Confessions of a Climate Change Denier

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,362
12,824
113
Low Earth Orbit
The computer I'm typing on does exactly the same thing as the original. On or off switches. Only difference is the rate and number of ons and offs per second.

Efficiency is the future not alternate Star Trek dilithium crystals.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,057
8,321
113
Washington DC
The computer I'm typing on does exactly the same thing as the original. On or off switches. Only difference is the rate and number of ons and offs per second.

Efficiency is the future not alternate Star Trek dilithium crystals.
You think that a semiconductor is no different from a vacuum tube?

OK.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
That's poppy cock. If everyone emitted the same amount, well you still wouldn't have a case for there being only one solution. Because increasing efficiency of say, gas mileage in cars would have the same effect as removing emitters. Total emissions go down. Or rather than calling them the number of emitters, let's call your solution what it is, population control. If you think it's the only solution, that's pretty foolish.

The discussion point above still does not recognize the core issue... To be clear, IF the issue relates to anthro emissions, increasing efficiencies still plays second fiddle to the number of emitters, particularly in a system in which the population is expanding geometrically.

There will come a point where there are no more efficiencies to be had.

Further, talk about cars and industry all you like - assuming that CO2 is the culprit, do not forget to analyze the other end of the spectrum in the energy, consumption and emission rates of those that aren't heavily vested in contemporary tech, cars etc.

Each time that someone cuts a tree to heat their home (cook food, etc), the removal of that tree eliminates the potential to absorb CO2 in addition to the emissions (extremely inefficient I might add) that are transferred into the atmosphere.

There is no way that you can get around this situation IF your premise is that anthro emissions are the root cause.

Poppycock indeed

A real incongruity I've noticed is that the efficacy of any proposed solution never really gets discussed. Unlike other foreign policy issues, where there's lots of different opinions, this topic tends to get distilled down to the same old talking points, every time. If you have some percentage that flat outright believes that human contribution is a lie, obviously they won't be a meaningful part of that discussion at all. As for proposed solutions, there's lots of them. My personal favourite is the wedge stabilization proposed a number of years ago now.

The above assumes that AGW and (anthro) CC are fact in terms of the cause... To date, there is no overwhelming support as evidenced by the almost weekly 'new' theories and reconfigured models.

None of the forecasts have been realized.... Call it a work in progress, fine, but the word 'fact' has no place in this discussion at this point



if you might indulge a request, the label "AGW truther" is one I've only ever encountered here on this board. Can you provide a definition for it - thanks in advance.

You provide a functioning definition of climate change as it relates to anthropogenic causation first, then back it up with real proof

When it comes to cause, I don't think there really is any more argument about who the primary driver of climate change for the time being.

It is us. Despite other natural factors that are involved, we are the primary influence.

This is no longer debatable.

Remember when Suzuki unilaterally declared that the debate was over?..... There was no debate and as history has now shown us, he was wrong in each and every one of his predictions.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,362
12,824
113
Low Earth Orbit
You think that a semiconductor is no different from a vacuum tube?

OK.
Same functionality. Just like how a one cyclinder combustion engine uses the same process as a V16 combustion engine to convert gasoline into mechanical energy.

PS cooking 150 metric tonnes of steel today will require the same energy in 100 years.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,057
8,321
113
Washington DC
Same functionality. Just like how a one cyclinder combustion engine uses the same process as a V16 combustion engine to convert gasoline into mechanical energy.
By that logic, there's no difference between a horse and an automobile. As you say, same functionality.

PS cooking 150 metric tonnes of steel today will require the same energy in 100 years.
And in all likelihood, solar panels will be vastly more efficient. Your question, in case you've forgotten in your drooling worship of fossil fuels, was not "How much energy does it take to make 150 tonnes of steel?" it was, quote, "How many solar panels does it take to make a 150mt batch of steel in a metal arc furnace?"
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
The causes are suspected, not know. I think the evidence is pretty strong, but a long way from the confidence level of, say, gravity.

Gravity is one of the most misunderstood phenomenon out there. Poor comparison. Nothing is known for certain in science. Certainty is the realm of faith, not knowledge. Epistemology 101.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
quite the denier gabfest going on in here!

You provide a functioning definition of climate change as it relates to anthropogenic causation first, then back it up with real proof

what was it you said to me in the other thread... right back at ya!
I'm not your google bitch.

Do it yourself

I ain't your google bitch.

of course, given your predisposition, I doubt you'd accept any kind of evidence (uncertainty qualified), or as you say, "proof".

