Man-made global warming = Govt take care me for life

[iamnotback]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLPkUXNRWFE

We have entered into a cooling period, c02 levels have been higher in the past, c02 levels lag behind increases in temperature by around 200 years.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf

This is pure BS. More CO2 means an increase in the temperature. Even a 4-year old kid will be able to understand that. And regarding that article, I am not even going to read it. Research has become too much politicized these days.

You Millennials fools. I already refuted the "fact" about greenhouses cases driving the thermodynamics! The tail doesn't wag the dog:

well no, it's a well known fact that the composition of the atmosphere does have an effect on the thermodynamics of planets. Different gases in the atmosphere will cause the planet to retain more or less heat. We can see this by studying other planets.

You've got that backasswards. The long-term composition of the atmosphere is dictated by the thermodynamics of the earth, not vice versa. The longer explanation of why that is so is your homework assignment. I will give you one tidbit to start with, which is that CO2 lags temperature rises (and declines) by 200 - 800 years because it is the warming and cooling of the oceans that cause the release of more or less CO2 from the massive mass of the oceans. Humans can't impact enough mass to offset the effect on the oceans. The Earth is a self-stabilizing system because of this huge heatsink, and the main heat sources are internal below the crust and the Sun (by many orders-of-magnitude than anything humans can do on a long-term basis).

The lag is an irrefutable fact seen in 100,000s of years (if not more, I forget) of ice core data.

You fools will believe any junk "science" put out by the socialist system that is "protecting" and "educating" you. Good luck with that. Mein Kampf.

If they have "science" to tell you FruitLoops are nutritional, you'll believe that also.

[1714862555]

1714862555

[1714862555]

1714862555

[1714862555]

1714862555

[1714862555]

1714862555

[trollercoaster]

And regarding that article, I am not even going to read it. Research has become too much politicized these days.

Translation: I'm not reading that, it goes against my religious teachings.
Lmao that stupid statement contradicts what you're supposedly standing up against, I'm out of this thread anyway, see you all in the cold(er) new year.

[protokol]

@Anonymint

You see, your delusions of grandeur are causing you to profile people like me as "mind-controlled Millenial asshats" that "disrespect their elders" and have been indocrinated by some sort of NWO school of thought.

None of this is true, I'm not a millenial, I could be older than you and it's just as likely that you yourself have been indocrinated by the filter bubble that you're confined to due to your paranoia of modern society, and your internet search history.

Serious question, have you ever been diagnosed with bipolar or manic depression? Because although you're obviously a very intelligent person, your trains of thought can be very incoherent and off topic. Plus you have a tendency to rate your own opinions and theories as superior to others, without succintly explaining why.

Like I said, I've been on the fence with the whole AGW theory for years, and make a point of reading as many opposing views as possible to try and gain a balanced view on the matter. It seems to me that you've already made up your mind and refuse to even contemplate opposing points of view.

That's a dangerous mindset that can lead to indoctrination.

[iamnotback]

Serious question, have you ever been diagnosed with bipolar or manic depression?

Lol. Is that your "factual" retort? Typical totalitarian-style, leftist response.

Indeed even boomers are caught up in the leftist disease. Nevertheless the leftist disease is more pervasive amongst the Millennials.

Like I said, I've been on the fence with the whole AGW theory for years, and make a point of reading as many opposing views as possible

Stop reading and first learn to think. Without a functioning brainstem, reading can only lead you astray into confusion or indoctrination.

If you don't have an analytical mind, then you will be easy prey for AGW indoctrination. Those who are very smart, can see the generative essence of the thermodynamics. And thus immediately detect junk science. (Climate) models are not proven science. Models are theories.

I am not going to go off on some long-winded debate wherein I have to educate you on science. Please. I am not going to scream over the 1000s of voices trying to indoctrinate you with their "rational facts".  That is your responsibility to yourself. Why would I invest that much effort?? That would be entirely irrational of myself. Yet you say I am bipolar or manic for telling you frankly that you are a dufus (maybe shock, awe, and embarrassment might wake you up, but I doubt it). That is the simple of way of saying you should STFU because you don't know what the fuck you are writing about. And instead go become smarter.

