patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,364,453 comments by 15,735 users - FuckTheMainstreamMedia, Glock-n-Load, Tenpoundbass online now
Comments 1 - 28 of 55 Next » Last » Search these comments
1
FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut
@
2019 Apr 9, 5:43pm
FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut
@
2019 Apr 9, 5:43pm
Always thought it was a scam, or as Hitler used to say... A Big Lie.
5
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 3, 1:37pm
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 3, 1:37pm
WillPowers says
Sorry, where does it say it's a hoax?
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
Sorry, where does it say it's a hoax?
6
MisdemeanorRebel
@
2019 Jun 3, 1:39pm
MisdemeanorRebel
@
2019 Jun 3, 1:39pm
WillPowers says
I betcha we could see 1000ppm/CO2 with little difference.
It's the additive fallacy of Malthus again.
Even if it were true, the loss of a few miles of coastal land would be made up by opening 10000s of square miles of tundra for agriculture and forestry. Most of the world's potentially arable land is north of 50N.
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.
I betcha we could see 1000ppm/CO2 with little difference.
It's the additive fallacy of Malthus again.
Even if it were true, the loss of a few miles of coastal land would be made up by opening 10000s of square miles of tundra for agriculture and forestry. Most of the world's potentially arable land is north of 50N.
7
MisdemeanorRebel
@
2019 Jun 3, 1:47pm
MisdemeanorRebel
@
2019 Jun 3, 1:47pm
Poor China, the riots will begin shortly once the layoffs happen for lack of exports to their #1 customer.
No welfare or unemployment in China!
No welfare or unemployment in China!
8
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 3, 1:48pm
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 3, 1:48pm
HonkpilledMaster says
It's gonna be fun abandoning all these coastal cities: Miami, New York, San Francisco, etc... and rebuilding them somewhere in Minnesota and North Dakota.
Even if it were true, the loss of a few miles of coastal land would be made up by opening 10000s of square miles of tundra
It's gonna be fun abandoning all these coastal cities: Miami, New York, San Francisco, etc... and rebuilding them somewhere in Minnesota and North Dakota.
9
HeadSet
@
2019 Jun 3, 2:58pm
HeadSet
@
2019 Jun 3, 2:58pm
It's gonna be fun abandoning all these coastal cities: Miami, New York, San Francisco
Even if seas did rise like that, you think the cities would be abandoned? And not do like the Dutch did, and preserve sea lands with the technology of the 1600's?
Even if seas did rise like that, you think the cities would be abandoned? And not do like the Dutch did, and preserve sea lands with the technology of the 1600's?
10
RWSGFY
@
2019 Jun 3, 4:00pm
RWSGFY
@
2019 Jun 3, 4:00pm
HeadSet says
+1
Even in US fucking New Orleans is below sea level but nobody abandons shit there.
It's gonna be fun abandoning all these coastal cities: Miami, New York, San Francisco
Even if seas did rise like that, you think the cities would be abandoned? And not do like the Dutch did, and preserve sea lands with the technology of the 1600's?
+1
Even in US fucking New Orleans is below sea level but nobody abandons shit there.
11
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 3, 4:42pm
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 3, 4:42pm
HeadSet says
Depends. You may be able to build a sea walls around certain areas. But a city like Miami is built on porous ground....there is simply not much you can do. You can elevate a building or a street. But many people will look at this and they will look at the bills, and decide to go live on firmer ground. And once people start leaving, you will have abandoned buildings full of mold, rats and crime, more people will leave. I'm quite certain Miami will be abandoned. A lot of sea front property wealth will rot away.
New Orleans is probably fucked too. See https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/24/us/new-orleans-flood-walls-hurricanes.html
Protecting everything on the coast against ever increasing ocean levels is simply too daunting and expensive.
Just with the current CO2 levels, ice can keep melting for 100+ years. It's not something you get immediately, but it is something that won't stop getting worse for a very long time. You can't build high levees once, and then again 20 yrs later, and then again,... each time knowing you will have to do it again soon.
And it's not just cities. There are roads, small towns, rail roads, airports, each with its own problems...
