Jump to content

Climate Hoax


Husker_Du

Recommended Posts

Global warming is a lot better for life than global cooling.  Better enjoy it while you can.  The alarmists warned that it would kill the coral reefs - yet they are still thriving.  CO2 is plant food. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Global warming is a lot better for life than global cooling.  Better enjoy it while you can.  The alarmists warned that it would kill the coral reefs - yet they are still thriving.  CO2 is plant food. 

Coral reefs are thriving? Huh? Where did you get that? Fox News? Every reputable source that I've seen indicates that they have diminished significantly. A lot of the CO2 that we spew out ends up in the ocean and lowers the pH of the water. That, in addition to the increased temps, have killed much of the coral. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, red viking said:

Coral reefs are thriving? Huh? Where did you get that? Fox News? Every reputable source that I've seen indicates that they have diminished significantly. A lot of the CO2 that we spew out ends up in the ocean and lowers the pH of the water. That, in addition to the increased temps, have killed much of the coral. 

The oceans hold a lot of co2.  There’s fish in there, you know?  Natural gas and crude oil seep into the ocean, as well.  And, yes, the coral is fine.  Im sure you can find that if you try. 

Edited by Offthemat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention volcanoes.  Those are  notorious emitters.  There's an island forming in the Hawaiian chain east of the Big Island.   It just spews and spews.  The top is 3000 feet below sea level.   It has another 50k years of growing to do before it pops out.  

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mspart said:

Not to mention volcanoes.  Those are  notorious emitters.  There's an island forming in the Hawaiian chain east of the Big Island.   It just spews and spews.  The top is 3000 feet below sea level.   It has another 50k years of growing to do before it pops out.  

mspart

And the ocean is rising so fast that Obama couldn’t wait to invest in beach front Martha’s Vineyard and Magnum’s old house in Hawaii. 

  • Bob 1
  • Pirate 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, red viking said:

I don't know what to do about it mspart. What we do about it is a 100% different subject than whether it is occurring or not. Let's at least just be honest about what's happening and then go from there. 

I think you do know what to do about it.   But it is too draconian.  

What to do?   Every nation needs be forced to go cold turkey on fossil fuels right now because we have almost gone over the edge if not already of no return.   That means no more air conditioning, no more flights, no more cars, no more factories, no more cooking on electric or natural gas, no more computers, no more anything.   Back to the 1500's with us.   And along with that mass extermination of billions of people due to disease and injury/infection.   We must do this now because we don't have enough wind and solar and nuclear power to cover the whole world so the UN will have to shut everyone down.   By force.   And that will go over really well I'm sure we all can see.  

So in other words, we do what we can, we can't force anyone else to do anything.   And know that our efforts alone are futile in the end. 

I am sure that our emissions affect the atmosphere.   How much I do not know.  To affect climate change as much as they say, I don't think so, but I think it is not unreasonable to think that humans have a part in it.   100% part, I don't think so.  

I guess we need to get into sequestering technologies or converting gaseous CO2 to something solid like C + gaseous O2.   Yeah, make diamonds. 

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mspart said:

I think you do know what to do about it.   But it is too draconian.  

What to do?   Every nation needs be forced to go cold turkey on fossil fuels right now because we have almost gone over the edge if not already of no return.   That means no more air conditioning, no more flights, no more cars, no more factories, no more cooking on electric or natural gas, no more computers, no more anything.   Back to the 1500's with us.   And along with that mass extermination of billions of people due to disease and injury/infection.   We must do this now because we don't have enough wind and solar and nuclear power to cover the whole world so the UN will have to shut everyone down.   By force.   And that will go over really well I'm sure we all can see.  

So in other words, we do what we can, we can't force anyone else to do anything.   And know that our efforts alone are futile in the end. 

I am sure that our emissions affect the atmosphere.   How much I do not know.  To affect climate change as much as they say, I don't think so, but I think it is not unreasonable to think that humans have a part in it.   100% part, I don't think so.  

I guess we need to get into sequestering technologies or converting gaseous CO2 to something solid like C + gaseous O2.   Yeah, make diamonds. 

mspart

There's a balancing act between economic health & environmental health, since that also impacts our long-term economic health. But again, that's a different question and the end-result really depends upon priorities. A thousand people can have a thousand different opinions on how much we should really do, if anything. 