Btw, CoinCube used to be on the fence. And when I told him frankly, he wised up. Why? Because he is smart.

[CoinCube]

Btw, CoinCube used to be on the fence. And when I told him frankly, he wised up. Why? Because he is smart.

Global Warming has never been an interest of mine so I honestly have not looked into the issue with any depth.

The little data I have looked into I felt was flawed. Below are my comments on that data. As I am not all that interested in the topic I am unlikely to dig further.

Recently there has been debate about a global warming pause. Apparently the temperature data both land based and satellite data have shown little global warming since 1998. There have been many attempts to explain this pause including theories about volcanic eruption and the oceans absorbing more heat.

This year there was an article in the Journal of Science arguing that there was no pause in global warming and that the data once "adjusted" revealed the previously hidden warming trend.

A chart summarizing the papers conclusions.

US scientists: Global warming pause 'no longer valid'


Now science is one of the most selective scientific journals in the world. Studies published there are supposed to be both rock solid scientifically important and subjected to extreme peer review.

This study appears to reach very shaky conclusions using adjusted data.    
  
‘HIDE THE HIATUS!’ HOW THE CLIMATE ALARMISTS ELIMINATED THE INCONVENIENT ‘PAUSE’ IN GLOBAL WARMING'

The thrust of Karl’s paper is this: that far from staying flat since 1998, global temperatures have carried on rising. It’s just that scientists haven’t noticed before because they’ve been looking in the wrong place – on land, rather than in the sea where all the real heat action is happening.

And how did Karl et al notice what everyone else has missed until now? Well, by using a specialized scientific technique called “getting your excuses in early before the Paris climate conference in December.”

Essentially, this technique involves making adjustments to the raw temperature data (sound familiar?) and discovering – lo! – that the skeptics were wrong and the alarmists were right all along.

Karl’s paper makes much of the fact that the methods used for gathering sea temperature data have changed over the years: in the old days it used to involve buckets; more recently, engine intake thermometers. Hence his excuse for these magical “adjustments”. Apparently (amazingly, conveniently), the measurements used since 1998 have been “running cold” and therefore needed correcting in a (handy) upward direction in order to show what has really been happening to global warming. Once you realize this – global warming turns out to be as real and present and dangerous as ever it was.

As the GWPF reports there are several glaring problems with Karl’s paper, starting with the fact that it contradicts all the other surface temperature data sets and also satellite data (which clearly shows no warming post 1998). Also, without any plausible explanation, Karl also chooses not to use the data from the Argo array “that is our best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.” The suspicion naturally arises that this is because if Karl had used the Argo findings, they would have made his paper look ridiculous.

Here is the satellite temperature data since 1998
Global warming has been on pause for 19 years': Study reveals Earth's temperature has remained almost CONSTANT since 1995



Now if you have two data sets and the adjusted data is giving you completely different results from the raw data one must immediately scrutinize the methods and motivations of the adjuster.
...

[protokol]

Serious question, have you ever been diagnosed with bipolar or manic depression?

Lol. Is that your "factual" retort? Typical totalitarian-style, leftist response.

Indeed even boomers are caught up in the leftist disease. Nevertheless the leftist disease is more pervasive amongst the Millennials.

Like I said, I've been on the fence with the whole AGW theory for years, and make a point of reading as many opposing views as possible

Stop reading and first learn to think. Without a functioning brainstem, reading can only lead you astray into confusion or indoctrination.

If you don't have an analytical mind, then you will be easy prey for AGW indoctrination. Those who are very smart, can see the generative essence of the thermodynamics. And thus immediately detect junk science. (Climate) models are not proven science. Models are theories.

