patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,193,657 comments by 13,881 users - AmericanKulak online now
Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is a Hoax
invite response
2019 Apr 9, 5:34pm 4,843 views 55 comments
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
41
Heraclitusstudent
2019 Jun 4, 10:35pm
Heraclitusstudent
2019 Jun 4, 10:35pm
HonkpilledMaster says
If you think $2-3 Trillions will buy "life in space" for a billion persons, you're dreaming.
Many unsolved technical challenges.
And if you think AGW is tough/expensive to solve on earth, try maintaining balance in an ecosystem on a spaceship.
Honestly, investing $2-3T in living in space would be a better and quicker long term solution than "Carbon Trading" or trying to build tons of windmills.
If you think $2-3 Trillions will buy "life in space" for a billion persons, you're dreaming.
Many unsolved technical challenges.
And if you think AGW is tough/expensive to solve on earth, try maintaining balance in an ecosystem on a spaceship.
42
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Jun 5, 12:24am
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Jun 5, 12:24am
Heraclitusstudent says
Will it lift a billion people off Earth, no. Would it lift the pressure off the Earth in the Long Term? Yes.
If the basket looks shaky, weaving a few other baskets, albeit small, is a damned good idea.
Heraclitusstudent says
Imagine trying to balance a huge complex system we don't begin understand fully by a long shot - the Earth (Ocean Currents, Albedo, Cloud Cover, Solar Flares, Outgassing, Acidification, relationship of Atmospheric Cycles - NAO, El Nino, etc).
Germany already spent a size-able chunk of a trillion, on renewables for a tiny segment of the world's population in one of the world's most orderly, highest tech countries, and hardly made a dent in their mix. The only thing they succeeded at was rising electric bills substantially while giving farmers a huge cash cow.
Going by Germany's failure, spending $3-5T on a massive Moon/Mars colony project over 20 years would offer a huge ROI and safety net, rather than building $100T across the world to raise the renewables a few percentage points. Windmills to Nowhere.
If you think $2-3 Trillions will buy "life in space" for a billion persons, you're dreaming.
Will it lift a billion people off Earth, no. Would it lift the pressure off the Earth in the Long Term? Yes.
If the basket looks shaky, weaving a few other baskets, albeit small, is a damned good idea.
Heraclitusstudent says
And if you think AGW is tough/expensive to solve on earth, try maintaining balance in an ecosystem on a spaceship.
Imagine trying to balance a huge complex system we don't begin understand fully by a long shot - the Earth (Ocean Currents, Albedo, Cloud Cover, Solar Flares, Outgassing, Acidification, relationship of Atmospheric Cycles - NAO, El Nino, etc).
Germany already spent a size-able chunk of a trillion, on renewables for a tiny segment of the world's population in one of the world's most orderly, highest tech countries, and hardly made a dent in their mix. The only thing they succeeded at was rising electric bills substantially while giving farmers a huge cash cow.
Going by Germany's failure, spending $3-5T on a massive Moon/Mars colony project over 20 years would offer a huge ROI and safety net, rather than building $100T across the world to raise the renewables a few percentage points. Windmills to Nowhere.
44
HeadSet
2019 Jun 5, 8:25am
HeadSet
2019 Jun 5, 8:25am
Windmills, solar, geothermal and other technologies are on the way anyhow. We just need to find a way for these technologies to be allow sustainability, and that means a stable population. If you are truly worried about pollution, resource depletion and climate change, but not for limiting 1st world population growth by ending 3rd world immigration, you are fighting the only real way to control the problem.
45
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Jun 5, 2:50pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Jun 5, 2:50pm
Windmills wear down. The most efficient use Carbon-Fiber blades, huge in size but cannot be incinerated without emitting seriously toxic fumes. Germany now has a serious problem with unseating Windmills that have 10 meter foundations, with massive carbon fiber blades they cannot toss into an incinerator serious health concerns.
The #1 problem with renewables is they are at the mercy of wind and sun. As Germany learned in 2016, you can expand your windmills 12% but generate 5% less power from them, because the "average" wind speed fluctuates wildly, especially in temperate climates, and as such is misleading: It's 7mph one year, 15mph the next, 20 the next, and so forth. It's not 12-15mph every year. There are also huge differences day to day, month to month.
