Global Warming: Extreme Heat In Europe
- Thread starter shufan199_3
- Start date
You want to act on the side of caution. Go to church daily. That will be good for you too. Don't tell me about picking and choosing when you want to act on the side of caution when I'm sure you're doing the same thing.
He's a guy who chooses to act on the side of caution. He goes to church daily. He doesn't eat meat. Walks to work with a construction vest on so all people see him. I understand the analogy.
Do your own research. The answers are there. You just don’t agree.
haha what all these super qualified people do a bunch of research and come to a conclusion?? is that all science is?? lmao
I take the advice of experts and do my best with the information I have available.
I tend to trust a scientific consensus… but that’s just me.
You can’t ignore that the climate is changing regardless of views on the causation. That’s why I fall more into the “reasonably adapt” without destroying the economy phase than what seem to be more drastic solutions, many of which are not even realistic right now. Not to mention I don’t trust whether politicians making certain proposals are practical and legitimate options or simply underlied by politician/donor motivation or getting some version of government tax payer handouts for a particular company or sector they are in bed with.
nope. we humans have no effect on climate change at all.
funny , einstein was a scientist.
oh duhh here i thought you were actually calling me a genius. youre a step behind.
Also should acknowledge there the people fighting against renewable energy are the fossil fuel companies that are in bed with politicians as well here…
No renewable energy policy destroys the economy. Quite the opposite. A shame that narrative works so well.
No. Just not worth debating it with you because it will never be good enough because you don’t agreee with the premise.
Funny you agreed with my earlier post about what needs to be done. These were all basic questions that the group would have to address.
You can sneak out the back door now.
I don’t take issue with having an independent expert panel to address it.
Doesn’t mean there isn’t plenty on the topic out there already. I’m just not debating it with you because there is no “exact” answer and there never will be.
plenty of independent experts have weighed in. Go look it up.
The issue for me is so few of their prior predictions have ever been remotely close to accurate.
Something like that. Early on man-made global warming indicated that we were on the cusp of catastrophe. Melting of the ice caps, flooding of the coast lines, famine death, destruction and all of that was going to happen in the very near future. The problem with specific predictions in narrow timelines is that they either occur or don’t occur. In the case of the global warming models the predictions of doom didn’t occur. Astoundingly, not withstanding supposed “consensus” catastrophe didn’t occur and we all went on with our lives. After that happened a few times the predictions became more vague in the timelines pushed further into the future. Essentially the hypothesis went from being falsible, which is a predicate for the scientific method, to being non-falsible. At that point the predictions went from being hypotheses to, essentially, religion. Religion we accept on faith. Science, however is a series of hypotheses that are not doctrine but instead are either working assumptions, proven hypotheses or disproven hypotheses.
Global warming fanaticism has, as noted above always been on a weak basis. Now, it barely tries to even resemble anything that science-based. Any reasonable person would have some healthy skepticism. For example if the supposed cure for global warming was a sale of carbon credits from wealthy nations to less wealthy nations one would have to ask how that impacts man made global warming. The supposed cure didn’t actually reduce carbon emissions it just imposed a fee on them. That methodology doesn’t seem to be intended at reducing man-made emissions so much as redistributing wealth. Likewise, the two biggest polluting nations China and India are largely exempt from the restrictions that are aimed at the US. How does that make sense if our goal is to prevent catastrophe by reducing carbon emissions globally? Again, it seems like a system designed to redistribute wealth.
There are a lot of other “inconvenient truths” regarding man-made global warming fanaticism. In no small part hypocrisy of those advocating for dramatic restrictions leaps off the page. Al Gore was a fervent believer who profited dramatically from the sale of carbon offsets. All the predictions in his book “an inconvenient truth“ or false. Every last one. Yet, that didn’t stop him from literally making millions off them. John Kerry jetting around the world produces far more carbon emissions than the average American. If his belief was sincere wouldn’t apply to himself? It does seem a bit of a “physician heal thyself” scenario.
Another thing that is inconvenient, and thus not talked about by global warming zealots is the fact that both Venus and mars are warming as well. Is that caused by man as well? It seems unlikely but since the global warming religion isn’t fact based anyway, why not say it is?
Math can be a little problematic as well. If you do the math the total amount of admission of supposed global warming gases is negligible to the amount of volume of total gases in our atmosphere. But, but, but there are so many cars…. Yeah sorry, it’s just not a meaningful number. Well, even if you think there is a problem, the answer is that man’s impact is not material.
Another really interesting fact is that carbon dioxide is actually a radiator gas and serves to radiate the planets heat out in the space. Granted, other gases are more efficient at it but carbon dioxide is part of the mechanism by which the earth loses heat to space.
As I’ve noted in my post above there is not one man-made global warming algorithm that will successfully predict changes an overall temperature. Yet people want to make world economic changes that would dramatically change the standard of living. If we were to return to an agrarian society, without internal combustion engines, and not burn fire for heat, we would dramatically reduce our carbon footprint, and millions of people would die of sickness and starvation, but hey that’s a small price to pay right? We need to save the planet!