I am not going to go off on some long-winded debate wherein I have to educate you on science. Please. I am not going to scream over the 1000s of voices trying to indoctrinate you with their "rational facts".  That is your responsibility to yourself. Why would I invest that much effort?? That would be entirely irrational of myself. Yet you say I am bipolar or manic for telling you frankly that you are a dufus (maybe shock, awe, and embarrassment might wake you up, but I doubt it). That is the simple of way of saying you should STFU because you don't know what the fuck you are writing about. And instead go become smarter.

Btw, CoinCube used to be on the fence. And when I told him frankly, he wised up. Why? Because he is smart.

You see, again you're demonstrating your arrogance by using the term "leftist" - this debate has nothing to do with political alignment, it has to do with the actual science behind global warming. The fact that people on the "left" are more likely to believe in AGW and people on the "right" are less likely to, is irrelevant to the actual science itself - you're conflating political values with scientific evidence. Not to mention, you're oversimplifying the political terms "left" and "right" to fit your own worldview.

I for instance am quite left wing when it comes to social issues, but quite right wing when it comes to economics and trade. I don't label my political stance because I think that's counterproductive, but I have quite anarchist/libertarian views, but believe there should be some sort of "minarchist" government to avoid desolating the planet through unregulated industry due to pure unadultated capitalism.

I think. A lot. That's why I said I've been on the fence for so many years, if I didn't think then I'd just accept the first thing a teacher told me in school. Stop trying to profile people and assume their personality/world view from a view sentences they write on the internet - that's a pretty ignorant way of judging people, no?

And I didn't "say" you were bipolar or manic, I simply asked. Methinks the lady doth protest too much?
 

[funkenstein]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLPkUXNRWFE

You Millennials fools. I already refuted the "fact" about greenhouses cases driving the thermodynamics! The tail doesn't wag the dog:

I'm really not sure what your point is.  

If your point is that our governments are lying to us, then yeah, I agree.

If your point is that the anthropocene age and the mass extinction we are currently living in is not really a problem, then I disagree.  

If your point is that the clear warming evidenced in disappearance of glaciers worldwide is not entirely  understood, then yeah I agree.  

If you think doubling the amount of CO2 in our tiny atmosphere in less than a century is not alarming, I disagree.  

[Sithara007]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLPkUXNRWFE

You Millennials fools. I already refuted the "fact" about greenhouses cases driving the thermodynamics! The tail doesn't wag the dog:

I'm really not sure what your point is.  

If your point is that our governments are lying to us, then yeah, I agree.

If your point is that the anthropocene age and the mass extinction we are currently living in is not really a problem, then I disagree.  

If your point is that the clear warming evidenced in disappearance of glaciers worldwide is not entirely  understood, then yeah I agree.  

If you think doubling the amount of CO2 in our tiny atmosphere in less than a century is not alarming, I disagree.  

There is no point in arguing with someone who refuse to accept the fact no matter how much proof you show to him. They are having their own reasons to downplay the effect of global warming.

[protokol]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLPkUXNRWFE

You Millennials fools. I already refuted the "fact" about greenhouses cases driving the thermodynamics! The tail doesn't wag the dog:

I'm really not sure what your point is.  

If your point is that our governments are lying to us, then yeah, I agree.

If your point is that the anthropocene age and the mass extinction we are currently living in is not really a problem, then I disagree.  

If your point is that the clear warming evidenced in disappearance of glaciers worldwide is not entirely  understood, then yeah I agree.  

If you think doubling the amount of CO2 in our tiny atmosphere in less than a century is not alarming, I disagree.  

Succinctly put, Dr Funkenstein. I probably agree with all of your points here.

But some people get the idea that certain points like these are intrinsically linked. For example, just because the government lies to us, that doesn't give climate change denial any more or less credibility. Two separate issues.

[wowanstrong]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLPkUXNRWFE

You Millennials fools. I already refuted the "fact" about greenhouses cases driving the thermodynamics! The tail doesn't wag the dog:

I'm really not sure what your point is.  

If your point is that our governments are lying to us, then yeah, I agree.

