You and man made "global warmers" or "climate changers" are impotent on earth compared to the Sun.
Impotent.
Last edited:
Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
- Thread starter Pospecteer
- Start date
You and man made "global warmers" or "climate changers" are impotent on earth compared to the Sun.
Impotent.
@Boomboom521 Marx once said in order to control the climate (which he admitted is impossible for Man to do) we MUST control the environment (which he claimed is possible for men to do)
So he says controlling all environmental factors, leads inevitably to controlling our climate...or at least how our climate behaves in relation to the environment we create for it.
My guess is you agree 100% with this Socialist's approach to Man controlling his environment and thus the climate which surrounds it.
How much of this do you honestly disagree with? I'd bet none of it, and ALL of it runs directly contrary to free market Capitalism which you claim is here to stay and the "climate change" agenda does not threaten. I disagree 100%, this IS the climate change agenda!
https://www.marxist.com/technology-innovation-growtn-and-capitalism.htm
excerpt
“Hand in hand with this centralisation, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, other developments take place on an ever-increasing scale, such as the growth of the co-operative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the planned exploitation of the soil, the transformation of the means of labour into forms in which they can only be used in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as the means of production of combined, socialise labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and, with this, the growth of the international character of the capitalist regime.”
So he says controlling all environmental factors, leads inevitably to controlling our climate...or at least how our climate behaves in relation to the environment we create for it.
My guess is you agree 100% with this Socialist's approach to Man controlling his environment and thus the climate which surrounds it.
How much of this do you honestly disagree with? I'd bet none of it, and ALL of it runs directly contrary to free market Capitalism which you claim is here to stay and the "climate change" agenda does not threaten. I disagree 100%, this IS the climate change agenda!
https://www.marxist.com/technology-innovation-growtn-and-capitalism.htm
excerpt
“Hand in hand with this centralisation, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, other developments take place on an ever-increasing scale, such as the growth of the co-operative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the planned exploitation of the soil, the transformation of the means of labour into forms in which they can only be used in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as the means of production of combined, socialise labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and, with this, the growth of the international character of the capitalist regime.”
Last edited:
More evidence climate change involves controlling our environment...just as Marx predicted.
https://www.newsweek.com/james-came...d-civilization-using-ocean-its-toilet-1460200
excerpt
Plastic waste in the ocean is horrific but is only the most prominent of our many deadly waste streams, which include carbon that's heating the atmosphere and making the ocean acidic, and the run-off nutrients from all the world's agriculture, which is causing anoxic dead zones the size of countries," Cameron said.
https://www.newsweek.com/james-came...d-civilization-using-ocean-its-toilet-1460200
excerpt
Plastic waste in the ocean is horrific but is only the most prominent of our many deadly waste streams, which include carbon that's heating the atmosphere and making the ocean acidic, and the run-off nutrients from all the world's agriculture, which is causing anoxic dead zones the size of countries," Cameron said.
Last edited:
I have not characterized one thing Mule has said. I have simply voiced my reservations of his examples. The only diminishing commentary on this subject is YOU in reference to me comparing my opinions to that of a pre pubescent, or some other such pejorative where you are left in a superior position of enlightenment.
Yet as to the simple question of if we humans have more control over earth's routine heating and cooling than the Sun, you refuse to answer. I take that as an admission or acknolwdgement of our inability to surpass the Sun's providence over "climate change" and the longer you continue to avoid recognizing that basic fact, the more frustrated you will grow with my refusal to accept man as the superior alternative to global "climate change".
I know that offends your more studied intellectual sensibilities on this topic, but often times simple concepts elude even the most elegantly educated or informed among us mere plebes.
I was talking about YOU...as for what I said in response to Mule, I was characterizing the entire 'man made climate change' culture, not his opinions confirming it. He can believe what he wants, I have no problem with his personal beliefs. I was stating my own.
See Mule my friend with all due respect here's where your analogy falls short:
Let's just say for the sake of argument here that my house was losing heat because it wasn't properly insulated? Well, the first thing I'd do obviously is increase the intensity of the furnace to generate more heat to try and overcome the lost heat would I not?
Sure I would!
And let's just also say for the sake of argument that I finally came to my senses an increased my insulation factors to retain more of the heat I was losing. Wouldn't my next logical move be to reduce the intensity of my blast furnace running all out to keep me warm, now no longer requiring as much heat?
Sure, otherwise I'd burn up or face a humongous heat bill!
So what's my point? In both instances I'm adjusting the heat source to compensate for the loss/increase of my heat factors am I not?
I most certainly am!
So....Mule, my Man....my main man!!!!! How do we "adjust" the heat source of the Sun? If we're adding too much insulation (greenhouse gases), how do we turn the Sun down? If we're freezing our gonads off (climate change) how do we turn up the Sun's thermostat to keep warm?
I know all of this is elementary to boomer because he's so smart, but he won't (or can't) answer this question for me?
