And so it starts....
-
That would be a pretty big filter - it would have an area of approximately 128 million square kilometers (50 million square miles)! I grant you that it's more feasible than Larry Niven's idea of moving the Earth out so it orbits Saturn, but it would still be a massive undertaking! Assume that the filter has a mass of 1 gram per square meter; the total mass of the filter would be 128 billion kg, or 128 million tons. Even if we improved our launching abilities so as to be able to boost 100 tons in each payload, we would need a million launches. Add to that the launches for the construction workers, food, other perishables, etc. What do you think well over a million launches of such magnitude would do to the environment?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
f moving the Earth out so it orbits Saturn,
That would take a lot of cranes.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
What do you think well over a million launches of such magnitude would do to the environment?
Perhaps a better solution is just more sunscreen. If Obama were President again he'd give free sunscreen for everyone. Well, except middle-class white people. :laugh:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
It's a valid question. It isn't immediately obvious how much he's denying.
Nighthowler wrote:
It's a valid question.
How so? Wait a second, what do you think CAGW stands for? I think you two are talking about two different things. :^)
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Nathan Minier wrote:
Calling it "fake news" right at the start to try to completely marginalize the whole thing without discussion
Its the usual "move along please, nothing to see here" approach alarmists use when they cant just dismiss the facts.
Well that's the problem. There are facts to discuss, but people treat the whole concept like religion, on both sides. Every time this shady crap comes up it calls the whole concept into question. On the other hand, supporters will believe literally anything without proper vetting. I could claim that jerking off caused climate change, with a pretty graph, and half the population would freak out about the masturbation issue, and the other half would exhaust themselves just to prove it false (well, not "just").
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.[^] So now he can't be sacked by NOAA, because Trump put his own man in charge, he is now free to speak out about data corruption and scientific fraud. This is end for the CAGW bullshit thats mis-formed govt policy for decades and cost the taxpayer billions, because a lot of it has come from US scientists. Personally I think Trump shouldn't try to muzzle scientists, he should just put funding on the table for them to prove CO2 is safe. Nothing will undo CAGW quicker than a volte-face by its former adherents.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The Mail on Sunday
Ah yes - the Daily Mail. That bastion of truth and reliable journalism. :rolleyes: It's all right, everyone. We can pack in the research into climate change. The Daily Mail has told us it's all a hoax. And that must be true, because I read it in The Daily Mail[^]. :laugh: Let me know if anyone ever comes up with credible evidence, rather than a few distorted graphs and a journalist's rant.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The Mail on Sunday
Ah yes - the Daily Mail. That bastion of truth and reliable journalism. :rolleyes: It's all right, everyone. We can pack in the research into climate change. The Daily Mail has told us it's all a hoax. And that must be true, because I read it in The Daily Mail[^]. :laugh: Let me know if anyone ever comes up with credible evidence, rather than a few distorted graphs and a journalist's rant.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Strike my reply above. You are right about the stuff in the second half (you should've said so in the first place!), although I do think we should err on the side of caution about AGW. There is no way we're gonna conclusively prove it either way.
You didnt give mke a chance, and I dont think I should have to provide a list of declaimers when ever I post about CAGW. As for the precautionary principle it is only valid when there is a risk. There isnt with CO2. Because the answer to your second statement is that it has been proved. The earth has proved that it is not that sensitive to CO2 based on the now 60 odd years of data we now have.
-
Feel free to point out one fact that is wrong in the article. Waiting....
Quote:
the ‘Climategate’ affair ... suggested they had manipulated and hidden data.
There's one for a start. The fact that the tabloid press didn't understand the content of the leaked emails doesn't mean they get to make up their own meaning. Now, feel free to point out which part of the article marks the end for "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming". I assume that's what you're referring to, and not "Citizens Against Government Waste", or "Cultural Alliance of Greater Washington".
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Quote:
the ‘Climategate’ affair ... suggested they had manipulated and hidden data.
