- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Scott Pruitt is absolutely right about Climate Change.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:04 am to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:04 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
But isn't it prudent to do what we can to mitigate any impact humans are having on climate change, in case the data isn't wrong?
This Pascal's Wager type argument is seductive but fallacious. Everything should be subject to a C/B/A. What does this "mitigation" entail? At what cost? Ban cows and all fossil-fuel dependent transportation and utilities? Population control? Take over China and Russia?
1
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:05 am to cokebottleag
Your response kinda supports my view. The country/earth at one point didn't know or believe in climate change. Now it's slowly but surely making its rounds to anyone who has an elementary understanding of the science behind it. It's honestly way easier to comprehend than evolution or abiogenesis or something. Also is electroshock therapy actually being done on transgenders? I think they're crazy tho, could be a mental disorder.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 11:06 am
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:06 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:You left out option 5.
Now of those options, I'd rather go with #1 and risk #2 being the outcome than go with #4 and risk #3.
That nothing man can do will prevent a hot phase that will occur.
We're in a cold period now.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:07 am to llfshoals
Even with option 5 I'd go with option 1 wouldn't you?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:07 am to olddawg26
quote:
Also is electroshock therapy actually still done on transgenders? I think they're crazy tho, could be a mental disorder.
No, just physical mutilation.
quote:
Your response kinda supports my view. The country/earth at one point didn't know or believe in climate change. Now it's slowly but surely making its rounds to anyone who has an elementary understanding of the science behind it
My point is that often, science gets it wrong. When we are talking about models which may inherently be flawed, in fact, are likely flawed, conducting the kinds of things that are being asked to combat CO2 production is an over-reaction at best, and completely destructive at worst.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:08 am to olddawg26
quote:
Even with option 5 I'd go with option 1 wouldn't you?
Not if option one leaves my family destitute. No.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:11 am to cokebottleag
quote:Pointing out that cloud feedbacks are highly uncertain is correct. What's also correct is that uncertainty is between "weakly negative" and "strongly positive." The strongly negative cloud feedback models (aka Richard Lindzen's love affair with tropic-only ERBE data) are pretty well ruled out at this point by actual warming.
All models are currently bad at accounting for variations in cloud coverage, there's that water vapor again.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:12 am to olddawg26
Also: Pew says it's 50/50.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:13 am to olddawg26
quote:Nope.
Even with option 5 I'd go with option 1 wouldn't you?
Because you might be 500 years at best away from knowing it. And hundreds of years from any significant impact
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:14 am to cokebottleag
quote:
Not if option one leaves my family destitute. No.
A little dramatic but I respect your love for your family
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:24 am to olddawg26
quote:
A little dramatic but I respect your love for your family
It doesn't seem dramatic from my perspective.
I work in O&G, an industry directly threatened by the desired economic outcomes from the AGW conclusions. You're asking a lot of sacrifice from me and very little from yourself to achieve the global change you are convinced is required. It shouldn't be shocking that I, and people like me, would be very skeptical, and you, and people like yourself would be much more willing to accept at face value the actions deemed necessary to lower CO2 emissions.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 11:25 am
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:27 am to Iosh
quote:
Pointing out that cloud feedbacks are highly uncertain is correct. What's also correct is that uncertainty is between "weakly negative" and "strongly positive." The strongly negative cloud feedback models (aka Richard Lindzen's love affair with tropic-only ERBE data) are pretty well ruled out at this point by actual warming.
I saw nothing specifying that the uncertainty was between 'weakly negative' and 'strongly positive'.
This is just cloud formation, which admittedly is a very large factor in temperature. The analysis showed that the vast majority of modern models account for cloud formation only via visible occurrence! Is that seriously the level of science you are choosing to defend?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 12:27 pm to LSUcjb318
I don't need some egghead scientist being paid by the government to educate me on the climate.
The climate is changing. It always has and always will, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
The climate is changing. It always has and always will, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 12:35 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:What horrible changes could possibly occur if the temps rise a couple of degrees?
presumably most of the dire predictions come true and life on earth is irrevocably changed
All I ever hear is doom and gloom from the believers.
What about the positive aspects of global warming?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 12:45 pm to olddawg26
quote:bullshite.
Way less than 50% of the country thinks it's a hoax. I'd say 30% at the most at this point.
I guarantee you at least 50% think it's a scam if not more.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 12:53 pm to cokebottleag
quote:Remember, these are the same people that believe that gender is not biological.
Fully 71% of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic say the Earth is warming primarily due to human activity.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 12:58 pm to cokebottleag
quote:Oh they'll sacrifice alright. They'll be walking everywhere they go in their hemp shoes.
You're asking a lot of sacrifice from me and very little from yourself to achieve the global change you are convinced is required.
No bikes. What are rubber tires made from?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 1:04 pm to cokebottleag
cokebottleag = yet other science denying shill for the fossil fuels industry
Posted on 3/14/17 at 1:07 pm to cokebottleag
CO2 levels in the atmosphere are steadily increasing (particularly since 1980 with rampant industrialization) and the world is warming, and it's manmade.
I rest my case.
I rest my case.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 1:16 pm to cokebottleag
I think that climate change is caused by cell phones. I mean, then the temps started spiking right around the time the first brick phone came on the market. As cell phone usage has increased, the rate at which our climate has changed has increased, also.
I mean, I could be wrong. It could be tied to NBA salaries...
I mean, I could be wrong. It could be tied to NBA salaries...
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News