Climate Change

[Foxalldayeveryday]

Honestly you should kisten to him he has some good points

Agree.

 

[TwinTurbo]

This could be interesting - has nuclear fusion finally been achieved vs nuclear fission?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/12/politics/nuclear-fusion-energy-us-scientists-climate/index.html

This is very interesting as it appears to be the first time that the energy output is greater than the energy input used to produce it. The holy grail of fusion.


Always a Bulldog

 

[TwinTurbo]

When it comes to things like this, I generally only have one response. If you really think that the vast majority of experts are lying to you, then study the subject, prove them wrong, and win a noble prize. Otherwise you're just basically saying, "I don't like this so I'm going to ignore it"

The problem with your suggestion is that no one would get the funding to "prove them wrong". I can't imagine any Government, Body or Institution providing funding for project to debunk CC. They would get crucified, as any company gets lambasted now if even dare to suggest that they aren't 100% in line with the CC group think. If I wanted funding for that were would I go? If I go to the oil or mining companies then my research would be automatically and immediately rejected, even if by some miracle it was valid. I would be facing a CC group think that is funded to the tune of $billions per week, there is zero chance of some truth, if there was any, overcoming that tidal wave of a tsunami (pun intended).

Not in any way suggesting that the CC group think is factually wrong, simply pointing out that challenging someone to prove otherwise in this political climate (no pun intended) is an impossible ask.

Always a Bulldog

 

[Hacky McAxe]

The problem with your suggestion is that no one would get the funding to "prove them wrong". I can't imagine any Government, Body or Institution providing funding for project to debunk CC. They would get crucified, as any company gets lambasted now if even dare to suggest that they aren't 100% in line with the CC group think. If I wanted funding for that were would I go? If I go to the oil or mining companies then my research would be automatically and immediately rejected, even if by some miracle it was valid. I would be facing a CC group think that is funded to the tune of $billions per week, there is zero chance of some truth, if there was any, overcoming that tidal wave of a tsunami (pun intended).

Not in any way suggesting that the CC group think is factually wrong, simply pointing out that challenging someone to prove otherwise in this political climate (no pun intended) is an impossible ask.

Always a Bulldog

Oil and other fossil fuel companies do fund a lot of research like that and it's not automatically dismissed by science journals. If you go through many of the most well respected science journals, you'll find research that has been funded by fossil fuel companies. That's because research is scutinised based on the process. Even the IPCC has several teams that are funded by fossil fuel interests, and fossil fuel companies lobby at the yearly UN climate conference.

While there is many dodgy research papers funded by fossil fuel companies that get rejected from papers, they are rejected because they are highly flawed, and the ones that aren't are still there.

It's all part of the disinformation push though. Fossil fuel interests will convince you that any research is rejected if they fund it. They'll convince you that Big Renewables is raking in the money and they are just the poor guy. Meanwhile governments around the world subsidise fossil fuels to around $700 billion per year. In the last 6 years alone, banks have funded fossil fuel interests for around $5 trillion. And they are still trying to convince you that they are the poor companies that are being hounded by fake people.

Just look at it this way. If it's really "group think", then explain why hundreds of thousands of scientists are writing research papers on the impacts climate change is already having on the environment, and no one is correcting them?

We're not talking about a few research papers saying, "Think of the trees", we're talking about hundreds of thousands of scientists studying weather patterns, ocean currents, watching ocean life collapse from ocean acidification.

The whole Group Think idea only makes sense if it's just people agreeing. It's like looking at all the mechanics around the world and saying that it's just group think and cars aren't real. At some stage they are going to get sick of pretending they are doing work.

 

[Natboy]

Can we get Airbus Albo and Chris “window licker” Bowen to Thailand? Their population is almost 3 times Australia’s and they don’t seem to care about climate change much here

 

[Powerslide]

Honestly you should listen to him he has some good points

thanks nasheed. as long as you stop creating burner accounts and sprouting nonsense I'll give him another 5 minutes. sounds like a good trade 5 minutes of annoyance for no more nasheed on the Kennel.

 

[Powerslide]

I thought this would happen soon. There has been a lot of talk about it recently and the discussion was if it would be the US's target chamber or UK's Tokamak. It's a step forward but the report makes it sound a lot more exciting than it is.

