UN sounds alarm over record-breaking temperature rise

[canuckamuck]

27 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Alex Jones?  Is that the best you can do?

Did you watch it? What problem did you have with a reaction that creates 30X excess energy from water and creates only helium as a by-product. Is that not something the government should be promoting?

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Did you watch it? What problem did you have with a reaction that creates 30X excess energy from water and creates only helium as a by-product. Is that not something the government should be promoting?

I realize that I misread the post. Fine. He's talking about the government suppression of cold fusion.  You know, when the report of cold fusion first came out, physicists pointed out that it would violate the laws of quantum physics. So, no, I don't take it seriously. And I'm certainly not going to spend 23 minutes listening to Alex Jones. Really, if you want someone to look at a source you're citing, at least choose one that's written. So I can just waste 2 minutes of my life.

Edited August 7, 2016 by ilostmypassword
posted before editing

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

And there are ongoing projects in the USA and Europe to do just that. But the technical problems are huge. Far better to have the government spend huge amounts on solving the question of energy storage.  In fact, we're well on the way there. Once that's done, renewable energy will be all we need.

Because the technical problems of energy storage are less huge? Do you even know what the technical problems of low energy nuclear reactions are? Or how little money has been spent on this form of energy?  Energy storage always has an environmental cost. 

These people already have working solutions with only a few million thrown at the problem. Imagine if some of the trillions thrown at the climate catastrophe hoax were put towards low energy nuclear research.

 

[Andreas2]

3 hours ago, Credo said:

Comparing Climate Change to ISIS is like comparing road accidents to HIV.

 

I assume you think that's inadequate, right? I agree.

Do we also agree, that people who claim this, look - at least a little bit - like fools?

The sad thing is, there are people who really think this comparison is adequate.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=kerry+climate+change+big+isis

[Andreas2]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Alex Jones?  Is that the best you can do?

 

Hmm, do you mean with that, that I should come up with an article from the trusted, state-approved media? Does this mean, you belong to the 6%? Only 6% of Americans trust the media – survey (Damn, did I just provide a link to RT? Don't worry, you will also find this information in your trusted media, whichever that is.)

 

Anyway, if the proponents of the man-made climate change science, including and especially the US government are serious about their claims and fears, shouldn't they all be very interested in such a promising technology?

 

Even I as a sceptic - But as a staunch proponent of clean, reliable energy production - find the report highly exciting. Why don't you?

If it helps, the host is David Knight; Give it a shot and risk to waste 20 minutes of your life. I'm really convinced you won't regret it. The last 3 minutes are just ads, you don't need to watch them.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Andreas2

[cumgranosalum]

Global warming and the resulting climate change is fact - anyone not accepting this needs their head examined.

There is no debate on Global warming now - the debate now is on what to do and how quickly and effectively it can be done.

[fasteddie]

4 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

Global warming and the resulting climate change is fact - anyone not accepting this needs their head examined.

There is no debate on Global warming now - the debate now is on what to do and how quickly and effectively it can be done.

Is that right? no debate eh, is that how science works? I don't think so and neither do many respected scientists.

 

http://yournewswire.com/climate-change-hoax-exposed-scientists-admit-no-warming-for-58-years/

 

A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax | Somewhat Reasonable

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, fasteddie said:

Is that right? no debate eh, is that how science works? I don't think so and neither do many respected scientists.

 

http://yournewswire.com/climate-change-hoax-exposed-scientists-admit-no-warming-for-58-years/

 

A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax | Somewhat Reasonable

More nonsense from warming deniers. I went to the first link and it cites the urban heat island effect. This nonsense was dispelled thanks to other global warming deniers. They hired Richard Muller, a highly respected physicist who had doubts just on this score to prove that the heat island effect was responsible for the warming. In other words, that the warming wasn't a real thing. Muller assembled a dream team of scientists and collected and analyzed billions of data points.  His results exactly matched those of the climate science community. His conclusion: that Global Warming is a real phenomenon.  Naturally the global warming deniers have dropped all mention of Muller's work. You must not even know about it. Otherwise you wouldn't have cited that first link. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0 

[JetsetBkk]

32 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

More nonsense from warming deniers. I went to the first link and it cites the urban heat island effect. This nonsense was dispelled thanks to other global warming deniers. They hired Richard Muller, a highly respected physicist who had doubts just on this score to prove that the heat island effect was responsible for the warming. In other words, that the warming wasn't a real thing. Muller assembled a dream team of scientists and collected and analyzed billions of data points.  His results exactly matched those of the climate science community. His conclusion: that Global Warming is a real phenomenon.  Naturally the global warming deniers have dropped all mention of Muller's work. You must not even know about it. Otherwise you wouldn't have cited that first link. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0 

 

I dare you to listen to this:  CO2

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

I dare you to listen to this:  CO2

 

 

Find me it's equivalent in writing, and I'll look at it.  I haven't got the time to listen or watch.

[chiang mai]

Lots of glib and brash responses in this thread about the future of the planet, lucky for me I'm pushing seventy. I hope the millennial's and others who post such rubbish can deal with the fall out if they're wrong, which I think they are. If they can't or don't, oh well!

[JetsetBkk]

1 hour ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

I dare you to listen to this:  CO2

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Find me it's equivalent in writing, and I'll look at it.  I haven't got the time to listen or watch.

 

Can you read OK?

 

In 2014, Moore testified to the U.S. congress on the subject of Global Warming. “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s testimony.

 

"When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today... Humans just aren’t capable of predicting global temperature changes."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)#Global_warming

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

Global warming and the resulting climate change is fact - anyone not accepting this needs their head examined.

There is no debate on Global warming now - the debate now is on what to do and how quickly and effectively it can be done.

I agree. Unfortunately no government is actually doing anything to change it, nor, IMO will they.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

 

Can you read OK?

 

In 2014, Moore testified to the U.S. congress on the subject of Global Warming. “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s testimony.

 

"When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today... Humans just aren’t capable of predicting global temperature changes."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)#Global_warming

 

 

Oh, yes, Patrick Moore. He became a corporate shill a long time ago. Not only that, but his degree is in ecology. So why should we listen to him about climate change?

. "In 2007 The Guardian reported on his writings for the Royal Society arguing against the theory that mankind was causing global warming, noting his advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops.^[35] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

He has described clear-cut logging as "making clearings where new trees can grow in the sun". He has suggested that sea lice (which spread from farmed salmon to wild fish, often with devastating effects) are "good for wild salmon", as the fish can eat the larvae. He has justified gold-mining operations that have caused devastating spills of sodium cyanide by arguing that "cyanide is present in the environment and naturally available in many plant species".

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/02/sumatra-rainforest-destruction-patrick-moore

He also was hired as a consultant to APP, one of the worst clear cutters in Indonesia. It's too long to summarize here but you can read about it in the Guardian article.

His statement on global warming was rated Mostly False by Politifact.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/17/patrick-moore/climate-change-skeptic-patrick-moore-says-earth-ha/

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

 

Can you read OK?

 

In 2014, Moore testified to the U.S. congress on the subject of Global Warming. “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s testimony.

 

"When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today... Humans just aren’t capable of predicting global temperature changes."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)#Global_warming

 

 

No doubt, given time, life can adapt to much higher levels of CO2 and concommitant higher temperatures..  The problem is that this is happening very quickly in evolutionary terms.  And it will fuel mass extinctions.