not real- it's pixie dust and magic that keep us from flinging out into space."

 

I no one mentioned anything about the Bible or Adam and Eve. Just that there is no scientific consensus about evolution yet- it is a pretty rock solid- hence the comparison.

 

Also, you lament the furthering of the divide- yet you share Mark Shouldice videos. That kinda undermines the sincerity of your desire not to further the divide. 

Just follow the money w-b-f

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-solar/clean-energy-sector-swings-republican-with-u-s-campaign-donations-idUSKBN1I31DZ

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, pigseye said:

SOrry- I need a road map, would you be so kind as providing me with a roadmap please?

In your own words please and not some ambiguous statement followed by a quote with zero explanation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Check out the American museum of natural history in New York sometime. 589 million years ago, life began on earth. Three and a half billion years Earth is a life-less rock like Mars, and then boom! Life begins. How? Why? No one has answered these questions.  Evolution can tell us how we got here, but it can't answer why we are here.

I'm not sure why evolution and the man-made climate change hypothesis always get mentioned together. Makes no sense to me, other than certain people like to make fun of others' religious beliefs, which just serves to further the divide.

They got mentioned together because neither of them should be rejected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

Also, you lament the furthering of the divide- yet you share Mark Shouldice videos. That kinda undermines the sincerity of your desire not to further the divide. 

You really need to let this go. I realize that you want to further the divide and throat punch people who disagree with you but you are looking like an obsessive compulsive here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Fair enough. Not sure who is rejecting evolution?

He is drawing a parallel between the science of Global warming and the science of evolution- the fact that both hold the same degree of scientific support yet only one is constantly being questioned 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Fair enough. Not sure who is rejecting evolution?

Denying climate change is the same thing.  In both cases, one can make arguments that they are inconclusive - because they both are.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

He is drawing a parallel between the science of Global warming and the science of evolution- the fact that both hold the same degree of scientific support yet only one is constantly being questioned 

Do they both hold the same degree of scientific support? How would you measure such a thing? Evolution has been studied for 150 years. The man-made climate change idea has really only been a "thing" since Hansen started babbling about it in the 1980's. To say the amount of scientific support is "the same" seems incredibly disingenuous, purposely so in fact.

To me the two theories are completely different because only one (man made climate change) can be used by politicians to control and re-distribute wealth. No one is advocating for an "evolution" tax, but politicians are sure trying to bilk people out of their hard-earned cash for the man-made climate change theory, a theory that is far from proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×