There's many hurdles when it comes to nuclear fusion. This is one hurdle, but the other main hurdle is size. Fusion happens in stars because of gravity. The star's gravity is so strong that it forces the atoms together, which gives off heat that helps with further fusion. The only way we can replicate that on earth is with immense heat (much hotter than the sun) and explosive pressure or particle collision. In each case it requires a massive amount of space to produce any energy at all.

In both the case of the NIF Target Chamber (US) and the Tokamak (UK) the amount of energy they can produce from the size of a building is bugger all. As the report states it, it's enough to boil 10 kettles.

From every discussion I heard coming up to this, the experts said that even when they reach that first hurdle, it won't be viable to power a city for at least another 30-50 years. Helpful for the future, but too late to mitigate the damage of climate change.

Also I think many of the current and future experiments depend on the availability of tritium. unless we start doing some nuclear weapons testing, it's a finite quantity with very little availability.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Can we get Airbus Albo and Chris “window licker” Bowen to Thailand? Their population is almost 3 times Australia’s and they don’t seem to care about climate change much here

People in Thailand care about another kind of change. One that's down south. If you know what I mean.

 

[Rodzilla]

When it comes to things like this, I generally only have one response. If you really think that the vast majority of experts are lying to you, then study the subject, prove them wrong, and win a noble prize. Otherwise you're just basically saying, "I don't like this so I'm going to ignore it"

don't make me bring up the list again, still waiting for the global cooling ice age ffs

 

[Hacky McAxe]

don't make me bring up the list again, still waiting for the global cooling ice age ffs

This is what you get for trusting a Star Trek actor as your source of scientific information.

 

[Rodzilla]

This is what you get for trusting a Star Trek actor as your source of scientific information.

scientists and all the major news outlets had warned about global cooling and the ice age, nimoy is the equivalent of all the current celebrities getting involved

maybe in 2050 the cop out when looking back will be 'thats what you get for trusting a titanic actor as your source of scientific information'

 

[Rodzilla]

1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
1970: Ice Age By 2000
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
1970s: Killer Bees!
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age By 2070
1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
1974: Another Ice Age?
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
1980: Peak Oil In 2000
1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
1996: Peak Oil in 2020
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
2002: Peak Oil in 2010
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’

 

[Hacky McAxe]

scientists and all the major news outlets had warned about global cooling and the ice age, nimoy is the equivalent of all the current celebrities getting involved

maybe in 2050 the cop out when looking back will be 'thats what you get for trusting a titanic actor as your source of scientific information'

Maybe you should try getting your information from a source other than far right wing blogs

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

In reality, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of an ice age at some point in the future, prompting some pretty sensational media coverage

www.newscientist.com

How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be

Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed

www.scientificamerican.com

Poor trolling effort Rodzy.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Maybe you should try getting your information from a source other than far right wing blogs.

And no one ever gets any information from loony left blogs either

Poor trolling effort Rodzy.

Proving my point, which was "They would get crucified, as any company gets lambasted now if even dare to suggest that they aren't 100% in line with the CC group think."

He provided 45 examples of erroneous scientific predictions, whether it was one person or thousands is irrelevant, the group think / herd mentality took over and they became scientific "fact" for some time, years, decades even. Argumentum ad populum at its finest.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Doogie]

And no one ever gets any information from loony left blogs either

Proving my point, which was "They would get crucified, as any company gets lambasted now if even dare to suggest that they aren't 100% in line with the CC group think."

He provided 45 examples of erroneous scientific predictions, whether it was one person or thousands is irrelevant, the group think / herd mentality took over and they became scientific "fact" for some time, years, decades even. Argumentum ad populum at its finest.


Always a Bulldog

Rodzy posted this elsewhere - went through a few of them (feel free to find it yourself) but gave up as they were far from 'scientific predictions'. Noticed this time - few links (unlike last time - lol) so I went with 2013. Nothing about arctic ice free - its a Nature paper on Gas hydrate dissociation off Svalbard induced by isostatic rebound rather than global warming. Feel free to review it yourself and see whether you can get arctic ice free out of it. If anything it says there's evidence that the retreat of the Barent Ice Sheet isn't so much due to underwelling of warm waters caused by CC but a chemical reaction. So it supports the idea that Barent Ice sheet melting isn't due to climate change.

