- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Veritasium's 13 Misconceptions on Global Warming...
Posted on 9/23/14 at 10:39 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 9/23/14 at 10:39 am to NC_Tigah
That's not really a good analogy. The earths atmosphere is much larger than than in prospective. It would be more like put a couple hundred people in the super dome. The temperature will not move.
0
Posted on 9/23/14 at 10:42 am to Tigah in the ATL
I just know that a lot of the advocates of the theory have an underlying political agenda. And are not trying to advocate changes to the US economy and standard of living for noble reasons.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 10:48 am to Iosh
quote:Exxxcellent!
Fossil fuels are cheap because they treat the atmosphere as a free lunch. If carbon emissions were priced then nuclear would be cheaper and private rail would be a thing. (This would be doubly true if nuclear weren't ridiculously over-regulated
Posted on 9/23/14 at 10:52 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 9/23/14 at 11:06 am to Cruiserhog
FWIW, trees don't do much in the long term for CO2 mitigation.
When they die they return most of the carbon they trapped in their tissues from CO2 as CO2.
When they die they return most of the carbon they trapped in their tissues from CO2 as CO2.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 11:08 am to Iosh
So let's get this straight:
Fukushima was "overregulated" and "a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls."
Iosh, it's time you pull into the gas station and ask directions.
Fukushima was "overregulated" and "a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls."
Iosh, it's time you pull into the gas station and ask directions.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 11:19 am to Iosh
quote:Hmmm....
Orbital forcing is the trigger. CO2 is the feedback.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 11:24 am to Iosh
quote:
"damn the atmosphere if I have to pay one more red cent" religiosity behind them.
I can't and am not going to try and speak for all conservatives but I don't want to pay one more damn cent to save the planet when the science can't demonstrate that there is a major problem. All the models are inaccurate to say the least and being revised. Will the taxes be revised and will I be issued a tax refund or a refund for my carbon credits if the actual warming is not as predicted? I don't think so.
quote:
Fossil fuels are cheap because they treat the atmosphere as a free lunch. If carbon emissions were priced then nuclear would be cheaper and private rail would be a thing.
So if I follow you correctly, you want to deregulate one industry and the increase regulate another? Fossil fuels are cheap because they are abundant and simple to use. It does not take a physics degree to run a natural gas or coal plant like it does a nuclear. I would love it they deregulated and increased nuclear but the ideas that a climate friendly gov would deregulate is laughable.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 11:24 am to Iosh
quote:
I just wish all the conservatives here would be this honest instead of playing at science.
Yea. No democrats *cough*formvervp*cough* would do anything like that. It's just the conservatives... quote:You can't figure it out? Really? When all of the "solutions" align PERFECTLY and without exception to a political party's agenda...
It's really a mystery to me how this has become a core tenet of conservatism with regard to carbon dioxide
quote:False. Fossil fuels are cheap because they are abundant, and they provide some of the greatest energy density per mass and volume in all of nature in an easily liberated from. As far as I know I've never seen anyone advocate for fossil fuels because they generate CO2 and pollutants.
Fossil fuels are cheap because they treat the atmosphere as a free lunch.
quote:You sure about that? Why would you expect me to pay for both my and your share of the cost of global warming? I'm not turning off the AC so you can burn more gas, frick that.
"damn the atmosphere if I have to pay one more red cent" religiosity behind them.
quote:FIFY
If carbon emissions were priced then nuclear would be cheaper and private rail would be a malinvestment.
This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 11:31 am
Posted on 9/23/14 at 11:49 am to WeeWee
quote:
it doesn't matter if climate change is manmade or not. Until there is a better solution than cap and trade or increased regulations that make electricity and fuel more expensive you will not persuade me.
I would add to it that until India, China and Russia move toward fixing their pollution issues then anything we do is futile.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 12:06 pm to NC_Tigah
Fukushima was the worst nuclear industry accident in 25 years and the radiation death toll was zero. UNSCEAR puts the long-term death toll from cancer and birth defects at... zero. Given the alacrity with which you scrambled to Google for an examiner.com image purporting to show "radiation" (demarcated in centimeters, as you do) I'm sure you'll respond with some contradictory figures trawled from a junk science study from Greenpeace or RPHP. But on the other hand: no.