But but but what about electric cars? Let’s think about that a little bit. First, if tomorrow we all switched to EV‘s the impact on the power grade would be catastrophic. In states like California where they are already at or close to peak capacity, there simply isn’t the additional margin. But but but what about windmills? They generate power, they also kill birds, they’re not as reliable, and they generate high frequency noise that the impact of which is only beginning to be understood. Hydroelectric power? Show me the new river you want to damn. Sure that has catastrophic environmental impact, but first you’ve got a find a river that can tolerate being Damned up without impacting water use down stream. So, our clean electronic vehicles are gonna require energy generation from coal or oil fired plants which have a much more significant carbon footprint than our existing cars. oh, and by the way the production of batteries is notoriously dirty, but we don’t care about that because it’s largely being done in China, right? In 10 years will have to figure out what we’re doing with old EV car batteries, but what the heck 10 years is a lifetime away and we need to save the planet today!
But but but consensus! Consensus!! I guess that becomes a comfortable refrain. But, the last inconvenient truth is, there’s probably less consensus than you think. There are a lot of climate scientists who will make the points I made above. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to get that information out, but challenging religious orthodoxy is always a difficult prospect.
Last edited:
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Estimates of up to a million or more birds a year are killed by turbines in the US but that is far exceeded by collisions with communications towers (6.5 million); power lines, (25 million); windows (up to 1 billion); and cats (1.3 to 4.0 billion).
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Haha the guy is literally giving you the source for the answers, if you actually want them.
Wow, that is a lot. Since you're Mr. Scientific Method, can you give me any studies that support any of this nonsense? Let's start with "wind turbines are bad for the environment because they kill birds," a claim that has already been disproven in this thread.
Remember, these studies have to be rigorously loyal to the Scientific Method!
By the way, while we're arguing about this garbage, Lake Mead and the Colorado River continue to dry up. Most of the continental US west of the Mississippi River is going through a drought of some severity. It's pretty bad! I don't really care that some scientist's arbitrary date did not come to fruition and you think that makes the whole thing a fraud. It's still getting worse regardless!
www.denverpost.com/2022/07/21/colorado-river-drought-colorado-river-compact/
Current Map | U.S. Drought Monitor
droughtmonitor.unl.edu
So if we’re serious about saving birds and preserving wildlife diversity we should eliminate our dependence on electricity?
That is a ridiculous straw man argument, you know he's not saying that. Stop.
I just feel like we need to maintain biodiversity to save the planet. I’m pretty sure that’s the “consensus” most scientists. Do you disagree?
You might wanna reread whatever you think this proves that wind turbines are bad for the environment because they kill birds. The only post here confirms that they killed birds.
In any event, if you actually want to read some studies there are a few linked in this article
First, you do realize that Lake Mead is a manmade lake that destroyed acres upon acres of existing habitat when it was created, right?
Is this summers drought an indication of climate change, or of weather? How would you defined the difference?
there are droughts on the east coast too.Wow, that is a lot. Since you're Mr. Scientific Method, can you give me any studies that support any of this nonsense? Let's start with "wind turbines are bad for the environment because they kill birds," a claim that has already been disproven in this thread.
Remember, these studies have to be rigorously loyal to the Scientific Method!
By the way, while we're arguing about this garbage, Lake Mead and the Colorado River continue to dry up. Most of the continental US west of the Mississippi River is going through a drought of some severity. It's pretty bad! I don't really care that some scientist's arbitrary date did not come to fruition and you think that makes the whole thing a fraud. It's still getting worse regardless!
www.denverpost.com/2022/07/21/colorado-river-drought-colorado-river-compact/
Current Map | U.S. Drought Monitor
From the study you linked: "The average number of collision fatalities in different European wind farms on land varies between a few birds per turbine per year up to 64 birds per turbine per year (Langston andP ullan 2003; Everaert 2006)."
So many dead birds! 😱
Yeah, everyone knows Lake Mead is a man-made reservoir. This concern trolling about birds and the environment is tiresome.
"This summer's drought..." are you kidding me? The American Southwest is experiencing a 20+ year long megadrought! So to answer your question, I consider that an indication of climate change.
Research Spotlight: Climate-Driven Megadrought
Southwestern North America has been experiencing a 22-year long megadrought. Credit: Guenter Albers, nvelichko, Shutterstock. In February 2022, a new UCLA-led study found that the 22-year-long southwest North American megadrought is the region's driest in at least 1,200 years. The article...
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
can anyone provide a study that lack of water kills living organisms? dont think ive ever heard of that....
I don’t need to look it up. You’re the one that proposed “we do something “. I would assume you would know simple answers.
Well cats emit carbon dioxide and without windows air conditioning would become impractical so that should save on electricity used in thus fossil fuel use.
Really, it sounds like quite the plan. Do we have consensus on it?
I know right. You probably can’t be sure unless there is consensus
The article you listed says that there would’ve been a drought regardless of man-made activity in that the drought existed prior to the promulgation of climate change studies.From the study you linked: "The average number of collision fatalities in different European wind farms on land varies between a few birds per turbine per year up to 64 birds per turbine per year (Langston andP ullan 2003; Everaert 2006)."
So many dead birds! 😱
Yeah, everyone knows Lake Mead is a man-made reservoir. This concern trolling about birds and the environment is tiresome.
"This summer's drought..." are you kidding me? The American Southwest is experiencing a 20+ year long megadrought! So to answer your question, I consider that an indication of climate change.
Research Spotlight: Climate-Driven Megadrought
Southwestern North America has been experiencing a 22-year long megadrought. Credit: Guenter Albers, nvelichko, Shutterstock. In February 2022, a new UCLA-led study found that the 22-year-long southwest North American megadrought is the region's driest in at least 1,200 years. The article...www.drought.gov
isn’t even one bird death one too many?
And I choose to say I look at the scientific consensus skeptical since we have so many things in science that show conclusions that those funding the science want.
A