If your point is that the anthropocene age and the mass extinction we are currently living in is not really a problem, then I disagree.  

If your point is that the clear warming evidenced in disappearance of glaciers worldwide is not entirely  understood, then yeah I agree.  

If you think doubling the amount of CO2 in our tiny atmosphere in less than a century is not alarming, I disagree.  

Succinctly put, Dr Funkenstein. I probably agree with all of your points here.

But some people get the idea that certain points like these are intrinsically linked. For example, just because the government lies to us, that doesn't give climate change denial any more or less credibility. Two separate issues.

On this topic and the government and scientists are only trying to make money and distract people from more important issues. It would be better left from the consumption of hydrocarbons. But it is money and nobody wants that.

[iamnotback]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLPkUXNRWFE

You Millennials fools. I already refuted the "fact" about greenhouses cases driving the thermodynamics! The tail doesn't wag the dog:

I'm really not sure what your point is.  

If your point is that our governments are lying to us, then yeah, I agree.

If your point is that the anthropocene age and the mass extinction we are currently living in is not really a problem, then I disagree.  

If your point is that the clear warming evidenced in disappearance of glaciers worldwide is not entirely  understood, then yeah I agree.  

If you think doubling the amount of CO2 in our tiny atmosphere in less than a century is not alarming, I disagree.

There is no point in arguing with someone who refuse to accept the fact no matter how much proof you show to him. They are having their own reasons to downplay the effect of global warming.

Succinctly put, Dr Funkenstein. I probably agree with all of your points here.

But some people get the idea that certain points like these are intrinsically linked. For example, just because the government lies to us, that doesn't give climate change denial any more or less credibility. Two separate issues.

Again theories are not proof. They are a corrupt junk science when paraded as proof (and especially obnoxious when for the obvious purpose of Carbon taxes and centralization of global governance).

AGW is impossible due to Physics regardless of anything else written here, but you ignorant leftists go ahead towards your destiny. Intelligent people have more important things to do than argue with leftist idiots. It is worse than fruitless to argue with idiots. Leave them to reap what they sow because they are following a religion of intentional ignorance...

Leftism is the religion which promises the individual he/she can entirely free, protected, while protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected.

Sounds very noble right? Read on...

All religions exist to protect the society (and the family) against the defection of the individual. Traditional religions argue that subjugation of some of the "evil" whims of the individual (e.g. extra-martial affairs) is necessary to maximize the success of the society, e.g. children who grow up without their fathers usually do statistically much worse in life in various metrics, including health.

Whereas, in leftism the "evil" is not "protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected". But what does this really mean? It is double-speak. It really means to steal from production so as to enable people to abandon their moral responsibilities so that the society can be utterly destroyed by hedonism and other ramifications of offering everyone "state-supported freedom" (which is a guaranteed megadeath hell in the future).

But don't dare tell the leftist, atheists that their idealism is corrupt, bankrupt, and disingenuous. They will gut you with a knife if you dare challenge the veracity of their beloved social justice.


"Entirely free" means you can do what ever the fuck you want and there are no NATURAL LAW ramifications (the State will always support your right to do what ever the fuck you want), as long as you support the State's right to protect and economically provide for everyone's right to do what ever the fuck they want. In other words, a "free for all" clusterfuck of political correctness and stealing.

But NATURAL LAW in inviolable. No State can protect every individual from the NATURAL LAW. And if you tell people they can be entirely free (including economic freedom for everyone and every whim), then you have lied.

In short, leftism is a Tragedy of the Commons. Thus is a false religion. It lies. It is Satan's religion.

[protokol]

Again theories are not proof. They are a corrupt junk science when paraded as proof (and especially obnoxious when for the obvious purpose of Carbon taxes and centralization of global governance).

Theories are as close as we are gonna get, and the scientific theories are well established with studies/evidence etc (not just some theory some dumb cunt made up one day and said "I have a theory"). Two different definitions of theories, they shouldn't be confused. Also, Scientific proof is an impossibility, you should know this, so you should probably stop using the term. Contrary to something like a mathematical proof, which is indeed possible.

