uncle bernard Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 3 minutes ago, mspart said: https://visitgreenland.com/articles/10-facts-nellie-huang/ [Greenland] actually got its name from Erik The Red, an Icelandic murderer who was exiled to the island. He called it “Greenland” in hopes that the name would attract settlers. But according to scientists, Greenland was actually quite green more than 2.5 million years ago. And how many humans were around then? mspart If you took 2 minutes to actually read what you were talking about, you'd realize this undermines willie's position more than mine lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 No it doesn’t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Just now, JimmyBT said: No it doesn’t so we agree that the chart Willie's guy was using to explain how climate change isn't real is bullshit and misleading? great! welcome aboard, james. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Just now, uncle bernard said: so we agree that the chart Willie's guy was using to explain how climate change isn't real is bullshit and misleading? great! welcome aboard, james. Nice try Bernie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 minute ago, uncle bernard said: so we agree that the chart Willie's guy was using to explain how climate change isn't real is bullshit and misleading? great! welcome aboard, james. I’ve not heard anyone deny climate change, but we do debate the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Just now, JimmyBT said: Nice try Bernie. Is the chart bullshit because humans weren't there, like @mspart says, or isn't it? It's a simple question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Just now, uncle bernard said: Is the chart bullshit because humans weren't there, like @mspart says, or isn't it? It's a simple question. You might want to figure out what my comment was replying to there Bernie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 minute ago, Offthemat said: I’ve not heard anyone deny climate change, but we do debate the cause. And the timeline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 2 minutes ago, JimmyBT said: You might want to figure out what my comment was replying to there Bernie enlighten me. and while you're at it, answer the question! is @mspart right or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 UB - are you agreeing with the premise Greenland was green 2.5 million years ago? If so, how do you explain that with no humans on board mother earth at that time? Or are you saying that there are cycles in the earth's climate and back then it was warmer with no humans, but now it is getting warmer with humans and they are causing it? Or are you saying Greenland has never been green and that is just hokum that it was green 2.5 million years ago? Just want to get your position correct. mspart 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 2 minutes ago, mspart said: UB - are you agreeing with the premise Greenland was green 2.5 million years ago? If so, how do you explain that with no humans on board mother earth at that time? Or are you saying that there are cycles in the earth's climate and back then it was warmer with no humans, but now it is getting warmer with humans and they are causing it? Or are you saying Greenland has never been green and that is just hokum that it was green 2.5 million years ago? Just want to get your position correct. mspart My actual position is that the climate does have natural cycles, but that the unprecedented level of carbon production is causing it to warm much more quickly than it would naturally warm and the speed of that change will cause problems. Change that used to take thousands of years is now happening over a couple centuries, or even decades. It's not the fact that we're getting warmer that's the problem. It's the timeline and scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Just now, uncle bernard said: Change that used to take thousands of years is now happening over a couple centuries, or even decades. It's not the fact that we're getting warmer that's the problem. It's the timeline and scale. This statement does not give me confidence in your position. You don't even know when it is happening, last few centuries or last few decades. Nail it down man. FWIW - It would be better if we could stop with internal combustion engines. We need another kind of engine that is powerful enough to do what we need and safe and reliable. Hydrogen fuel cells are pretty safe but we haven't gone that direction. One needs to ask why not? It may be that it is expensive to get hydrogen in the kinds of quantities needed. Storage of hydrogen is problematic - Hindenburg for instance. But I'm sure that is a direction that should be explored more rather than going headlong into the unknown and calling that the panacea that it isn't. EVs are not ready but hybrids are. Hybrid cars and trucks would do a lot to save on emissions, giving time for other alternatives in the future. This needs to be led by thinking and rational people, not politicians with no idea of how to make it happen. Declaring ICE cars will no longer be sold by 2030 or something artificial like that gives us the worst of possible scenarios. Clinging to one supposed solution to the exclusion of many others is also not a rational and thoughtful way to go. I am not against it. I am just not going to get on a bandwagon saying humanity is the cause with the ultimate solution being the elimination of many humans. I agree with Cliff Mass, the climatologist I cited. We are the solution, there is no existential crisis now and in a number of years there will be technology that will be able to reverse the trend. We are seeing small nuclear reactors that are safe and manageable, we are seeing natural gas with its abundant energy and low emission output that should be utilized more, we are seeing solid state battery technology doing amazing things, we have hydrogen fuel cells that are not being utilized to much of any degree. Fusion energy is on the horizon, maybe more distant but I think that is an area worth exploring. I'm not against these things. They are fascinating. I just am not hysterical over the global warming thing. I believe answers to emissions are coming. The solutions du jour are not solutions. Wind and solar that are completely unreliable necessitating blackouts or brownouts. Can we not see that this is not progress? EVs that have limited range and you have to get a hotel to go on a cross country trip just to recharge? That is not progress. Not being able to travel cross country is not progress either. These things are not solutions, they are handcuffs. We don't need handcuffs, we need objective and well thought out solutions. Not