Per the IPCC: Climate change
Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.
Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.

if you were inclined you could review the latest AR5 IPCC reports particularly those with an attribution aspect/emphasis... a dated AR4 reference from NASA (note sample publication references provided):
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,057
8,321
113
Washington DC
Gravity is one of the most misunderstood phenomenon out there. Poor comparison. Nothing is known for certain in science. Certainty is the realm of faith, not knowledge. Epistemology 101.
Subject demonstrates excellent grasp of the patently obvious. Recommend immediate promotion.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
of course, given your predisposition, I doubt you'd accept any kind of evidence (uncertainty qualified), or as you say, "proof".

So far, the only 'evidence' you have generated is... None.

Unless, of course, you qualify evading questions and the branding of anyone that doesn't follow lock-step with your ideology on a blind faith basis as evidence.

Per the IPCC: Climate change

Fantastic... The IPCC.... Got a lot of their factual info from East Anglia U, right?

Say, didn't that venerable group publish stats on the acceptance rate(s) of the scientific community in the high 90s?.... As I recall, there were a very large number of those folks that were forced to having to publicly 'correct' the IPCC in mistakenly identifying them as supporters... Some even filed lawsuits to force the 'correction'
Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.
Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.​
Next step - Prove it
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
So far, the only 'evidence' you have generated is... None.

Unless, of course, you qualify evading questions and the branding of anyone that doesn't follow lock-step with your ideology on a blind faith basis as evidence.



Fantastic... The IPCC.... Got a lot of their factual info from East Anglia U, right?

Say, didn't that venerable group publish stats on the acceptance rate(s) of the scientific community in the high 90s?.... As I recall, there were a very large number of those folks that were forced to having to publicly 'correct' the IPCC in mistakenly identifying them as supporters... Some even filed lawsuits to force the 'correction'
Next step - Prove it

A bunch of people that live off of government grants said so. Means it must be true.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,794
460
83
Canada must move to clean energy quickly, climate activists say

The United Nations is calling on world leaders to take action on the environment following the release of a sweeping report that suggests climate change is happening -- and it could have dire effects on future generations.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change presented in Denmark on Sunday is the final volume of a comprehensive climate assessment, which said climate change is almost entirely influenced by human activity.

If left unchecked, the panel warned that climate change will increase the likelihood of severe and irreversible impacts on the human population and the ecosystem.
Diverting course from the effects of climate change may require eradicating greenhouse gas emissions by 2100, the report also said.

“The good news is, if we act now, immediately and decisively, we have the means to build a better and more sustainable world,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said.

Such changes would include ending a global reliance on oil, gas and coal -- the leading sources of greenhouse gas pollution. The UN report says it would cost less than 1 per cent of the world’s annual budget to shift to clean energy resources.

The world is already seeing the impact of global warming, the report said, in the form of droughts, flooding and severe weather.
In a statement on Sunday, the David Suzuki Foundation said Canada “must respond quickly to ensure that clean energy becomes a national priority” in order to avoid the risks of climate change.

“This final report by leading scientists and economists shows that the severity of climate change impacts and extreme weather is not a matter of chance,” said Ian Bruce, the foundation’s science and policy manager.

In an October report, the Auditor General of Canada found that our country’s plan to shrink carbon pollution has been “ineffective” and poorly co-ordinated.
The report outlined concern that Canada would not meet its 2020 emission reduction target, and said that the government is lagging in creating a plan to find greater reductions beyond that deadline.

The Canadian government has also been criticized for not meeting its 2007 commitments to regulate the oil and gas industry. In September, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was slammed for not attending the UN Climate Summit in New York City.

John Bennett, Sierra Club Canada’s executive director, said Sunday that he’s discouraged by the lack of investment in renewable energy by the federal government. The risk of doing nothing, he says, far outweighs the cost of moving to renewable energy.

“We have to phase out fossil fuels over these next 100 years or we’re going to pass on a world to our grandchildren that has areas that are uninhabitable that were once very good for people to live,” Bennett told CTV’s News Channel.

Following the release of the report on Sunday, Canadian Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq’s office issued a statement saying the Conservative government has decreased emissions while growing the economy.

“We have taken action on two of the largest sources of emissions in this country, namely the transportation and electricity-generation sectors,” spokesperson Ted Laking said. “Building on our record, we announced in September that we will be taking pre-emptive action to reduce and limit harmful hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions, before they increase.”
Blair Feltmate, of the University of Waterloo Climate Change Adaptation Project, said that the UN report emphasized that “time is not limitless” in terms of fighting against climate change.

“I think there could have been a little more emphasis in reference to in the immediate term, what do we do to adapt to the extreme weather that we’re currently experiencing,” Feltmate said, also pointing to measures Canada can take to mitigate flooding risks.

Canada must move to clean energy quickly, climate activists say | CTV News