Meanwhile, how's the fossil fuel industry done since then? Well, the Soma coal explosion in Turkey killed 300 people, the Kaohsiung gas explosions in Taiwan killed another 30, the Megantic oil derailment in Quebec is good for another 47, the Sukhodilsk explosion is another 26, Bazhanov is 11, Chinese coal hoo boy let's add another 2,309 just for '12 and '13 (not counting post-Fukushima '11 or '14 to date) and this is just the industrial accidents. I'm not even counting the epidemiology, which is about 13,000 a year in deaths from particulate emissions in the US alone (mostly expressed through lung cancer rates) and in China... welp
Meanwhile, how's the fossil fuel industry done since then? Well, the Soma coal explosion in Turkey killed 300 people, the Kaohsiung gas explosions in Taiwan killed another 30, the Megantic oil derailment in Quebec is good for another 47, the Sukhodilsk explosion is another 26, Bazhanov is 11, Chinese coal hoo boy let's add another 2,309 just for '12 and '13 (not counting post-Fukushima '11 or '14 to date) and this is just the industrial accidents. I'm not even counting the epidemiology, which is about 13,000 a year in deaths from particulate emissions in the US alone (mostly expressed through lung cancer rates) and in China... welp
This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 9/23/14 at 12:19 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:Republicans aren't offering any solutions. They've taken themselves out of the solutions game by insisting the problem doesn't exist. It's a shame, because if they did, then nuclear would have a natural constituency to counter the green lobby. But it's also mystifying. Republicans weren't ideologically opposed to cap-and-trade for sulfates. Nor are they ideologically opposed to Pigovian taxes (unless Milt Friedman and Art Laffer are now socialists).
Really? When all of the "solutions" align PERFECTLY and without exception to a political party's agenda...
Just because I criticize both sides of the issue doesn't obligate me to criticize both sides equally, or include some disclaimer of "and AlGore/Tuba are dumb too" in every single post I make (particularly when I entered this thread shitting on a pro-AGW video). Democrats propose dumb solutions and oversimplify the problem, but they acknowledge a problem exists. Republicans are MIA on the entire issue. Conservatives will speak up on a rare occasion (see Art Laffer, Bob Inglis, Greg Mankiw, etc). But they are exceptions and no one listens; AGW denial appears to be a quid pro quo for political influence. Which is why it's difficult for me to find less cynical explanation than the Occam's Razor of capture by fossil fuel interests.
This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 9/23/14 at 12:43 pm to Iosh
quote:Silly.
the radiation death toll was zero.
Current predictions are the radiation released will cause ~130 cancer-related deaths (up to 1100).
quote:First Fukushima image that came up. Would have preferred a cartoon considering what I was responding to. Nothing more. Nothing less. Simple response to a thoroughly ridiculous post.
Given the alacrity with which you scrambled to Google for an examiner.com
quote:Yep. What could go wrong loading those folks up with Nuclear Plants.
the Sukhodilsk explosion is another 26
Brilliant!
Posted on 9/23/14 at 12:48 pm to Iosh
quote:
Republicans aren't offering any solutions. They've taken themselves out of the solutions game by insisting the problem doesn't exist. It's a shame, because if they did, then nuclear would have a natural constituency to counter the green lobby. But it's also mystifying. Republicans weren't ideologically opposed to cap-and-trade for sulfates. Nor are they ideologically opposed to Pigovian taxes (unless Milt Friedman and Art Laffer are now socialists).
I don't think everyone is ideologically opposed to these types of programs (though some are) I just think most conservatives rightfully don't trust our governing bodies to do more than enrich their cronies and use it as a fulcrum to institute much more control over the market than necessary.
My current thinking, given the sensationalized and ultimately inaccurate impact analysis, is that we have enough time for disruptive technologies to replace fossil fuels (at least partially). Honestly, that's what everyone wants regardless of political affiliation.
Obviously I agree with you that our lack of nuclear power is disgusting. How about instead of cap and trade we spend 100 billion on new nuke plants across the country.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 1:01 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:Because the cow farts and windmills party is more opposed to them than they are to coal. Even if Iosh's contentions regarding relative hazards of Nuclear Energy are understated, it is still a reasonable pursuit. Our lack of nuc plant construction is inexcusable, if for no other reason than decreased dependence on ME oil. Our deemphasis of NatGas utility is what I find most pathetic though.
How about instead of cap and trade we spend 100 billion on new nuke plants across the country.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 1:08 pm to NC_Tigah
What Obama is advocating should be obvious. He said that electricity rates would necessarily have to skyrocket. His words.
So, no coal. No natural gas. No fuel oil. No nuclear.
His supporters don't like wind because of the windmills being so unsightly. They don't like dams , so much for hydroelectricity. Huge solar farms take up too much room and fry birds, so that's out.