So you end up idling ancient coal plants to make up the difference or deal with sudden drops in wind speed, which eliminates all the "Carbon Savings".
The Energiewende is probably the worst thing to happen to the environmental movement in decades, because it shows the utter inadequacy and unscalability of "Carbon Neutral" solutions, even when implemented by one of the most advanced nations on Earth, with a rich sucker population willing to double their real electric costs, and enthusiastic to see it happen - yet it still failed royally.
Nuclear or bust.
The #1 problem with renewables is they are at the mercy of wind and sun. As Germany learned in 2016, you can expand your windmills 12% but generate 5% less power from them, because the "average" wind speed fluctuates wildly, especially in temperate climates, and as such is misleading: It's 7mph one year, 15mph the next, 20 the next, and so forth. It's not 12-15mph every year. There are also huge differences day to day, month to month.
So you end up idling ancient coal plants to make up the difference or deal with sudden drops in wind speed, which eliminates all the "Carbon Savings".
The Energiewende is probably the worst thing to happen to the environmental movement in decades, because it shows the utter inadequacy and unscalability of "Carbon Neutral" solutions, even when implemented by one of the most advanced nations on Earth, with a rich sucker population willing to double their real electric costs, and enthusiastic to see it happen - yet it still failed royally.
Nuclear or bust.
46
Heraclitusstudent
2019 Jun 5, 3:40pm
Heraclitusstudent
2019 Jun 5, 3:40pm
HonkpilledMaster says
There's radiations, asteroids, the fact that chemical propulsion sucks, is badly limited in range, the lack of gravity can kill people, but gravity pits are hard to escape.
Short term it's probably way easier to colonize the ocean.
Going by Germany's failure, spending $3-5T on a massive Moon/Mars colony project over 20 years would offer a huge ROI and safety net, rather than building $100T across the world to raise the renewables a few percentage points. Windmills to Nowhere.
There's radiations, asteroids, the fact that chemical propulsion sucks, is badly limited in range, the lack of gravity can kill people, but gravity pits are hard to escape.
Short term it's probably way easier to colonize the ocean.
47
HeadSet
2019 Jun 5, 5:10pm
HeadSet
2019 Jun 5, 5:10pm
Although the earth can take many more humans than the alarmists will make you believe breeding control isn't always a bad thing but the white western countries would be the last places to implement it, currently they rather need the opposite. More fertility and less feminism.
First World inhabitants use 100x the resources that a third worlder uses. A stabilized 1st World is exactly what we need. The problem comes when the over-breeding 3rd world spills into the finally stabilized 1st World.
First World inhabitants use 100x the resources that a third worlder uses. A stabilized 1st World is exactly what we need. The problem comes when the over-breeding 3rd world spills into the finally stabilized 1st World.
49
FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut
2019 Jul 11, 8:49pm
FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut
2019 Jul 11, 8:49pm
Ceffer says
Not so fast! According to feminists, farting in their presence is a sign of patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
I'm so relieved! Guilt free farts again!
Not so fast! According to feminists, farting in their presence is a sign of patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
50
HeadSet
2019 Jul 11, 8:53pm
HeadSet
2019 Jul 11, 8:53pm
FortWayneIndiana says
Then be a class act and light your farts to show you care.
Ceffer saysI'm so relieved! Guilt free farts again!
Not so fast! According to feminists, farting in their presence is a sign of patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
Then be a class act and light your farts to show you care.
51
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Jul 11, 10:05pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Jul 11, 10:05pm
Heraclitusstudent says
NERVA, built 50 years ago, got 800 isp and was expected to have over 900 isp.
The moon is full of water ice and oxides, aluminium and iron.
There's radiations, asteroids, the fact that chemical propulsion sucks, is badly limited in range, the lack of gravity can kill people, but gravity pits are hard to escape.
Short term it's probably way easier to colonize the ocean.
NERVA, built 50 years ago, got 800 isp and was expected to have over 900 isp.
