cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

208 posts in this topic

The problem is the cost of getting it wrong with the theory of man-made climate change. Scientific history is littered with failed theories. If you could readily replace fossil fuels with clean energy, then who cares if the theory proves to be wrong in the future. But that is not the case. What is being suggested as a remedy will cause major economic upheaval.

 

Avoiding economic upheaval was the argument against the industrial revolution. I don't think avoiding it is even possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avoiding economic upheaval was the argument against the industrial revolution. I don't think avoiding it is even possible.

 

DDT was found to be a good insecticide and so safe you could eat it as well!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcXXbuR244

 

I'd prefer for the theory to stand the test of further scientific time before turning the world upside down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of scientists say so. But as I replied to SC, can you find a United Nations report that conclusively states all studies to date have positively attributed all climate change to man–made causes?

 

It's a bit like treating the symptom for a human illness. If you don't diagnose correctly, there are consequences.

There is currently no viable alternative to fossil fuels. Start increasing substantially the cost of fuel/energy and see how the poor cope with it. Energy is at the core of most industries. Increase its cost or make its supply unreliable and see what happens to economic activity around the world.

 

But then we shouldn't let consequences get in the way of feeling good about ourselves, should we?!!

That is not an answer to the question. Almost seems like you don't want to answer the question clearly and concisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not an answer to the question. Almost seems like you don't want to answer the question clearly and concisely.

 

Ok. I'll make simple for you to understand what I've already explained previously:

 

I personally have not seen any extremes in the weather to make me feel we are heading into an oven. But irrespective of what I believe, if the scientists are theorising that the sky is actually falling, then I want that theory to be subject to the test of time.

 

Was the above simple enough for you to understand now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. You haven't personally seen the changes and you don't believe the scientists claiming the changes are occurring. You want to wait until you can see the changes (personally or, I assume, from scientists you do trust).

 

Assuming you will trust some scientists, Could you name them? or is it more of a profile they would fit (like "not paid by the government" I guess would be a criteria).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the same way about the so called moon landings. Until I personally have landed on the moon - nobody has.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DDT was found to be a good insecticide and so safe you could eat it as well!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcXXbuR244

 

I'd prefer for the theory to stand the test of further scientific time before turning the world upside down.

 

DDT is an interesting case study. It has been argued its banning resulted in more deaths than caused by Hitler. 

 

 

 

Prior to 1950,  malaria was common in the southern US, infecting 15,000 people a year and killing about the same number as scarlet fever.

Beginning in 1947, 4.6 million houses were sprayed in the United States, completely eradicating malaria from the country. Similar sprayings eradicated malaria from Europe.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) began as an organization to eradicate malaria. When malaria was gone, it sought other ways to benefit America. That’s why it’s located in Atlanta, GA, in the southern US.

In India when the DDT campaign began in 1953 there were 75 million malaria cases a year and 800,000 deaths. By 1966 there were fewer than a million annual cases of malaria and no deaths. 

In parts of Indonesia, 25% of the population was infected by malaria. When DDT was introduced, the rate fell to 1%. 

In Venezuela, the number of malaria cases dropped from 8 million to 800 when DDT was used.

Today,malaria still kills about 2,000 children a day, most in Africa. 

 

Still, I probably wouldn't eat it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DDT is an interesting case study. It has been argued its banning resulted in more deaths than caused by Hitler. 

 

 

Still, I probably wouldn't eat it

 

Still used in Africa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This wasn't fake at the time, though I read it on the newspapers:

 

Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling

 

 

It's back!

 

The face of the Sun has ‘gone blank’ and Planet Earth could be heading for an Ice Age

 

 

...It is feared the lack of sunspot activity could prompt the arrival of a cold snap similar to the Maunder Minimum, which started in 1645 and continued to about 1715.

This period is known as the Little Ice Age and became famous for the winter frost fairs held on the frozen surface of the Thames.
Last year, Professor Valentina Zharkova suggested a similar episode could hit Earth in the 2030s.
She said the sun’s activity would drop by up to 60 per cent during the next mini Ice Age, potentially causing crop failures and other minor disasters down here on Earth.
She said: “I am absolutely confident in our research. It has good mathematical background and reliable data, which has been handled correctly.
“In fact, our results can be repeated by any researchers with the similar data available in many solar observatories, so they can derive their own evidence of upcoming Maunder Minimum in solar magnetic field and activity.”

 

Comments at the bottom are good!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lower polluting higher output more varied energy systems would be good there too right? I assume you are now completely convinced we should stop polluting and invest in having a wide range of power options because you now think we are going to freeze to death.

 

Or do you not believe this scientist either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently a bit of air from the northern hemisphere made it to the arctic which is apparently 8 degrees warmer than average partly due to this happening.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/unprecedented-scientists-declare-global-climate-emergency-after-jet-stream-crosses-equator/

Just one guy and from the other stuff I have read it is weird but no one knows what it means really. Still, interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lower polluting higher output more varied energy systems would be good there too right? I assume you are now completely convinced we should stop polluting and invest in having a wide range of power options because you now think we are going to freeze to death.

 

Or do you not believe this scientist either?

 

Looking at 'viable' alternatives to stop pollution is one thing, which to me seems reasonable. Enforcing alternatives (viable or otherwise) due to 'religious' reasons (melting or freezing) is another!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is just a reheated story (pardon the pun) of an Armstrong post from January. We already discussed it. Media watch discussed it six months earlier than Armstrong.

