The Truth, Still Inconvenient

[Jive Turkey]

So who are your sources for urban island heat effect and why do you value their inconsistent findings?

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

So who are your sources for urban island heat effect and why do you value their inconsistent findings?

Because land based temperatures are higher than satellite temperatures. Also because in 1990 many of the colder stations were removed.

Everything you want to know about the skeptical view on urban island heat effect is here:

Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Search: Urban Island Heat Effect

Secondly you should be wondering about the results of computer projections for temperature. They weren't just inconsistent. They were just plain wrong. And the mid to higher predictions were so warm that we would have to have a massive increase in temperatures (worldwide) for the next few years to even catch up.

[Jive Turkey]

Do you think you're privy to information that 95% of climate scientists aren't?

Also, let's say for a second that projections are off and it isn't as bad as some might think. Are you happy to fuck up the environment just enough so that it doesn't affect global temperatures quite as much as suspected? Is it really that bad to start thinking more consciously about where we get our energy from? Why are you content to remain on the current trajectory?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

It is critical thinking because Greenpeace and WWF have made all kinds of exaggerated predictions knowing that they exaggerated (in other words, lying). Lomborg has made a career listing them all. The pro-life versus pro-choice comparison isn't critical thinking.

Predictable response... one that doesn't actually address the issue

You're a fool to think that not every lobbying factor might exaggerate or represent only one side of the facts. I'm really sorry you couldn't understand the abortion parallel.

Next time, try addressing the issue.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Do you think you're privy to information that 95% of climate scientists aren't?

Also, let's say for a second that projections are off and it isn't as bad as some might think. Are you happy to fuck up the environment just enough so that it doesn't affect global temperatures quite as much as suspected? Is it really that bad to start thinking more consciously about where we get our energy from? Why are you content to remain on the current trajectory?

Are you happy to fuck up the economy entirely? Do you look at humans as separate from the environment? Dualism is hypocritical. If they came after your job I'll enjoy some schadenfreude. Close down your business with energy taxes.

Telling Africa they have to wait to develop only with current green technologies is awful (a professor some years ago told our class that they have to wait. And this is what green groups hope for as well). Africa needs their fossil fuels to grow the way they need to develop just like everyone else. I didn't think I would be siding with Bono that capitalism is the way out for Africa (not rocket science to me) but we need economic growth there. Shit. We need economic growth in the entire world. We've had huge amounts of CO2 in the past and planet earth did quite well. It appears the planet is less sensitive to CO2 than climate alarmists are.

The argument "well we need to not fuck up the environment just a little" doesn't work for me because it puts humans below on the environment. It assumes that those with green jobs will be morally superior so they can get subsidized by everyone else. It means that the middle class will have even more obstacles to staying there. It means that any panic that authorities drudge up has to be followed whether they are right or not.

I hope AEON is right that there will be some miraculous solar cure in the future, but I think we are still decades away and all the climate hypocrites also want a good standard of living. They aren't going to side with no children, green vehicles, no vacations involving planes, constant blackouts and brownouts with shitty green technology. They have amygdalas just like I do and they crave dopamine just like I do. That's why they are hypocrites. They need the government to force people to be dispassonate with life and to pursue none of the goals that make people happy. Without being forced even Democrats who are scared of global warming will continue to pursue high paying jobs and a better standard of living.

[elevated_u2_fan]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

The argument "well we need to not fuck up the environment just a little" doesn't work for me because it puts humans below on the environment.

This is the reason we can't have nice things.

Would you agree its kind of hard to have humans without the enviroment?

The sheer selfishness of the human race is mind boggling to me.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

(a professor some years ago told our class that they have to wait. And this is what green groups hope for as well).

This one professor really fucked you up.

You bring up this one professor quite a bit and then displace their views on everyone else.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Are you happy to fuck up the economy entirely? Do you look at humans as separate from the environment? Dualism is hypocritical. If they came after your job I'll enjoy some schadenfreude. Close down your business with energy taxes.

Telling Africa they have to wait to develop only with current green technologies is awful (a professor some years ago told our class that they have to wait. And this is what green groups hope for as well). Africa needs their fossil fuels to grow the way they need to develop just like everyone else. I didn't think I would be siding with Bono that capitalism is the way out for Africa (not rocket science to me) but we need economic growth there. Shit. We need economic growth in the entire world. We've had huge amounts of CO2 in the past and planet earth did quite well. It appears the planet is less sensitive to CO2 than climate alarmists are.

