- 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 3:22 pm to Cruiserhog
Posted on 9/23/14 at 3:22 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:Good Lord
L out fricking loud, Tigah..I know you did not...
you seriously posted a Fukushima radiation spread...
The post required a cartoon. Perhaps you'd prefer this?
or this?
1
Posted on 9/23/14 at 3:25 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
several you on here should watch this several times over.
I'm an actual scientist ,who reads primary literature....and instead of actual knowledge I should choose to listen to some youtube dbag blogger?
This country is fricked. The papers, the actual real data is free....yet the sheep listen to some dbag youtube blogger.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 3:28 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
Cruiserhog
Just admit that Global warming is complete and utter bullshite, and let's move on.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 4:35 pm to Vols&Shaft83
The anti capitalist Druids are all upset because we are onto their scam.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 4:44 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:This is a scarlet herring. It's possible to address multiple issues at once, particularly when the solutions not only aren't exclusive, but synergistic. The main sources of tropospheric ozone and airborne particulates are combustion of fossil fuels. And if Republicans have been running on a platform of "gosh, I want to clean up the groundwater, but those darn Dems are only worried about the carbon" I must have missed it over the din of all that hydraulic wastewater injection.
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.
And I'm not arguing for nuclear because it would make Republicans popular. I'm arguing for nuclear because it needs to be popular in order to pass. It just so happens that Republicans are the only demographic that currently supports it. Necessary, not sufficient. (The sufficient condition is that it's by far the safest per-WH energy source, and also the most efficient over the long term.)
Posted on 9/23/14 at 4:52 pm to NC_Tigah
I don't get the second cartoon. Why does an Alabama fan care about what's going on in Fukushima?
Posted on 9/23/14 at 7:04 pm to Iosh
quote:Wow. Just wow.
And if Republicans have been running on a platform of "gosh, I want to clean up the groundwater, but those darn Dems are only worried about the carbon" I must have missed it over the din of all that hydraulic wastewater injection.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 7:04 pm to drexyl
quote:
I don't get the second cartoon. Why does an Alabama fan care about what's going on in Fukushima?
Posted on 9/23/14 at 7:31 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.
I'm a little confused by this passage. Why does a lobby matter? If the threat is as real and great as claimed by some, the solution that solves it best would be the obvious path to take, regardless of political persuasion.
But that's not the case. All "solutions" tend to be in alignment with the left. Sometimes far left.
Why?
Posted on 9/23/14 at 7:38 pm to DaGarun
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.
I'm a little confused by this passage. Why does a lobby matter?
I-i-i-i-i-t's
a-a-all
a-a-about-t-t-t
th-e
K-och
Br-o-the-r-r-r-rs
This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 7:41 pm
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:08 am to Iosh
quote:In many cases the are not. The US is the cleanest environmentally because we can afford it. Malinvestment only serves to destroy wealth. That won't lead to less pollution at the source nor design innovation.
This is a scarlet herring. It's possible to address multiple issues at once, particularly when the solutions not only aren't exclusive, but synergistic.
quote:No isht... But it would be absolutely SILLY to claim that massive reductions in NOx, SOx, production haven't already occurred over the last 30 years.
The main sources of tropospheric ozone and airborne particulates are combustion of fossil fuels.
quote:
I want to clean up the groundwater, but those darn Dems are only worried about the carbon" I must have missed it over the din of all that hydraulic wastewater injection.
there you go again... quote:Nope. Voters don't vote on regulations. And I still don't get the logic of banning a perfectly serviceable good to promote another good.
I'm arguing for nuclear because it needs to be popular in order to pass
It's odd. You're against man-made manipulation of the environment, but all for man-made manipulation of the economy.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:20 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Just admit that Global warming is complete and utter bullshite, and let's move on.
Why would I do that...Its common sense really, one can reason out that once balanced ecological equations cannot remain in balance with addition of 30 gigatons of C02 added yearly by unnatural processes and that addition will eventually precipitate a climate response.
This post was edited on 9/24/14 at 9:25 am
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:24 am 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.
That isn't exactly true. Yes, there is some evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but NASA models also show that CO2 is responsible for "cooling" and rejecting heat in the upper atmosphere.
I haven't seen anything that proves CO2's heating effect has a more significant impact than its cooling effect. Not to mention, with the exponentiall growth of CO2 emissions and lack of increasing temperatures, it is highly debatable whether or not CO2 can influence global temperatures.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:27 am to notsince98
quote:Venus would prove that, albeit in hugely different concentrations.
I haven't seen anything that proves CO2's heating effect has a more significant impact than its cooling effect.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:28 am to notsince98
quote:
That isn't exactly true. Yes, there is some evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but NASA models also show that CO2 is responsible for "cooling" and rejecting heat in the upper atmosphere.
I haven't seen anything that proves CO2's heating effect has a more significant impact than its cooling effect. Not to mention, with the exponentiall growth of CO2 emissions and lack of increasing temperatures, it is highly debatable whether or not CO2 can influence global temperatures.
umm nope, cant even take you seriously.
that report suggested C02 was a mechanism by which CME radiation was reflected back into space.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:33 am to Cruiserhog
quote:Can one? Really?
one can reason out that once balanced ecological equations cannot remain in balance with addition of 30 gigatons of C02 added yearly
Then do this, Hoss. Using CO2 warmist theory, "reason out" that exact response to supposed CO2 levels in the Eocene Epoch.
Take your time.
This post was edited on 9/24/14 at 10:01 am
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:47 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
umm nope, cant even take you seriously.
that report suggested C02 was a mechanism by which CME radiation was reflected back into space.
Oh, right, because CME radiation is the only type that converts to IR and then emitted back into space......sure, you go with that.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:51 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
Why would I do that...Its common sense really, one can reason out that once balanced ecological equations cannot remain in balance with addition of 30 gigatons of C02 added yearly by unnatural processes and that addition will eventually precipitate a climate response.
Nope, Global warming is 100 % Complete and utter bullshite, ADMIT IT.
REPENT, And thou shalt be saved.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:05 am to Cruiserhog
quote:I love when people make false comparisons like this. But,the number sounds big and menacing.
ith addition of 30 gigatons of C02
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:06 am to notsince98
quote:In the climate world, heated air does not rise.
Yes, there is some evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but NASA models also show that CO2 is responsible for "cooling" and rejecting heat in the upper atmosphere.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News