 

Nothing new here. Just the media rehashing discredited stories. No wonder newspapers are going broke. Who'd pay for year old 'news'? 

 

 

 

But like so many others in the media, Channel Seven’s Daily Edition didn’t do its homework before getting ‘environment commentator’ Joel Hurrey to give his expert views

MONIQUE WRIGHT: Looking way ahead, Joel a really interesting report out by some scientists who have predicted a mini ice age in about 15 years. 

JOEL HURREY: How cool’s this. I’m a massive fan of ice age the movie and I watch it with my daughter all the time and I figure that if it’s going to happen, then, you know, let’s embrace it ...

MONIQUE WRIGHT: But couldn’t that have huge flow on effects for agriculture and so on? 

JOEL HURREY: Oh, of course, definitely. Look, it is going to affect a lot of problems, but in the same sense, it’s something truly special. You know, there was one that did happen in 1645-1715 in London known as the Me-unda [sic] Minimum, so it has happened before. People survived that, I’m sure we’ll be able to survive this one. 

TONY WILLIAMS: Gee he knows his stuff Joel, doesn’t he? 

— Channel Seven, The Daily Edition, 14th July, 2015

Well, Yes. Apart from getting the name and gender of the scientist wrong and calling it a ‘Me-unda’ Mininum. 

But why wouldn’t he know his stuff? Seven’s Environment commentator is an actor, model and experienced TV presenter. 

But back to that ‘Ice Age’. 

And exactly how much colder could the Earth become if the Maunder Minimum does return? 

Professor Zharkova doesn’t know, because she’s not a climate scientist, but most predictions put it at around a very modest 0.2 degrees, which would be easily exceeded by ... predicted global warming ... 

Which means temperatures will keep on rising without a new Maunder Minimum—according to the Potsdam Climate Institute

And only marginally less if there is one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently a bit of air from the northern hemisphere made it to the arctic which is apparently 8 degrees warmer than average partly due to this happening.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/unprecedented-scientists-declare-global-climate-emergency-after-jet-stream-crosses-equator/

Just one guy and from the other stuff I have read it is weird but no one knows what it means really. Still, interesting.

Apparently this is not interesting or unprecendented and probably doesn't mean much:

 

https://www.inverse.com/article/17886-jet-stream-wrecked-climate-change-equator-beckwith-emergency-francis

 

(the original dude stands by it but has said he isn't a specialist and he doesn't trust specialists anyway heh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and I for one welcome our new plant based overlords.

 

.. never change Cobran20. Science says you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at 'viable' alternatives to stop pollution is one thing, which to me seems reasonable. Enforcing alternatives (viable or otherwise) due to 'religious' reasons (melting or freezing) is another!

 

It will be interesting what comes out of the study on the SA experience and how it will be resolved ... and at what expense.

 

Energy: Let's Cut The Crap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting what comes out of the study on the SA experience and how it will be resolved ... and at what expense.

 

Energy: Let's Cut The Crap

 

Good estimation on the need for redundancy with green energy.

 

Here's an idea:

How about having wind power next to a dam used for hydroelectric power? Then the wind power could be used to pump water upstream to the dam, which then acts like a reservoir storage for hydroelectric power. The losses should be smaller since mechanical force is used to lift the water to a higher potential energy level.

 

This solution should make power available on demand while using the full capacity of wind power whenever it is available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are wind farms messing up the electricity market?

 

 

...So as it stands, our modelling suggests the RET is not a good way to increase the amount of wind generation in the electricity network. However our conclusions are different for other renewable energy sources such as hydro, which also have near zero marginal costs but have much longer lifetimes.

 
Therefore, where and if possible, we need to use a mix of technology, rather than overemphasising wind generation technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So renewables at any price?

 

We did try a market approach and that was thrown out. So given that we have committed to a reduction RETs are the only credible mechanism driving the reductions in emissions. I agree that wind power has an optimal level and that we need diversity in renewables with more stable sources like hydro, geothermal, wave and solar thermal in the mix.

 

The bank of England governor is currently visiting and warning business of the legislative risks posed by climate change. 

 

How much will doing nothing cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much will doing nothing cost?

Nothing if you don't breed :) ironically breeding is the biggest threat according to a few headline hitters recently...

 

Even better when it all goes absolutely tits up _I_ will probably be okay and every single person I have met that is anti the whole deal will be f*cked. Because I looked at their actions and started planning for the catastof*ck they were trying to deliver because they don't want to change their lives and are suspicious others have better lives.

 

In the same way all marketing staff should work help desk a week a year all people ought to have to live a week on "average world income and resources" a year. Pretty sure that would change a few opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We did try a market approach and that was thrown out. So given that we have committed to a reduction RETs are the only credible mechanism driving the reductions in emissions. I agree that wind power has an optimal level and that we need diversity in renewables with more stable sources like hydro, geothermal, wave and solar thermal in the mix.

 

The bank of England governor is currently visiting and warning business of the legislative risks posed by climate change. 

 

How much will doing nothing cost?

 

As Tor said - nothing! Also agree with Tor that overpopulation is a bigger issue. China's one child policy (now two I believe), should be enforced throughout Asia & Africa.

As to a governor of the BoE warning about global warming climate change, well he would surely be an expert in the field ... probably more accurate than Flannery!

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