The argument "well we need to not fuck up the environment just a little" doesn't work for me because it puts humans below on the environment. It assumes that those with green jobs will be morally superior so they can get subsidized by everyone else. It means that the middle class will have even more obstacles to staying there. It means that any panic that authorities drudge up has to be followed whether they are right or not.

I hope AEON is right that there will be some miraculous solar cure in the future, but I think we are still decades away and all the climate hypocrites also want a good standard of living. They aren't going to side with no children, green vehicles, no vacations involving planes, constant blackouts and brownouts with shitty green technology. They have amygdalas just like I do and they crave dopamine just like I do. That's why they are hypocrites. They need the government to force people to be dispassonate with life and to pursue none of the goals that make people happy. Without being forced even Democrats who are scared of global warming will continue to pursue high paying jobs and a better standard of living.

This is a load of horse shit and you still didn't answer my questions

[AEON]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

I hope AEON is right that there will be some miraculous solar cure in the future, but I think we are still decades

We are less than a decade away of grid solar parity across the board - if the current trends hold.

While I am a believer in miracles, in this case Science is sufficient.

[Jive Turkey]

[QUOTE=purpleoscar;7711439]Are you happy to fuck up the economy entirely? [quote]

So does this make you an economy alarmist? I'll answer it as if it's a reasonable tit for tat. Given the two options of a fucked up environment or a fucked up economy, you'd be a fool to defend the latter.

Do you look at humans as separate from the environment?

No I don't. I don't even see humans as empirically different from other forms of life. So I guess your point here is useless.

If they came after your job I'll enjoy some schadenfreude.

Nobody is coming after your jobs. But this certainly got personal quick.

Telling Africa they have to wait to develop only with current green technologies is awful (a professor some years ago told our class that they have to wait. And this is what green groups hope for as well). Africa needs their fossil fuels to grow the way they need to develop just like everyone else. I didn't think I would be siding with Bono that capitalism is the way out for Africa (not rocket science to me) but we need economic growth there. Shit. We need economic growth in the entire world.

It's very short sighted of you to assume fossil fuels are the only answer to economic growth.

We've had huge amounts of CO2 in the past and planet earth did quite well. It appears the planet is less sensitive to CO2 than climate alarmists are.

Well how about some specific references instead of vague generalization? Give is some examples of times "we've had huge amounts of CO2.

Gotta run. I'll quote the rest later on

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

The argument "well we need to not fuck up the environment just a little" doesn't work for me because it puts humans below on the environment. It assumes that those with green jobs will be morally superior so they can get subsidized by everyone else. It means that the middle class will have even more obstacles to staying there. It means that any panic that authorities drudge up has to be followed whether they are right or not.

First off, that wasn't my quote. I asked you why you were okay with fucking up the planet "just enough" that were weren't causing a significant change in climate. In other words, there are far more effects than just global warming. You can see them right in front of your face. But as long as we're not changing the climate, you seem to be okay with these effects. This has nothing to do with being morally superior; it has to do with being a responsible citizen of the planet. You seem to be the one making a divide between people and the environment. We're not 'below' the environment. We're part of the whole. And we're the only species able to observe the affect we have on our environment and make the appropriate adjustments. Do you know what happens to a species that is too successful and decimates its ecosystem?

They aren't going to side with no children, green vehicles, no vacations involving planes, constant blackouts and brownouts with shitty green technology. They have amygdalas just like I do and they crave dopamine just like I do. That's why they are hypocrites. They need the government to force people to be dispassonate with life and to pursue none of the goals that make people happy. Without being forced even Democrats who are scared of global warming will continue to pursue high paying jobs and a better standard of living.

This is fucking hysteria and deserves little response.

Out of curiosity, which oil company does your dad work for?

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

First off, that wasn't my quote. I asked you why you were okay with fucking up the planet "just enough" that were weren't causing a significant change in climate. In other words, there are far more effects than just global warming. You can see them right in front of your face. But as long as we're not changing the climate, you seem to be okay with these effects. This has nothing to do with being morally superior; it has to do with being a responsible citizen of the planet. You seem to be the one making a divide between people and the environment. We're not 'below' the environment. We're part of the whole. And we're the only species able to observe the affect we have on our environment and make the appropriate adjustments. Do you know what happens to a species that is too successful and decimates its ecosystem?

You totally ignored economic growth and how much energy is needed to do that. Environmentalists have been known for decades to lie about the environment and in this case it's more of the same. That's why Matt Ridley can make money selling books on positive environmental news. I'm okay with realistic environmentalism that's feasible and cost effective. I'm not for trying to run a modern economy with solar panels and wind-power when they obviously can't do that for a long time.