The moon is full of water ice and oxides, aluminium and iron.
52
Misc
2019 Jul 12, 12:05am
Does this mean we no longer have to put out the Zika warnings. I mean the scourge was suppose to pass from Africa through South and Central America into large parts of the US causing millions of birth defects. Weren't some idiots saying women should postpone getting pregnant until a cure had been discovered, and that we should divert billions and billions into finding such a cure. I remember it scaring quite a few liberal posters here, well at least enough so that they spilt a lot of ink on it. Of course, the conservatives here were quite scared of the Ebola threat coming to America with its exponential growth. I guess Global warming has more propaganda appeal than those, but maybe we can dust bin it too.
53
Bd6r
2019 Jul 12, 7:53am
Bd6r
2019 Jul 12, 7:53am
OccasionalCortex says
People should not take this as an absolute truth just because it supports their point of view. This article is just another step towards better understanding of what the hell is going on. They may be right, they might be wrong. It is refreshing though that these scientists break with self-censorship and come out against the politically correct dogma.
Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"
People should not take this as an absolute truth just because it supports their point of view. This article is just another step towards better understanding of what the hell is going on. They may be right, they might be wrong. It is refreshing though that these scientists break with self-censorship and come out against the politically correct dogma.
54
Onvacation
2019 Jul 12, 10:21am
Onvacation
2019 Jul 12, 10:21am
WillPowers says
Observation has proven global warming a hoax.
Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is a Hoax
Observation has proven global warming a hoax.
55
Onvacation
2019 Jul 12, 10:30am
Onvacation
2019 Jul 12, 10:30am
OccasionalCortex says
Try to tell that to the alarmists.
observation is part of the scientific method, last I checked.
Try to tell that to the alarmists.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
SEE: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/09/nolte-scientists-prove-man-made-global-warming-is-a-hoax/
Of course the article admits "no one will admit that" and checking out the link in the Breitbart article shows the author comes to the exact opposite conclusion:
ARTICLE: Last time CO2 levels were this high, sea levels were 60 feet higher and Antarctica had trees
FROM: https://thinkprogress.org/carbon-dioxide-levels-sea-antarctica-b435497e1266/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5cac896400e48b00017e7cf2&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
WHICH CONCLUDES (a quote from the scientific journal): “Our results imply a strong sensitivity of the Earth system to relatively small variations in atmospheric CO2,” Willeit said. “As fascinating as this is, it is also worrying.”
The fact that the Earth’s climate demonstrates a strong sensitivity to CO2 levels is particularly worrisome because it means we are much more likely to face the worst-case scenario when it comes to climate change impacts. And that makes it even more urgent that the nations of the world cut carbon pollution immediately and keep the rise in atmospheric CO2 as small as possible.
Article is based on The scientific journal, Potsdam Institute, says:
More CO2 than ever before in 3 million years, shows unprecedented computer simulation
03/04/2019 - CO2 greenhouse gas amounts in the atmosphere are likely higher today than ever before in the past 3 million years. For the first time, a team of scientists succeeded to do a computer simulation that fits ocean floor sediment data of climate evolution over this period of time. Ice age onset, hence the start of the glacial cycles from cold to warm and back, the study reveals, was mainly triggered by a decrease of CO2-levels. Yet today, it is the increase of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels that is fundamentally changing our planet, the analysis further confirms. Global mean temperatures never exceeded the preindustrial levels by more than 2 degrees Celsius in the past 3 million years, the study shows – while current climate policy inaction, if continued, would exceed the 2 degrees limit already in the next 50 years.
SEE FULL ARTICLE HERE: https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/more-co2-than-ever-before-in-3-million-years-shows-unprecedented-computer-simulation
HOWEVER, Breitbart concludes: Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances.
Yes, you read that correctly, three million — million — years ago CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, but there is one major difference between three million years ago and today…
Three million years ago, we humans were not driving cars or eating the meat that requires cow farts; we weren’t barbecuing or refusing to recycle or building factories; there was no Industrial Age, no plastic, no air conditioning, no electricity, no lumber mills, no consumerism, no aerosols.
In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today. And yet…
CO2 levels were the same then as they are now