I prefer to stay focused on the science though, which should inform the policy. There is no doubt whatsoever that human burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver of recent climate change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There is no doubt whatsoever that human burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver of recent climate change."

Not sure how someone can say this while saying that they "stay focused on the science".  Right now the THEORY by some media/politicians/scientists is that humans are the main/sole reason for the recent climate change (this too could be debated); however, there is no way to say it is with 100% certainty, or it is fact.  If you do say that you are picking and choosing which "science" you follow...and it isn't science at that point but rather pure rhetoric.  

I'll say this again, and it is backed by way more actual science/data/evidence, humans do in fact have an impact on the environment.  To what extent, it is nearly impossible to know.  The SCIENCE shows that there have been huge changes in our climate over billions of years including many of them in which there were no such thing as current humans.  Even so, we should not pollute the environment, or minimize it as much as possible.  We should always be looking for cheaper/better/more efficient/higher quality ways to get our energy.  But the "sky is falling" (pun intended) climate change activists need to stop...it is unproductive and stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, red viking said:

There's a balancing act between economic health & environmental health, since that also impacts our long-term economic health. But again, that's a different question and the end-result really depends upon priorities. A thousand people can have a thousand different opinions on how much we should really do, if anything. 

I prefer to stay focused on the science though, which should inform the policy. There is no doubt whatsoever that human burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver of recent climate change. 

Exactly, no one wants to actually fix this because the pain and death and destruction are too real and horrible.   So even those with strong convictions on the issue will not want to do what it will take to fix it.   I know I don't want to go back to the 1500s.  

My guess, is there will be some technology developed to handle the situation.  

mspart

  • Bob 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told my kids, fractions are easy.   Frac baby frac. 

Fracking is responsible for our abundance of natural gas which has reduced our CO2  emissions  tremendously.   The US has single-handedly done more to reduce CO2 emissions than anyone else.   We still produce a lot, but it is much less than it was.   Even if we go to zero, that will not change the world.  

Is it climate change or global warming?  Do they say climate change to hedge bets on a cooling cycle? 

mspart

  • Bob 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mspart said:

I told my kids, fractions are easy.   Frac baby frac. 

Fracking is responsible for our abundance of natural gas which has reduced our CO2  emissions  tremendously.   The US has single-handedly done more to reduce CO2 emissions than anyone else.   We still produce a lot, but it is much less than it was.   Even if we go to zero, that will not change the world.  

Is it climate change or global warming?  Do they say climate change to hedge bets on a cooling cycle? 

mspart

Yes, but the technology that makes fracturing so productive is directional drilling.  Fracturing has been around since about 1930.  Instead of drilling down to the zone and fracking from there, they can now turn and drill through the zone, fracking that entire distance.  
 

They changed it when the data came back that showed the temperature hadn’t gone up.  Even though the record shows fewer and weaker hurricanes and tornadoes, every one is now evidence of climate change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically, if the IPCC's projections are to be believed, global warming may occur, and we will adapt to it through innovation. All the resources that Europe is burning up in a phantasmatic "energy transition", which has failed and will fail -- will just burn through money that we will then not have for innovation. What will Europe do when these misguided ideologies have permanently broken the back of its economy?
 

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20470/germany-murder-of-europe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the point.   As long as China and India keep on increasing, by way more than other countries are decreasing, it is all for naught.   China and India do not suffer, while those that did will as per the above.  

Innovation will be the key.   New technology will also be the key.   Creating a siphon to move atmospheric CO2 to the sun or moon is ideal.  It should be easy, there is vacuum there and pressure here.   Just need a pipe.  

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Jason Kwaak

    Brentwood, New York
    Class of 2025
    Committed to North Carolina State
    Projected Weight: 165

    Liam Hickey

    Cardinal Gibbons, North Carolina
    Class of 2025
    Committed to North Carolina
    Projected Weight: 133

    Tristan Steldt

    Fennimore, Wisconsin
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Pitt
    Projected Weight: 184

    Casen Roark

    Father Ryan, Tennessee
    Class of 2025
    Committed to West Virginia
    Projected Weight: 141

    Will Greenberg

    Hawken, Ohio
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Bucknell
    Projected Weight: 285
×
×
  • Create New...