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

This is fucking hysteria and deserves little response.

Out of curiosity, which oil company does your dad work for?

Which green job are you angling for? This is not an argument because fossil fuels are the only technology that can keep ALL of our standard living as good as it is. Despite the positivity of AEON, the green technology won't replace fossil fuels for decades. Until then we aren't going to do a carbon starvation. It reeks of eugenics and does have an elitist element to it. If you work for a subsidized green company you won't suffer the energy increases the rest of the population will suffer.

Hysteria? How about this:

6 Degrees Warmer: Mass Extinction? - YouTube

Polar Bear - YouTube

EPIC GREEN FAIL!!!! - YouTube

Originally Posted by BVS

This one professor really fucked you up.

You bring up this one professor quite a bit and then displace their views on everyone else.

He fucked up a lot of people and he does represent many on the left. You pretend left-wing people aren't over-represented in acedemia. Imagine a professor who was conservative instead and gave liberals zeros for being liberal. Marks should be based on knowledge of the subject, not whether your opinion agrees with that of the professor. Ironically this was an ethics course.

[purpleoscar]

[QUOTE=Jive Turkey;7711536][QUOTE=purpleoscar;7711439]Are you happy to fuck up the economy entirely? [quote]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

So does this make you an economy alarmist? I'll answer it as if it's a reasonable tit for tat. Given the two options of a fucked up environment or a fucked up economy, you'd be a fool to defend the latter.

In order to perceivably reduce overall CO2 we would have to deindustrialize. This is already understood by most people on both sides. If we don't do that then whatever taxes are implemented will be too little and CO2 will still increase.

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

No I don't. I don't even see humans as empirically different from other forms of life. So I guess your point here is useless.

It isn't useless. Those who want to implement this energy austerity don't care about the hardship it would cause to our species.

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Nobody is coming after your jobs. But this certainly got personal quick.

What a joke! Are you serious? Increased energy taxes kill jobs.

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

It's very short sighted of you to assume fossil fuels are the only answer to economic growth.

For the foreseeable future fossil fuels are it, but when an alternative comes online that can compete we won't need the U.N. to create a cap and trade system. The energy efficiencies would be enough to create profits on their own.

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Well how about some specific references instead of vague generalization? Give is some examples of times "we've had huge amounts of CO2.

Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels | Watts Up With That?



Doubling the CO2 is not going to end the world. All these countdowns "only 10 years left" which keep being pushed back farther and farther should end.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Doubling the CO2 is not going to end the world. All these countdowns "only 10 years left" which keep being pushed back farther and farther should end.

Even if your CO2 argument is correct (which I doubt) - would you agree that we should have some environmental controls? For instance, it is a fact that Lake Eerie was once dead due to pollution. It is a fact that certain pollutants are known to increase cancer rates. Should industry simply go on, completely unchecked?

Is it really - in the end - all about money? If so, what a sad, sad way to look at life...

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

You totally ignored economic growth and how much energy is needed to do that.

What did I ignore?? you provided no information. by all means...

Environmentalists have been known for decades to lie about the environment and in this case it's more of the same. That's why Matt Ridley can make money selling books on positive environmental news.

Lets not talk about the 'environmentalists' then. Lets talk about the 95% of climate scientist who agree that humans are having an affect on global temperatures. Do you also side with the 5% or so that claim cigarettes don't cause lung cancer?

Which green job are you angling for?

I couldn't be further from a 'green 'job'. But I was only half joking. What is your connection to the oil industry? Where does your dad work?

eugenics..elitist

This is really fucking hilarious. You accuse the 'left' of scare tactics, then trot out this dog shit. eugenics hahahaha

He fucked up a lot of people and he does represent many on the left. You pretend left-wing people aren't over-represented in acedemia. Imagine a professor who was conservative instead and gave liberals zeros for being liberal. Marks should be based on knowledge of the subject, not whether your opinion agrees with that of the professor. Ironically this was an ethics course.

There are right answers. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts, as the saying goes.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

In order to perceivably reduce overall CO2 we would have to deindustrialize. This is already understood by most people on both sides. If we don't do that then whatever taxes are implemented will be too little and CO2 will still increase.

Stop talking about taxes.

It isn't useless. Those who want to implement this energy austerity don't care about the hardship it would cause to our species.

Don't talk about our 'species' as if you have some concern about the ecosystem we exist in. You're concerned about money. You're concerned about your amygdala and your dopamine reuptake because god forbid should you have to alter your lifestyle and act responsibly. Fuck taxes, bro. They cramp my dopamine fix

What a joke! Are you serious? Increased energy taxes kill jobs.