There isn't much left. Barack just wants to raise taxes, that is his answer to everything. I guess he wants us sitting in the dark, starving because we can't pollute the air producing and moving goods.
Barack Obama wants to kill us all. That would be the Dem talking points if he was a Republican.
So, no coal. No natural gas. No fuel oil. No nuclear.
His supporters don't like wind because of the windmills being so unsightly. They don't like dams , so much for hydroelectricity. Huge solar farms take up too much room and fry birds, so that's out.
There isn't much left. Barack just wants to raise taxes, that is his answer to everything. I guess he wants us sitting in the dark, starving because we can't pollute the air producing and moving goods.
Barack Obama wants to kill us all. That would be the Dem talking points if he was a Republican.
This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 9/23/14 at 1:28 pm to Cruiserhog
Climate Change proponent on the video believes the climate change won't necessarily warm everyone up, but it will lead to more droughts, severe storms, acid oceans, etc.
Could climate change be better for some and not for others? I'd think so.
The Earth has experienced this phenomena before, and will surely experience it again. Wouldn't we have to adapt to those changes? We surely couldn't prevent the changing in the Earth's orbit.
I watched the video, and it all seems so simple, but the guy admits their past analysis were wrong. The Earth's climate didn't behave as the scientists thought it would.
But he says they have a better grasp of things now and they know what is going to happen.
I'm sorry, he didn't convince me of that.
Could climate change be better for some and not for others? I'd think so.
The Earth has experienced this phenomena before, and will surely experience it again. Wouldn't we have to adapt to those changes? We surely couldn't prevent the changing in the Earth's orbit.
I watched the video, and it all seems so simple, but the guy admits their past analysis were wrong. The Earth's climate didn't behave as the scientists thought it would.
But he says they have a better grasp of things now and they know what is going to happen.
I'm sorry, he didn't convince me of that.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 1:29 pm to a want
quote:
It is unanimously agreed upon that carbon (including carbon dioxide) "traps heat" or it prevents heat from escaping the atmosphere. Again, these two points are not debatable. There is more CO2 in atmosphere 2.
1. What percentage of the air is composed of carbon vis-a-vis the percentage of the air composed of carbon dioxide? They are not the same thing yet you use them as if they were interchangeable.
2. CO 2 emissions have gone up in the last 20 years. There been no warming in those 20 years. Why not?
3. Why were scientists with evidence that GW is not happening not allowed to present at Kyoto and Montreal?
4. What evidence is there of GW negative impacts beyond science fiction like speculation and assertion?
GW is a stinking pile of fake crap. It has never been true.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 2:05 pm to Iosh
quote:Why spend effort solving seemingly insignificant problems? Even in terms of envrionment... AGW is only a small concern. We should be FAR more concerned with groundwater pollution, airborne particulates, solid waste disposal (keeping that isht out of our oceans and waterways) and ground level ozone just to name a few right off my head. Your argument seems to be "roll over" and accept it more than one of merit. Just sayin'.
Republicans aren't offering any solutions. They've taken themselves out of the solutions game by insisting the problem doesn't exist.
quote:There are MANY and NUMEROUS arguments in favor of nuclear. But garnering a political constituency ain't one of them. I'm glad they aren't doing that.
It's a shame, because if they did, then nuclear would have a natural constituency to counter the green lobby.
quote:
Republicans weren't ideologically opposed to cap-and-trade for sulfates
different issue, different time. Many supporters of GWB, no longer support GWB. quote:As does belief for democarts... The higher-taxes and bigger government quid pro quo exists just as much on the democrat side. Oddly you only seem to be ascribing malice to one side.
AGW denial appears to be a quid pro quo for political influence
quote:Sounds like your failure... combined with prejudice about what others believe. You're capable of better. I honestly believe that.
Which is why it's difficult for me to find less cynical explanation than the Occam's Razor of capture by fossil fuel interests.
This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 9/23/14 at 2:36 pm to NC_Tigah
L out fricking loud, Tigah..I know you did not...
you seriously posted a Fukushima radiation spread...
The levels of radiation here in the US from Fukushima are insignificant...the fricking black sand at every beach on the planet are more radioactive than Fukushima. you get more radiation from a plane flight.
SMH
you seriously posted a Fukushima radiation spread...
The levels of radiation here in the US from Fukushima are insignificant...the fricking black sand at every beach on the planet are more radioactive than Fukushima. you get more radiation from a plane flight.
SMH
This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 2:39 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News