AGW is impossible due to Physics regardless of anything else written here, but you ignorant leftists go ahead towards your destiny. Intelligent people have more important things to do than argue with leftist idiots. It is worse than fruitless to argue with idiots. Leave them to reap what they sow because they are following a religion of intentional ignorance...

If it's impossible due to physics, then prove it by writing a physics paper explaining why! If you are sure of yourself then why are you wasting time on a Bitcoin forum when you could be actually proving some sort of new physical theory?

[...political social hyperbole removed]

[Sithara007]

On this topic and the government and scientists are only trying to make money and distract people from more important issues. It would be better left from the consumption of hydrocarbons. But it is money and nobody wants that.

It is a very delicate topic. If you want to take steps to combat the global warming, then I am afraid that it is going to cost us a lot of money. For example, the electricity may get up to 200% more expensive, if we phase out thermal power-plants in favor of solar plants.

[iamnotback]

You leftists will reap the evil that you are sowing:

My strong distaste for the leftist religion is because they attempt to bind those outside their choice of religion to obligations that their religion deems important. They are not minding their own business. Any religion which does not respect the freewill of others to choose their own value system, is IMO the greatest evil.

But I am not measuring my value system by how much others who don't choose my value system suffer, except in the case of the leftist, because the leftist do the one thing that I think is unequivocal evil and that is the force their religion on those who choose not to participate in their religion. Leftists are the most violent and oppressive religion on earth, including any other religion that tries to force everyone to convert. Religious zealots seem to relish in pointing out how everyone else suffers if they don't follow the "correct" religion.

...

Religion and value systems lead to war. As evident right now in this conversation. Implying to someone else that they are inferior or evil because of their value system is war... I am sure about that when I say leftists are evil. I know they will make war against me, even I try to opt-out, so I lose no potential peace by fighting back and telling them what they really are.

[yet they claim to be for peace which is just one of the many lies they tell themselves]

How many non-leftists will you force to pay the Carbon credits/taxes to fund your political movement and junk science?

You fuckers will go to war for your social justice.

(Oh but you have well funded theories right. As Einstein quipped, if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. With enough money, you can buy all the technobabble junk science bullshit you want to convince yourselves that your fraud is correct. Nevertheless those with a brainstem and reasonable level of understanding of Physics, understand what is thermodynamically impossible.)

[ridery99]

I believe if we starting to use more fossil fuel then govt is not going to take to anymore care of me or my life.

[Sithara007]

I believe if we starting to use more fossil fuel then govt is not going to take to anymore care of me or my life.

Right now there is no alternative to using fossil fuels. Electric cars are just too expensive, and very few can afford them. IMO, the most viable solutions are to replace highly polluting fossil fuels (such as coal) with less polluting ones (such as LNG and LPG), and to reduce deforestation.

[igorokavg13]

I believe if we starting to use more fossil fuel then govt is not going to take to anymore care of me or my life.

Right now there is no alternative to using fossil fuels. Electric cars are just too expensive, and very few can afford them. IMO, the most viable solutions are to replace highly polluting fossil fuels (such as coal) with less polluting ones (such as LNG and LPG), and to reduce deforestation.

There is always an alternative. I'm sure there is technology, but their implementation has to adhere to people who lobby the interests of fuel corporations. But even those technologies that is, it is possible to significantly reduce due to increase production. It would wish.

[bryant.coleman]

I believe if we starting to use more fossil fuel then govt is not going to take to anymore care of me or my life.

Right now there is no alternative to using fossil fuels. Electric cars are just too expensive, and very few can afford them. IMO, the most viable solutions are to replace highly polluting fossil fuels (such as coal) with less polluting ones (such as LNG and LPG), and to reduce deforestation.

