cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

208 posts in this topic

US town rejects solar farm after residents say it would suck up all the sunlight

 

 

The good burghers of Woodland, North Carolina, have successfully torpedoed plans for a solar farm, arguing the panels would suck up all the sun's energy, cause cancer and drive young people out of town.

 

Local councillors initially voted to reject a rezoning application that would have allowed the Strata Solar Company to build the farm near a highway north of Woodland, the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald reported. But then they went further, supporting a complete moratorium on new solar farms, after residents made their opposition crystal clear.

 

Jane Mann, a retired science teacher, reportedly told the council meeting she was concerned the panels would prevent photosynthesis and so stop the growth of nearby plants.

She said she had seen areas near solar panels where the plants were brown and dead due to lack of sunlight - a claim rejected by Brent Niemann, a representative of the Strata Solar Company.


"The panels don't draw additional sunlight," he said.

 

But Ms Mann went on to question the higher number of cancer deaths in the area and said it could not be proved that solar panels did not cause cancer, the newspaper said.

"I want information. Enough is enough. I don't see the profit for the town," she said. "People come with hidden agendas. Until we can find if anything is going to damage this community, we shouldn't sign any paper."

 

The Woodland area is popular with solar companies because it has an electrical substation that can be used to connect the electricity to the power grid, the newspaper reported.

But complainants to the council only forecast pain, not gain. Bobby Mann, understood to be Mrs Mann's husband, said other communities had withered after solar farms were installed.

 

"You're killing your town," he said. "All the young people are going to move out."

 

Another resident, Mary Hobbs, reportedly told councillors the value of her land had decreased because it was surrounded by solar farms. (The council had previously approved three.)

 

It takes all sorts to make a world...  :down: 

 

Curry is in a minority in plumping for climate sensitivity to CO2 being at the lower end of the spectrum. I wish she was right but the balance of probabilities points to higher sensitivity than Curry is relying on.

 

 

Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future

 

If we continue on our current business-as-usual path, we're on track for close to two doublings of atmospheric CO2. If climate sensitivity is 3°C for doubled CO2, that gives us a best estimate of about 5°C warming above pre-industrial temperatures by 2100, while even 2°C is considered dangerous.

Even if the lower 'instrumental' estimates were right and climate sensitivity is closer to 2°C, that would still suggest that we're headed for about 3.5°C warming by 2100 if we continue on our current path. Either 3.5°C or 5°C warming represent potentially catastrophic scenarios; thus we would still need to solve the global warming problem even if the lower estimates were correct, although they might buy us a little bit of time.

However, the results of Shindell's and Kummer & Dessler's studies suggest that these 'instrumental' estimates were the odd ones out for a reason. Their lower estimates were based on the incorrect assumption that all climate influences are equally effective.

At this point we're still left with all the evidence pointing to humans rapidly increasing the greenhouse effect in a climate that's relatively quite sensitive to these types of changes. In other words, we're on a very dangerous path, and we're still lacking the sense to take meaningful action to prevent high-risk climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no limit to American stupidity. 

 

In all my travels and working at a tourist attraction in my mid 20's I'd have to say USA'ns are the stupidest people on earth.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is okay though. Whether man made global warming is true or not looks like enough people decided money could be made and have started working out the stuff which will stop man made warming if it exists and probably help if it is caused by something else.

 

And all the people fighting against the problem will claim they were right along.

 

So the capitalist system kind of looks to have solved it and the entitled people depending on that system get to brag about their knowledge.

 

(I love this logic, I should get a job with trump!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should check to see if there was a boom in fur coats about 40 years ago when a group of scientists had this conclusive, irrefutable proof that we were heading towards and ice age. It now seems that at least the history of Sunspots provides some substance to their belief. Either case, I don't find much time for the drivel spouted amongst the chicken little of the scientific world. Our own Tim Flannery is prime example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion has always been "More energy = more fun". If more energy means more pollutants then we want to try and get it without pollutants. Lead free petrol was a sensible thing but removed the fun of stupidly high powered cars for a long time for people that like stupidly high powered cars. If we can do stupid sh*t without killing others then then that is a good thing.

 

The policies supported by those in the whatever it is called now camp fighting the climate change supporters camp were always regressionist. They wanted the same old crap.

 

I want new stuff.

 

If climate change is real (which I think is the current consensus) who gives a sh*t where it comes from?

 

If it is a natural cycle and will kill us all then you should be going f*cking crazy having fun.

If it is man made and will kill us all you should still be having fun and our energy limitations hold us back.

 

Energy conservation is stupid in the conventional way. Energy conservation where we get tons more power for fun stuff is only being created by the people that believe alterante power sources are fun.

 

So f*ck the climate change deniers because they want boring lives I figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lick your rats.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/rats/

Pup.jpg

 

I have assumed that those on the conservative side of politics are driven by fear and anxiety, whereas those on the left are more open to new things. I suspected that conspiracy believers tended to be also driven by fear and anxiety, hence the stereotpye of the right wing conspiracy nutter in the hills of Montana. The environment movement seems to also be driven by fear, but they are also embracing change. I need to go rethink my stereotypes. It probably should include love and sentimentality.

Edited by Ugg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lick your rats.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/rats/

Pup.jpg

 

I have assumed that those on the conservative side of politics are driven by fear and anxiety, whereas those on the left are more open to new things. I suspected that conspiracy believers tended to be also driven by fear and anxiety, hence the stereotpye of the right wing conspiracy nutter in the hills of Montana. The environment movement seems to also be driven by fear, but they are also embracing change. I need to go rethink my stereotypes. It probably should include love and sentimentality.