You've a weird argument bro - CC is group think but anti CC isn't? CVD is group think but anti-CVD isn't? Your gov't and businesses have decided on evidence that CC is something they have to manage. Your gov't and businesses have decided you have to wear a hard hat working in a fall area because if a 10 ton boulder falls on your head the hard hat will save you. Its all about risk management.

And this is the problem - everyone thinks in absolutes. Is CC proven. No. Is anti-CC proven. No. This is pretty simple really.

If CC is real, then if we do nothing, we're fckd.
If anti-CC is real and we do nothing, no biggy, except eventually we run out of shit to burn and we kill each other for more stuff to burn.
If CC is real and we do something, we might save the planet.
If anti-CC is real and we do something, we probably don't kill each other.

So when u get down to these four simple fckng options - doing something is pretty obvious.

I have no idea why this is even a debate.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

And no one ever gets any information from loony left blogs either

Proving my point, which was "They would get crucified, as any company gets lambasted now if even dare to suggest that they aren't 100% in line with the CC group think."

He provided 45 examples of erroneous scientific predictions, whether it was one person or thousands is irrelevant, the group think / herd mentality took over and they became scientific "fact" for some time, years, decades even. Argumentum ad populum at its finest.


Always a Bulldog

Nah, he copy pasted the same examples every climate denier does. And if you look at the examples you see two issues:

1) most of them are just magazines and news articles. Not experts

2) they're very few examples in comparison to the opposites

That's also why I shared links showing that his claims are false. Not that Rod cares because he's just trying to troll me like he always does.

 

[Rodzilla]

Rodzy posted this elsewhere - went through a few of them (feel free to find it yourself) but gave up as they were far from 'scientific predictions'. Noticed this time - few links (unlike last time - lol) so I went with 2013. Nothing about arctic ice free - its a Nature paper on Gas hydrate dissociation off Svalbard induced by isostatic rebound rather than global warming. Feel free to review it yourself and see whether you can get arctic ice free out of it. If anything it says there's evidence that the retreat of the Barent Ice Sheet isn't so much due to underwelling of warm waters caused by CC but a chemical reaction. So it supports the idea that Barent Ice sheet melting isn't due to climate change.

You've a weird argument bro - CC is group think but anti CC isn't? CVD is group think but anti-CVD isn't? Your gov't and businesses have decided on evidence that CC is something they have to manage. Your gov't and businesses have decided you have to wear a hard hat working in a fall area because if a 10 ton boulder falls on your head the hard hat will save you. Its all about risk management.

And this is the problem - everyone thinks in absolutes. Is CC proven. No. Is anti-CC proven. No. This is pretty simple really.

If CC is real, then if we do nothing, we're fckd.
If anti-CC is real and we do nothing, no biggy, except eventually we run out of shit to burn and we kill each other for more stuff to burn.
If CC is real and we do something, we might save the planet.
If anti-CC is real and we do something, we probably don't kill each other.

So when u get down to these four simple fckng options - doing something is pretty obvious.

I have no idea why this is even a debate.

actually the links were in the original post, don't worry about Hacky McAct acting like each of the articles aren't backed up by some asshole expert, he is a great actor

feel free to go through the whole thing and count up how many of the experts were wrong

 

[Doogie]

actually the links were in the original post, don't worry about Hacky McAct acting like each of the articles aren't backed up by some asshole expert, he is a great actor

feel free to go through the whole thing and count up how many of the experts were wrong

Repost it then Rodzy with the links. @Hacky McAxe isn't acting - I went through it myself and when u have goat farmers from Iowa being quoted in the BFN Star - bit of a laugh.

I checked 1 and it was fake. So its all 100% false. All of it. Thats how [insert random issue here] denial works right?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013 - politician
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World - not even a politician
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’ - politician
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014 - politician
2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link) - covered by Doogie
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’ - politican

Not to mention that everyone of these failed a fact check. Now remind me again why I should waste more time on you?

I know you have this weird creepy obsession with me. I'm sorry, but the feeling isn't mutual. You're just not worth my time.

 

[Rodzilla]

Repost it then Rodzy with the links. @Hacky McAxe isn't acting - I went through it myself and when u have goat farmers from Iowa being quoted in the BFN Star - bit of a laugh.

I checked 1 and it was fake. So its all 100% false. All of it. Thats how [insert random issue here] denial works right?

i recommend going through the others, for example 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast, the expert who was talking shit on that occasion was george kukla