kneejerk reactions. mspart 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husker_Du Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 and i'm begging you to get rid of your pets in the name of fake science TBD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 41 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: If you took 2 minutes to actually read what you were talking about, you'd realize this undermines willie's position more than mine lol Why don’t you explain how this undermines Willies position more than it does yours? Since it’s just your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 22 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: My actual position is that the climate does have natural cycles, but that the unprecedented level of carbon production is causing it to warm much more quickly than it would naturally warm and the speed of that change will cause problems. Change that used to take thousands of years is now happening over a couple centuries, or even decades. It's not the fact that we're getting warmer that's the problem. It's the timeline and scale. So exactly what is this timeline you’re so concerned about???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husker_Du Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 i'll say this too - unless anyone holds china and india accountable for emissions the rest of the globe's efforts are pointless. 1 TBD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 2 hours ago, Husker_Du said: i'll say this too - unless anyone holds china and india accountable for emissions the rest of the globe's efforts are pointless. This is true. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ So China is twice the emitter of the USA. We are #1 and #2 but it isn't really close. China emits the amount of the next 4 or 5 highest emitters. China and India emit as much as the the US plus then next 15 highest polluters. Their impact is tremendous right? But if they do something, and no one else does, does it help? If we do something and no one else does, does it help. But without them there will be no progress for sure. As you can see, the US has done quite a bit in reducing emissions. We are at 1989 levels. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/carbon-co2-emissions You can see China has not decreased their emissions at all. I just googled these and found some interesting data. mspart 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 What the ***duck** is canadas problem ??? Aren’t they wOke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatWhiteNorth Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 9 hours ago, mspart said: This statement does not give me confidence in your position. You don't even know when it is happening, last few centuries or last few decades. Nail it down man. FWIW - It would be better if we could stop with internal combustion engines. We need another kind of engine that is powerful enough to do what we need and safe and reliable. Hydrogen fuel cells are pretty safe but we haven't gone that direction. One needs to ask why not? It may be that it is expensive to get hydrogen in the kinds of quantities needed. Storage of hydrogen is problematic - Hindenburg for instance. But I'm sure that is a direction that should be explored more rather than going headlong into the unknown and calling that the panacea that it isn't. EVs are not ready but hybrids are. Hybrid cars and trucks would do a lot to save on emissions, giving time for other alternatives in the future. This needs to be led by thinking and rational people, not politicians with no idea of how to make it happen. Declaring ICE cars will no longer be sold by 2030 or something artificial like that gives us the worst of possible scenarios. Clinging to one supposed solution to the exclusion of many others is also not a rational and thoughtful way to go. I am not against it. I am just not going to get on a bandwagon saying humanity is the cause with the ultimate solution being the elimination of many humans. I agree with Cliff Mass, the climatologist I cited. We are the solution, there is no existential crisis now and in a number of years there will be technology that will be able to reverse the trend. We are seeing small nuclear reactors that are safe and manageable, we are seeing natural gas with its abundant energy and low emission output that should be utilized more, we are seeing solid state battery technology doing amazing things, we have hydrogen fuel cells that are not being utilized to much of any degree. Fusion energy is on the horizon, maybe more distant but I think that is an area worth exploring. I'm not against these things. They are fascinating. I just am not hysterical over the global warming thing. I believe answers to emissions are coming. The solutions du jour are not solutions. Wind and solar that are completely unreliable necessitating blackouts or brownouts. Can we not see that this is not progress? EVs that have limited range and you have to get a hotel to go on a cross country trip just to recharge? That is not progress. Not being able to travel cross country is not progress either. These things are not solutions, they are handcuffs. We don't need handcuffs, we need objective and well thought out solutions. Not kneejerk reactions. mspart Oh - Geez. WTF was that... waaaaaay too long. Just a hint, nobody read it all. Nobody. Have you lost your damn mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husker_Du Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 is it possible for you to respond with something of substance? TBD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husker_Du Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 1 1 TBD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/will-climate-change-drive-humans-extinct-or-destroy-civilization Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 14 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said: Oh - Geez. WTF was that... waaaaaay too long. Just a hint, nobody read it all. Nobody. Have you lost your damn mind? Is that more of a comment on me or you? mspart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 46 minutes ago, mspart said: Is that more of a comment on me or you? mspart I had no difficulty reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 14 minutes ago, Offthemat said: I had no difficulty reading it. Sounds like it was more of a comment on him then eh? mspart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Slack Wasatch via Snow College, Utah Class of 2024 Committed to Utah Valley Projected Weight: 197
Kasey Curtis North Sanpete via Snow College, Utah Class of 2024 Committed to Utah Valley Projected Weight: 133
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now