In California, Stockton is the most unsuspected likely victim of sea rise. https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/05/09/research-shows-impact-of-rising-sea-levels-on-stockton-sacramento/
Even if seas did rise like that, you think the cities would be abandoned? And not do like the Dutch did, and preserve sea lands with the technology of the 1600's?
Depends. You may be able to build a sea walls around certain areas. But a city like Miami is built on porous ground....there is simply not much you can do. You can elevate a building or a street. But many people will look at this and they will look at the bills, and decide to go live on firmer ground. And once people start leaving, you will have abandoned buildings full of mold, rats and crime, more people will leave. I'm quite certain Miami will be abandoned. A lot of sea front property wealth will rot away.
New Orleans is probably fucked too. See https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/24/us/new-orleans-flood-walls-hurricanes.html
Protecting everything on the coast against ever increasing ocean levels is simply too daunting and expensive.
Just with the current CO2 levels, ice can keep melting for 100+ years. It's not something you get immediately, but it is something that won't stop getting worse for a very long time. You can't build high levees once, and then again 20 yrs later, and then again,... each time knowing you will have to do it again soon.
And it's not just cities. There are roads, small towns, rail roads, airports, each with its own problems...
In California, Stockton is the most unsuspected likely victim of sea rise. https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/05/09/research-shows-impact-of-rising-sea-levels-on-stockton-sacramento/
12
Onvacation
@
2019 Jun 3, 5:04pm
Onvacation
@
2019 Jun 3, 5:04pm
All true believers of global warming
climate change should stop exhaling co2.
It's your moral duty to save the world
climate change should stop exhaling co2.
It's your moral duty to save the world
13
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 3, 5:10pm
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 3, 5:10pm
Onvacation says
This is the kind of nonsense that we get from denialists.
climate change should stop exhaling co2.
It's your moral duty to save the world
This is the kind of nonsense that we get from denialists.
15
Onvacation
@
2019 Jun 3, 5:23pm
Onvacation
@
2019 Jun 3, 5:23pm
Heraclitusstudent says
nonsense
If you don't want solutions you can't complain about too much co2.
But seriously, co2 levels are not connected to temperature rise. If you disagree and think that co2 levels ARE connected to temperature rise link to the formula?
You won't.
You can't, because there is no such established formula that corresponds to real world observations.
I personally would like more co2. I am going to keep on breathing so that plants can thrive. Too little co2 is way more dangerous than more
nonsense
If you don't want solutions you can't complain about too much co2.
But seriously, co2 levels are not connected to temperature rise. If you disagree and think that co2 levels ARE connected to temperature rise link to the formula?
You won't.
You can't, because there is no such established formula that corresponds to real world observations.
I personally would like more co2. I am going to keep on breathing so that plants can thrive. Too little co2 is way more dangerous than more
16
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 3, 5:24pm
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 3, 5:24pm
Onvacation says
The carbon you breathe out (and fart) comes from plants. And plants take it from the atmosphere.
There's no danger of you contributing anything new.
I am going to keep on breathing so that plants can thrive.
The carbon you breathe out (and fart) comes from plants. And plants take it from the atmosphere.
There's no danger of you contributing anything new.
17
Onvacation
@
2019 Jun 3, 5:25pm
Onvacation
@
2019 Jun 3, 5:25pm
Heraclitusstudent says
You neither. And yet here we are.
There's no danger of you contributing anything new.
You neither. And yet here we are.
19
Onvacation
@
2019 Jun 4, 7:25am
Onvacation
@
2019 Jun 4, 7:25am
HEYYOU says
Only true believers will live in paradise.
Denialists are subject to the same laws that all animals are subject to but they so stupid they think they are special.
Only true believers will live in paradise.
20
HeadSet
@
2019 Jun 4, 7:45am
HeadSet
@
2019 Jun 4, 7:45am
The carbon you breathe out (and fart) comes from plants.
We fart CO2? But CO2 is non- flammable, and all us boys know full well we can light out farts.
We fart CO2? But CO2 is non- flammable, and all us boys know full well we can light out farts.
