Comments 1 - 40 of 53 Next » Last » Search these comments
Low energy costs and he made the US the highest producer of oil and gas in the world.
Haven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better....
Where are those low energy costs?
As for the oil - America Is Producing the Wrong Kind of Oil
Haven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better....
Milankovitch Cycles
Haven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better....
Kakistocracy saysHaven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better....
I'm over 50, and I see no change in the weather over my lifetime.
Haven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better...
New colder temperatures are bringing much rain to California, putting a nail in the coffin of the never ending drought.
As for the OP, I’ve lived in ILLINOIS, and temperatures swing WILDLY there. One day there’s a blizzard and the next the Gulf Stream blows in and melts it all to nothing. They get extreme weather. It’s just the confluence of different factors that all sort of intersect over Lake Michigan. Nothing to be alarmed about!
Do you think Mann will ever release his hockey stick data? Not that it matters as time has shown his theory on co2 related global warming has not matched observations.
Onvacation saysDo you think Mann will ever release his hockey stick data? Not that it matters as time has shown his theory on co2 related global warming has not matched observations.
They were not man created
There is a maximum carry limit on the earth's resources, we are way past that.
To ask 5 billions of the world's underclass to restrict their consumption while the 2 billions or so of the upper class continue in our wanton way is unrealistic. We cant exterminate half the population to act quick enough. If anything it'd be better "ROI" to kill off 1st world consumers. lol.
He said the first problem is you can’t separate the science from the politics. Errors in the projections accumulate as you move forward in time and cause "the measure bars of error” to be “so wide” it is impossible “to measure the positive or negative effect of anything we do right now.” So how is it possible to measure the “consequences of our actions? How is that possible?”
Peterson is a psychologists whose definition of "truth" includes such things as "Jungian archetypes".
Onvacation saysDo you think Mann will ever release his hockey stick data? Not that it matters as time has shown his theory on co2 related global warming has not matched observations.
...
The speed of change is indicative of man's industrial byproduct. True that human population is the key driver.
As I said, I know I will never know enough to be certain of the outcome.
... Way too much "measure errors" according to Peterson
In science, even more so in engineering, if you try to be 100% certain, you will aim, aim, aim ...never pull the trigger. And you dont have to as individuals, it is the critical mass that is important. Lets say we decide air travel is bad, one person flying or not wont make any difference.
Some problems and opportunities don't allow one to take forever. Analysis paralysis. Miss the window, you lose. Good enough is good enough - like i said, the trend and rate of change is more impotant to the scientist. If we wait for confirmation without a doubt, humanity will all be dead, in my case 2 and case 3..
Where we differ is the sense of urgency.
As far as the world's leading scientific body, 97% is close enough concensus for me. Anyone is free to hold and express a different opinion.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://opr.ca.gov/facts/scientific-consensus.html
Comments 1 - 40 of 53 Next » Last » Search these comments
It’s not that I don’t think climate change isn't a real possibility, it's that I don’t trust the media or the science, when studies are funded by people with an agenda and an obvious bias, like George Soros, who want specific results for his money. The same I suppose can be said for other studies, saying global warming is not real, funded by right-wing think tanks with an agenda. Who are you to believe?
Guess you heard about the huge fluctuations in temperature across the midwest.
FROM NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/cold-weather-polar-vortex.html
QUOTE: "The difference in temperature that the Chicago region could experience by Monday: 73 degrees, from Thursday morning, when the city saw a low of minus 21, to Monday, when it may be 52.
“It’s fairly rare to see this much of a turnaround in temperature in this short of time,” said Todd Kluber, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service."
Caused by a polar vortex:
QUOTE: "The Midwest’s deep freeze was brought by the polar vortex, a mass of cold air that is normally contained above the North Pole but in recent weeks broke apart, sending a block of icy air toward the United States.”
But is this a sign of climate change?
Whether you think it is or not, you might be interested to hear what Professor Jordan Peterson has to say on this issue, because he moves the argument past the ‘Is it real or not,’ stage to finding solutions.
LISTEN to what PETERSON has to SAY:
www.youtube.com/embed/bQ1gqIAKdgA
What if it is real? What are you willing to do about it?
Do you think the world is going to end in 12 years as radical Democrat, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says? Are you ready to give up your car? Are willing to shut off your energy and stop watching the TV? No, so what’s your solution?
According to Jordan Peterson, who says he was on a UN committee for 2 years, the committee for Sustainable Economic and Ecological Development, and he studied the subject in depth.
He said the first problem is you can’t separate the science from the politics. Errors in the projections accumulate as you move forward in time and cause "the measure bars of error” to be “so wide” it is impossible “to measure the positive or negative effect of anything we do right now.” So how is it possible to measure the “consequences of our actions? How is that possible?”
He then asks the question, “What do you do about it” if it is true?
The problem with solar power is how do you store the energy and how do you accumulate energy at night? This was tried in Germany and failed, resulting in an increase in energy costs and the necessity of restarting the coal plants, raising the CO2 higher than if they never tried going solar.
READ about FAILED EFFORT in GERMANY for sustainable ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES: MIT Technology Review: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
Peterson mentions nuclear power, but environmentalists don’t like that either because of the storage of nuclear waste problem and the horrific accidents that can ensue. And I say wind power mills are a blot on the landscape and they kill birds, and nobody wants them in their nice neighborhoods.
Peterson brings up Bjorn Lomborg’s work in reference to the 200 environmental goals set up by the UN.
BJORN LOMBORG: https://www.lomborg.com/
He called the 200 goals "a wish list” and said if they wanted to get anything done, they had to prioritize.
Lomborg assembled a number of Nobel prize winners, according to Peterson, and had them rank order in development goals in terms of return on investment, then took an average to come up with a final list of priorities and you know what was at the top of that list, “child nutrition”.
Apparently, raising the standard of living for people in undeveloped regions of the world would help most, because poor people would get richer and start caring about the world more and want to do something about global warming, because now they care about their environment. Also he pointed to increased brain power as a result of more well nourished minds at work.
Maybe he’s right. He says burning coal is better for the environment than burning wood. He said “It’s a complicated issue” “probably with no solution.”
What’s your solution? Are you willing to change your own living habits drastically to avoid the end of the world? Are you willing to pay through the roof for your energy. Consider what we have under Trump. Low energy costs and he made the US the highest producer of oil and gas in the world.
Now consider what the Green New Deal has in store for you:
The central goal of the proposed legislation by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is relying on nothing but renewable energy for electricity generation. That would mean wind, solar, biomass and geothermal are in, while coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power are completely out.
Which world do you want to live in?
A world of prosperity under President Trump?
Or a world of fear mongering, and saber rattling and failed socialist programs that leave us all poorer and worse off?
Will Powers