Can you?
Last edited:
We can't adjust the heat source. All things being equal, the heat source is unchanged. Sure we have solar mins and maxes, but those are cyclic. The changes in temperature are not. What does correlate directly with the increased temperature are the CO2 levels, the insulation.See Mule my friend with all due respect here's where your analogy falls short:
Let's just say for the sake of argument here that my house was losing heat because it wasn't properly insulated? Well, the first thing I'd do obviously is increase the intensity of the furnace to generate more heat to try and overcome the lost heat would I not?
Sure I would!
And let's just also say for the sake of argument that I finally came to my senses an increased my insulation factors to retain more of the heat I was losing. Wouldn't my next logical move be to reduce the intensity of my blast furnace running all out to keep me warm, now no longer requiring as much heat?
Sure, otherwise I'd burn up or face a humongous heat bill!
So what's my point? In both instances I'm adjusting the heat source to compensate for the loss/increase of my heat factors am I not?
I most certainly am!
So....Mule, my Man....my main man!!!!! How do we "adjust" the heat source of the Sun? If we're adding too much insulation (greenhouse gases), how do we turn the Sun down? If we're freezing our gonads off (climate change) how do we turn up the Sun's thermostat to keep warm?
I know all of this is elementary to boomer because he's so smart, but he won't (or can't) answer this question for me?
Can you?
Historic temperature readings have been massaged. You and your quack scientist friends have no standing.
Can you speak to how or why they were massaged? Do you have any idea whether the changes made would increase or decrease the appearance of a warming trend? If you are making assumptions, I think you'd be surprised.
That's not true and you know it...I was looking at all of the data we have been discussing and they feel that a proper area of measurement is a block measuring 2/3 degrees in lat/long. That is 180 to 380 square mile area. They have one sensor spread out over a very large area. Case in point, it drives me nuts when the local news shows temps in the local area. It always shows one town being cooler/hotter than another city only a couple of miles away. On top of that they use modeling to account for hard to get to areas (southern hemisphere). The margin of error study you quoted, tries to show how accurate the predictive numbers they are using to "fill in the gaps", but they never take into account the actual differences in the deployed sensors that might be accurate, but not in the best place to gauge the true weather in the 320 squire mile area.
Agreed, the factor we control (greenhouse gases ie:insulation) we can certainly try to ameliorate so as not to intensify the normal effect of the original heat source. Which is my point pursuant to your analogy.
You said it correctly mule (which is why you're my main man) "the heat source is unchanged" correct!
So in your excellent analogy, if the heat source is non changeable, no matter what we do to the R factor it's going to generate the heat it normally would. We cannot adjust the thermostat (ie: Sun) so even if we were able to provide enough insulation to obviate the need of the heat source, we couldn't heat up the home any more with simply more insulation! The heat source MUST function as it normally would, and we have no control over it.
We can do all within our human capability to create less insulation from your analogy to be cooler, but if that Sun burns any hotter, or any cooler for that matter, no matter what else we do we are powerless to change the heat source. Which is my point.
Humans do not provide enough altering or ameliorating conditions to obviate the natural heating effect of the Sun. It is the chief determinant over how hot or how cool we eventually end up being, because whatever difference we do make with our "greenhouse" effects, it's not enough to alter our primary heat source. It's impossible
Appreciate the discussion.
Last edited:
Actually they could. I worked in pharma for over 25 years. Many of our studies were built to a desired outcome. If the study were not trending in that direction, they would abort the study and start a new one using different data points. In the climate space, where funding is involved, how could this not be a reality also. Do you really think that these climate experts would not want to deliver what they themselves feel is really happening. Bias is alive and well in the research community.
I've seen people do bad analyses. I've seen people look to data sets that support what they want to support. I've also seen those people and those methods called out by folks in the scientific community. You don't get 97% agreement when people are skewing things like that.
The problem is that the adjustments made to the historical data were to calibrate things so that they were comparing apples to apples. Some of that is due to a change in the method used to measure the temperature (ocean surface temperature for example). Others are reductions in contributions to heat caused by urbanization near some sites. In many cases, those adjustments would tend to decrease support of an overall warming trend. Even with those adjustments, there is a warming trend.
Exxon. BP. You think those companies have a financial interest in sowing the seeds of doubt?
Even if there is mule (debatable) where's the evidence it's caused by Man? What's the measurement data showing when you remove the "human factor"?
Oh, those evil energy companies, no concern whatsoever for future generations. The travesty of it all.
CO2 levels. We've been through this for 8 pages. You can't remove the human factor because the human factor is adding CO2 to the atmosphere at record rates. And, no, those increases aren't due to volcanoes (minimal impact compared to man's).
It's no worse than the evil scientists who are making fractions of what the energy companies are.
^^^This^^^
Hell, Mule. It's not just 8 pages here, it's a couple decades of threads....hundreds of threads probably. Yet, human activity has no impact on climate change.