21
Bd6r
@
2019 Jun 4, 9:39am
Bd6r
@
2019 Jun 4, 9:39am
Premise of Breitbart article is scientifically wrong. It is not a question if man-made global exists or not, it is a question if we contribute 1%, 99%, or some number in between. But that type of discussion is not exciting enough and might require knowledge, which journalists (neither ones screaming WE ALL WILL DIE FROM AGW or ones screaming THIS IS ALL A COMMIE PLOT) possess. I do not think % question is settled yet.
If someone has issues with CO2 emissions, they should lobby for nuclear power. However, the only lobbying we see is for higher taxes (aka carbon credits) or non-economical means of energy production (aka solar power, bioethanol etc) which will do nothing other than decrease life standard of poor people and will make some very rich people even more rich.
If someone has issues with CO2 emissions, they should lobby for nuclear power. However, the only lobbying we see is for higher taxes (aka carbon credits) or non-economical means of energy production (aka solar power, bioethanol etc) which will do nothing other than decrease life standard of poor people and will make some very rich people even more rich.
22
Bd6r
@
2019 Jun 4, 10:31am
Bd6r
@
2019 Jun 4, 10:31am
HeadSet says
In addition to CO2 (and N2 which both are not flammable), we fart methane (CH4), hydrogen (H2), and a little bit of H2S which is the smelly part.
We fart CO2? But CO2 is non- flammable, and all us boys know full well we can light out farts.
In addition to CO2 (and N2 which both are not flammable), we fart methane (CH4), hydrogen (H2), and a little bit of H2S which is the smelly part.
23
Shaman
@
2019 Jun 4, 10:47am
Shaman
@
2019 Jun 4, 10:47am
Heraclitusstudent says
You know, it’s strange that this didn’t happen in Venice.
But a city like Miami is built on porous ground....there is simply not much you can do. You can elevate a building or a street. But many people will look at this and they will look at the bills, and decide to go live on firmer ground. And once people start leaving, you will have abandoned buildings full of mold, rats and crime, more people will leave. I'm quite certain Miami will be abandoned. A lot of sea front property wealth will rot away.
You know, it’s strange that this didn’t happen in Venice.
24
theoakman
@
2019 Jun 4, 11:27am
The time it would take for sea level to move that far inland is orders of magnitude slower than the time it takes to build a big city from scratch. You act like Miami will be abandoned in 50 years.
26
Rin
@
2019 Jun 4, 12:02pm
Rin
@
2019 Jun 4, 12:02pm
d6rB says
Yes, because there is a way to make nuclear safe ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
With less temp/pressure, cooling requirements, and waste management (300 years vs 10K+ years).
WillPowers says
I guess you didn't see the ending to Battlestar Galactica or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
they should lobby for nuclear power
Yes, because there is a way to make nuclear safe ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
With less temp/pressure, cooling requirements, and waste management (300 years vs 10K+ years).
WillPowers says
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
I guess you didn't see the ending to Battlestar Galactica or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
27
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 4, 12:18pm
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 4, 12:18pm
Quigley says
St Mark's Square does indeed get flooded, dozens of times every year.
It is an architectural gem that's irreplaceable. Miami... not so much.
It's in a lagoon and they are building sea barriers. Miami, hummm....
It's attracting tourists specifically because it is in water. Miami... well there a beach...
In spite of that it is still sinking, flooded regularly, and highly vulnerable to more sea rises. And population is fleeing.... so?
You know, it’s strange that this didn’t happen in Venice.
St Mark's Square does indeed get flooded, dozens of times every year.
It is an architectural gem that's irreplaceable. Miami... not so much.
It's in a lagoon and they are building sea barriers. Miami, hummm....
It's attracting tourists specifically because it is in water. Miami... well there a beach...
In spite of that it is still sinking, flooded regularly, and highly vulnerable to more sea rises. And population is fleeing.... so?
28
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 4, 12:21pm
Heraclitusstudent
@
2019 Jun 4, 12:21pm
theoakman says
Maybe in 100yrs, or 150yrs. Who cares?
And yes they will build new cities from scratch - elsewhere.
The time it would take for sea level to move that far inland is orders of magnitude slower than the time it takes to build a big city from scratch. You act like Miami will be abandoned in 50 years.
Maybe in 100yrs, or 150yrs. Who cares?
And yes they will build new cities from scratch - elsewhere.
Comments 1 - 28 of 55 Next » Last » 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