 

IMO, it is about the implications of implementing policies (ie taxes) that will have major impact on the quality standards of people, when history is littered with scientific theory that has proved to be incorrect. You can Google examples of it ad nauseum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should check to see if there was a boom in fur coats about 40 years ago when a group of scientists had this conclusive, irrefutable proof that we were heading towards and ice age. It now seems that at least the history of Sunspots provides some substance to their belief. Either case, I don't find much time for the drivel spouted amongst the chicken little of the scientific world. Our own Tim Flannery is prime example.

 

If tim is the chicken little of the scientific world could you please relate some credible names from the field of climate science?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If tim is the chicken little of the scientific world could you please relate some credible names from the field of climate science?

Why the need to have a specific champion? If I started saying that the earth is flat, is there a need for a specific person to tell me that I'm an idiot,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the need to have a specific champion? If I started saying that the earth is flat, is there a need for a specific person to tell me that I'm an idiot,

 

I guess I'm curious as to whether you are keen to discredit individual scientists or the entire climate science branch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Scott Adams once wrote; best way to ensure you get laid is to take your shoes off when you enter the house of the Lady. If your shoes are off she _must_ have wanted you to stay. She will then find reasons to support her decision. And you no longer have to work to get laid, she will do it for you.

 

I have always had a habit of taking my shoes off (too much time with japanese people made me realise I didn't have to vacuum so much and I am lazy) and after reading that I wonder if I am as charming as my past history has lead me to believe...

 

 

The point is cobran has made his decision and will simply stick to it. "Climate change" turned into "human created climate change" and so on.

We all do it.

That's why I try to find _why_ I want a particular argument to be true, I know once I choose I am going to probably be as stupid as every other human in my defense of my choice, so I try to ensure my choice is one where it doesn't matter if I am right or wrong, I get to have fun anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm here to deconstruct cobran.  :yes: It may be the case that he has some climate scientist with mad skillz that disprove the case for anthropogenic climate change. But I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deconstructing is okay, So long as you don't start messing about with Cobran infused foams I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe. Cobran on toast.  :)

Nah any "on toast" recipes are the purview of Anders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm curious as to whether you are keen to discredit individual scientists or the entire climate science branch?

 

I'm keen to discredit yet another form of extreme herd psychology, especially when it is politicised and this one comes with high taxes that I cannot avoid, since there will be no 'opt out' option.

Armstrong, as an example, has provided evidence opposing the BS. You can find others on the net.

Personally, I'm waiting until the 'experts' argue that Neanderthal man lighting wood fires caused the melting of the last ice age. That should be the equivalent of the shoe shine boy promoting stocks in 1929.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm keen to discredit yet another form of extreme herd psychology, especially when it is politicised and this one comes with high taxes that I cannot avoid, since there will be no 'opt out' option.

Armstrong, as an example, has provided evidence opposing the BS. You can find others on the net.

Personally, I'm waiting until the 'experts' argue that Neanderthal man lighting wood fires caused the melting of the last ice age. That should be the equivalent of the shoe shine boy promoting stocks in 1929.

 

I'm no wiser as to whether you regard climate science in general as credible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no wiser as to whether you regard climate science in general as credible?

 

I expect that it will eventually be proved to be as credible as the ice age predicted in the 1970's and eugenics.

 

Is that clear enough for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect that it will eventually be proved to be as credible as the ice age predicted in the 1970's and eugenics.

 

Is that clear enough for you?

 

The myth that there was a consensus among climate science of an ice age is a nice story. Unfortunately, it has no basis in fact. 

 

The below is an extract from a review of the literature from the American Meteorological Society in regard to global cooling predictions

 

 

Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. The research enterprise that grew in response to the questions articulated by Bryson and others, while considering the forces responsible for cooling, quickly converged on the view that greenhouse warming was likely to dominate on time scales that would be significant to human societies (Charney et al. 1979). However, perhaps more important than demonstrating that the global cooling myth is wrong, this review shows the remarkable way in which the individual threads of climate science of the time— each group of researchers pursuing their own set of

questions—was quickly woven into the integrated tapestry that created the basis for climate science as we know it today. 

 

So keen are some to perpetuate this myth they have doctored up fake time magazine covers to support their case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The myth that there was a consensus among climate science of an ice age is a nice story. Unfortunately, it has no basis in fact. 

 

The below is an extract from a review of the literature from the American Meteorological Society in regard to global cooling predictions

 

 

So keen are some to perpetuate this myth they have doctored up fake time magazine covers to support their case.

 

1. Who says there is a consensus on climate change amongst the thousands of scientists worldwide? It certainly seems to be exists amongst on those who depend on government grants for research!

2. The Ice age consensus 40 years ago may perhaps not have been as wide as today, but it made it to the mass publication newspapers, which is where is first read it and it appeared for a while. It then dissipated to oblivion, which is what I expect again ... just like Flannery's predictions. The more it reaches a religious status, the more it resembles a mania that will pop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So keen are some to perpetuate this myth they have doctored up fake time magazine covers to support their case.

 

So true. We mustn't let the facts get in the way of a good story...

 

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

It Snowed in Hawaii?

 

How is that deconstruction working out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Who says there is a consensus on climate change amongst the thousands of scientists worldwide? It certainly seems to be exists amongst on those who depend on government grants for research!

 

You can't seriously start with that! ahahahahaha

Share this post


Link to post
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