There is always an alternative. I'm sure there is technology, but their implementation has to adhere to people who lobby the interests of fuel corporations. But even those technologies that is, it is possible to significantly reduce due to increase production. It would wish.

Electric cars are not a viable alternative, at least for now. The battery of a single Tesla vehicle costs at least $30,000 and the inverter costs another $25,000. Two of the components used in the battery (Cobalt and Lithium) are getting rarer, and more expensive. Unless an alternative to the Cobalt-Lithium battery is found, it will not be possible to replace fossil fuels with electric energy.

[iamnotback]

I believe if we starting to use more fossil fuel then govt is not going to take to anymore care of me or my life.

Right now there is no alternative to using fossil fuels. Electric cars are just too expensive, and very few can afford them. IMO, the most viable solutions are to replace highly polluting fossil fuels (such as coal) with less polluting ones (such as LNG and LPG), and to reduce deforestation.

There is always an alternative. I'm sure there is technology, but their implementation has to adhere to people who lobby the interests of fuel corporations. But even those technologies that is, it is possible to significantly reduce due to increase production. It would wish.

Electric cars are not a viable alternative, at least for now. The battery of a single Tesla vehicle costs at least $30,000 and the inverter costs another $25,000. Two of the components used in the battery (Cobalt and Lithium) are getting rarer, and more expensive. Unless an alternative to the Cobalt-Lithium battery is found, it will not be possible to replace fossil fuels with electric energy.

Since the benefit is environment and has nothing to do with climate change, then the point is to reduce emissions in densely crowded areas, thus...

Eliminate the size of the battery with continuous recharging from the roadways (but I am not sure about if the Physics is viable):

https://www.google.com/search?q=roads+that+recharge






Perhaps a more viable technology might be to have recharging stations every where in densely crowded cities and AI so the car can automatically plug itself in every where you park. So then your battery would only need to cover your typical duty-cycle weighted driving range on a daily basis between stops. For longer range trips, you'd use mass transportation.

Perhaps using nearly instant recharging capacitors instead of batteries...

At a red light, the AI cars could link themselves together so only the first car in the line has to plug in.

Technology and clever people can solve problems. If the fucking leftists would get out of the fucking way.

[criptix]

I believe if we starting to use more fossil fuel then govt is not going to take to anymore care of me or my life.

Right now there is no alternative to using fossil fuels. Electric cars are just too expensive, and very few can afford them. IMO, the most viable solutions are to replace highly polluting fossil fuels (such as coal) with less polluting ones (such as LNG and LPG), and to reduce deforestation.

There is always an alternative. I'm sure there is technology, but their implementation has to adhere to people who lobby the interests of fuel corporations. But even those technologies that is, it is possible to significantly reduce due to increase production. It would wish.

Electric cars are not a viable alternative, at least for now. The battery of a single Tesla vehicle costs at least $30,000 and the inverter costs another $25,000. Two of the components used in the battery (Cobalt and Lithium) are getting rarer, and more expensive. Unless an alternative to the Cobalt-Lithium battery is found, it will not be possible to replace fossil fuels with electric energy.

Since the benefit is environment and has nothing to do with climate change, then the point is to reduce emissions in densely crowded areas, thus...

Eliminate the size of the battery with continuous recharging from the roadways (but I am not sure about if the Physics is viable):

https://www.google.com/search?q=roads+that+recharge






Perhaps a more viable technology might be to have recharging stations every where in densely crowded cities and AI so the car can automatically plug itself in every where you park. So then your battery would only need to cover your typical duty-cycle weighted driving range on a daily basis between stops. For longer range trips, you'd use mass transportation.

Perhaps using nearly instant recharging capacitors instead of batteries...

At a red light, the AI cars could link themselves together so only the first car in the line has to plug in.

Technology and clever people can solve problems. If the fucking leftists would get out of the fucking way.

For the most part the tech already exist but we would need to rebuild a great part of our infrastructure.

This imho belongs to the realm of solar panels and wind turbines everywhere - atleast for the next decade(s).