There's one for a start. The fact that the tabloid press didn't understand the content of the leaked emails doesn't mean they get to make up their own meaning. Now, feel free to point out which part of the article marks the end for "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming". I assume that's what you're referring to, and not "Citizens Against Government Waste", or "Cultural Alliance of Greater Washington".
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Thats the best you can do, a weak stab at a side story? What has this got to do with a climate scientist criticising NOAA for using bad data? Nothing of course. You merely display your desperation. (and then compound it by pretending that the contents of the emails are only comprehensible to 'climate scientists' :laugh: )
-
Sigh. No, CO2 is not a pollutant. Its effect on temperature is muted and entirely beneficial.
:laugh: wtf nonsense is this?
-
:laugh: wtf nonsense is this?
What -- you can't handle truth?[^]
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
What -- you can't handle truth?[^]
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
we can talk about truth once you get anywhere near it.
-
we can talk about truth once you get anywhere near it.
BWAHAHAHA! So you think CO2 is a pollutant?
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
:laugh: wtf nonsense is this?
You are that unaware of the science? You know Co2 is plant food and makes plants drought resistant? Didnt you do biology at school? You know that warming below 2C will be beneficial? CO2 has a low effect on temperature, at the bottom of the IPCC range. You have heard of the IPCC I take it?
-
Quote:
the ‘Climategate’ affair ... suggested they had manipulated and hidden data.
There's one for a start. The fact that the tabloid press didn't understand the content of the leaked emails doesn't mean they get to make up their own meaning. Now, feel free to point out which part of the article marks the end for "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming". I assume that's what you're referring to, and not "Citizens Against Government Waste", or "Cultural Alliance of Greater Washington".
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
You are blind.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
You are that unaware of the science? You know Co2 is plant food and makes plants drought resistant? Didnt you do biology at school? You know that warming below 2C will be beneficial? CO2 has a low effect on temperature, at the bottom of the IPCC range. You have heard of the IPCC I take it?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You know Co2 is plant food
know what else is plant food? shit. is shit a pollutant?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You know that warming below 2C will be beneficial?
to some, not to all. but we're going to plow past 2C pretty quickly.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You know Co2 is plant food
know what else is plant food? shit. is shit a pollutant?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You know that warming below 2C will be beneficial?
to some, not to all. but we're going to plow past 2C pretty quickly.
Chris Losinger wrote:
is sh*t a pollutant?
I would say no, near my house there are some farms using a tone of it as guano to fertilize their fields :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
BWAHAHAHA! So you think CO2 is a pollutant?
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz< wrote:
So you think CO2 is a pollutant?
pollution is in the eye, nose, mouth, bloodstream of the beholder. whether or not C02 is a pollutant depends on the context. if you're a plant (are you a plant?) more C02 isn't necessarily bad - though only up to a certain point; too much CO2 harms plants. if you're a person, more CO2 can be fatal. the dosage makes the poison.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You know Co2 is plant food
know what else is plant food? shit. is shit a pollutant?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You know that warming below 2C will be beneficial?
to some, not to all. but we're going to plow past 2C pretty quickly.
If it is plant food, then to plants no, it isnt. Obviously. And no, the currently anomaly is about 0.8 C, a long way from 2C still.
-
If it is plant food, then to plants no, it isnt. Obviously. And no, the currently anomaly is about 0.8 C, a long way from 2C still.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
then to plants no, it isnt.
are you a plant?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
0.8 C, a long way from 2C still
a long way for you. not for people born today.
-
Well that's the problem. There are facts to discuss, but people treat the whole concept like religion, on both sides. Every time this shady crap comes up it calls the whole concept into question. On the other hand, supporters will believe literally anything without proper vetting. I could claim that jerking off caused climate change, with a pretty graph, and half the population would freak out about the masturbation issue, and the other half would exhaust themselves just to prove it false (well, not "just").
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Nathan Minier wrote:
There are facts to discuss, but people treat the whole concept like religion, on both sides.
The ones who believe, don't need any explanation The ones who not believe, don't want any explanation The theory of evolution can not be proved true, so it has to be false. God's existance can not be proved false, so it must be true. I could continue... but I think I have proved your point :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