There will always be new jobs to replace the vestigial ones. Were you equally as teary eyed when the music industry changed models? Did you petition for all the record executives?

Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels | Watts Up With That?



Doubling the CO2 is not going to end the world. All these countdowns "only 10 years left" which keep being pushed back farther and farther should end.

I think you're spending too much time on that site. A different reference would be nice. You pick out the one in 20 that fits with your views and claim it as fact. Do you have any anti vaccine sites I should be looking at?

[Jive Turkey]

By the way, you're taking your information from a man that wrote this sentence

"a process called a 'chloroplast'"
What a fucking idiot

[IWasBored]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

"a process called a 'chloroplast'"

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

By the way, you're taking your information from a man that wrote this sentence

"a process called a 'chloroplast'"
What a fucking idiot

Come on, the man's a great entrepreneur and a mediocre weather man; we can't expect him to be knowledgeable in science as well.

It's become painfully obvious to me that it's not about the science for people like Oscar. In fact science is just something that gets in the way, they wish they didn't have to speak about it because they all feel so uncomfortable with it. Junk science makes them feel warm and cozy about the selfishness of their views.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

What did I ignore?? you provided no information. by all means...

If green energy costs more than fossil fuels and the government has to subsidize it to keep it from failing (for god knows how long before it gets cheaper. If the technologies they choose get cheaper), then you have to tax people with a carbon tax of some kind to keep these firms going. If I have less money in my pocket for paying for the same level of energy I use then I have less money to buy other things which shrinks the economy and kills jobs. Just like it did in Spain. If a green source of energy shows up that has a realistic potential to be cheaper than fossil fuels then venture capitalists will want to make money on it and as it gets cheaper, or at least slightly cheaper than fossil fuels people should be able to have money leftover after paying their electric bills to spend elsewhere growing the economy. This is really important to understand because if people don't understand this then they probably believe in some finite pie belief of economics or the "Broken Window Fallacy". This is how a standard of living gets killed or grows whether it's energy or food costs going up or down. Energy also drives costs for everything else because you can't make food or anything without some energy.

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Lets not talk about the 'environmentalists' then. Lets talk about the 95% of climate scientist who agree that humans are having an affect on global temperatures. Do you also side with the 5% or so that claim cigarettes don't cause lung cancer?

These are lame arguments I've already seen before. The evidence for smoking and lung cancer is much more solid than CO2 having high heat sensitivity. Planet Earth can actually release some heat into space. It's not a pure greenhouse. Otherwise Earth would have turned into Venus a long time ago when we had multiple times the CO2. Even with the argument of a dimmer sun the multiple fold of CO2 should have mitigated it and then some. Water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas and with people like Svensmark we are learning more about how the sun can let in and let out cosmic rays (from supernovae) depending on how expanded the sun's atmosphere gets around our planet, and these rays affect cloud formation. We can learn how the oceans hold and release heat over huge expanses of time. Much longer time scales than global warming alarmists use.

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

I couldn't be further from a 'green 'job'. But I was only half joking. What is your connection to the oil industry? Where does your dad work?

None but I do live in a province that has lots of bitumen to sell. Though the negative with Canada is relying too much on commodities. They should branch out more but this is a problem of many countries. We have some wind power that doesn't make money and needs subsidies, just like everyone else. I'm not against new technology that increases our standard of living.

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

This is really fucking hilarious. You accuse the 'left' of scare tactics, then trot out this dog shit. eugenics hahahaha

There are environmentalists that would fit that bill. Secondly we will not reduce our CO2 without drastic measures and that would look a lot like eugenics. That's why I don't believe that the proponents of global warming actually believe in their "it's only 10 years left" crap.

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

There are right answers. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts, as the saying goes.

Originally Posted by BVS

Come on, the man's a great entrepreneur and a mediocre weather man; we can't expect him to be knowledgeable in science as well.

It's become painfully obvious to me that it's not about the science for people like Oscar. In fact science is just something that gets in the way, they wish they didn't have to speak about it because they all feel so uncomfortable with it. Junk science makes them feel warm and cozy about the selfishness of their views.

And you guys are not entitled to create inaccurate prognostications decade after decade without criticism and skepticism arising. What did you expect? That's why I say you guys toe the line simply because of appeal to authority. "95% of climate scientists, 95% of climate scientists, 95% of climate scientists". After Climategate nobody gives a shit about these hacks and bullies except leftists.