I honestly don't think anyone debates humans are adding CO2 Mule. I know I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing if the amount we add is changing what the Sun otherwise does to heat the planet? That's the debate. I don't see the numbers absent the "human factor", and when you add in what we do, how much do things change?
Ok, but the real issues is the year over year impact...when the worst case scenario is a .02 increase with a +/- of .09, that is a 50% swing in the numbers. And let's not forget that prior to 1980's the data is very much a guess and in no way truly accurate. That is my point, we are looking at a 3o trend with inaccurate data but we are ask to do a 180 in how we live. I have stated from the beginning of me being in board is to make common sense adjustments to address our climate, but what is going on now, is just way too crazy to take seriously.
I watch weather reports(every 7 minutes) during local news. Amazing how often they fail to predict the weather correctly. Yea, they are local but use national resources for predictions. How do the past predictions hold up to scrutiny, about as well as recent predictions, that is why the narrative has moved from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Yes the climate changes daily on the hour as the temperature is checked for the next weather forecast...
See I can't get past this! They're trying to tell us we're going to destroy the planet in roughly 20 years heating it up living our lives as we normally do, yet they can't even tell us today what the temperature will be on Friday?
I'm not proposing radical changes in the immediate future. I'm proposing incremental changes and pushing to lead in the development of cleaner technology. It makes sense. If we lag in this, that will have long term economic impacts on us. If we become leaders in it, that creates jobs, industries, etc that have long-lasting positive impacts on our economy. It really makes sense. In no way am I saying that we stop taking coal, oil, or natural gas out of the ground. If we decrease our reliance on those over the next couple of decades, we have those industries where we can be exporters plus we can be exporters on new, cleaner technologies. It's sound logic. It prepares us for future. I really can't understand the argument against it. Even if climate scientists are wrong about the trend, there's an economic advantage to moving away from fossil fuels in the US.
When I read this, I wonder if you pull up a blanket or throw on a jacket when you start to feel a chill. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere have the same effect.
Prior to Biff, this is exactly what we were doing. But now he's trying to undo everything.
If my house is "chilly" I turn up the heat. If it's too warm, I either cut off the furnace, or turn it down. We can't "adjust" earth's furnace as you correctly pointed out, and the "blanket" we can use to keep warmer is inadequate.
My own personal belief is that it's the height of human arrogance to suggest we can alter how the planet heats and cools. It is not within our human capability....no more than we can make a simple molecule of hydrogen or oxygen or "water" which more than 70% percent of this planet's surface consists of.
We cannot make one of these. Impossible
If we can't even make the most simple basic component of the planet's surface, how is it we can actually adjust how rapidly or slowly the planet heats and cools?
We simply do not have that type of providence over the planet.
I agree with that but that is not how Obama viewed it, and certainly not what the two leading dim candidates are saying...There is a difference between forcing carbon credits, enacting EPA regulations that are written to slow discovery, not protecting the environment, and having a sound diversified energy policy. Until someone builds a better battery, what does creating more electric do? We can't store the energy we produce. Fossil fuels allow for mass storage, which makes it a valuable, efficient energy source. Maybe go with that high school kid who invented small nuclear reactors that would meet the energy needs in small electric grids...
not even close...we need to be honest with this. Obama did everything he could to block LNG deportation. We just signed a huge LNG deal with India. That's a win-win. India burns high sulphur coal and now they are displacing it with cleaner LNG...but that would have never happened with HRC in office, unless she got a cut from it.
We can make water.If my house is "chilly" I turn up the heat. If it's too warm, I either cut off the furnace, or turn it down. We can't "adjust" earth's furnace as you correctly pointed out, and the "blanket" we can use to keep warmer is inadequate.
My own personal belief is that it's the height of human arrogance to suggest we can alter how the planet heats and cools. It is not within our human capability....no more than we can make a simple molecule of hydrogen or oxygen or "water" which more than 70% percent of this planet's surface consists of.
We cannot make one of these. Impossible
If we can't even make the most simple basic component of the planet's surface, how is it we can actually adjust how rapidly or slowly the planet heats and cools?
We simply do not have that type of providence over the planet.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071031125457.htm
If you are unwilling to agree that we can impact the environment in which we live, then you are turning a blind eye to all the evidence around you.
Your example uses "existing" materials found in nature which we as humans cannot manufacture. We cannot make atmosphere, water, land, or anything else found naturally on this planet from scratch out of nothing. That's not our providence.
From your linked article
"In a familiar high-school chemistry demonstration, an instructor first uses electricity to split liquid water into its constituent gases, hydrogen and oxygen".
How is the experiment "making" water by using existing water? Where did the original molecules of hydrogen and oxygen come from?
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
WVSPORTS.COM Frazier drafted by the Pittsburgh Steelers in second round- Latest: brandonjags8