patrick.net

The problem with "global warming" is that climate modelling has been so wrong for so long time that I simply can't take the proponents of AGW seriously any more.
And mind you humans DO have effect on climate. It is not clear how much though.

Automan Empire says

My problem is I HAVE explained my viewpoint

No. You never explained why you voted for Biden.

Or did I miss your response?

Automan Empire says

These are classic bullying techniques. In person we could sort it quickly. Online I can't be arsed and will sooner disengage from or completely leave a community that tolerates bullies and demagogues in their midst. I expected better of YOU, Richwicks, than to act like a burned out teacher who can't be arsed to sort out a real conflict between her charges, so punishes the victim and bully alike which the bully relishes as a win state and the victim adopts a rightful "fuck this shit I'm out" mentality toward the entire space.

OK

Bd6r says

"global warming"

When it started in the late 70's it was actually global cooling. I read some of the study they always point to in Hawaii. It did not make a strong case that any temperature changes are specifically caused my man.

NuttBoxer says

When it started in the late 70's it was actually global cooling.

Yeah, and by 1980's it morphed to Florida under water by 2000 etc. There is a fair number of climatologists etc who disagree with prevailing premises, but they are silenced and not given grant $$$.

personal

Having said all that, you do have some good ideas.

We don't have many dissenting opinions on subjects here on patnet. Would be nice when we do if people would remember not to take it personally and attack the dissenter. If you want to flame, go to reddit, or any other social platform where you can be as nasty as you want. This should be a place where people can discuss anything without being attacked for their beliefs.

NuttBoxer says

This should be a place where people can discuss anything without being attacked for their beliefs.

Well, that's no fun at all.

NuttBoxer says

Bd6r says

"global warming"

When it started in the late 70's it was actually global cooling.

The same "idiot case" keeps getting made, and it was the EARLY 70s when this one already got SOLVED. This is the environmentalism version of "There's no point working harder to earn a raise, this will only bump me into a higher tax bracket and I'll just make the same or less!"

Until the early 70s, particulate and aerosol emissions were the most obvious form of pollution, to the point where albedo and insolation were measurably impacted and had the potential to eventually push feedback loops into a runaway cooling loop. Particulates like fly ash were simple and least costly to remove; they were also highly alkaline so their removal left sulfur gases as a major constituent of flue gas, causing the problem of "acid rain" to become urgent. At the same time, early efforts to reduce HC and CO emissions from cars resulted in nitrous oxide emissions skyrocketing and contributing to the now acidic sky brew.

Eventually, technology was developed that allowed humans to reap the benefits of mass smokestack industries like power generation, metal smelting etc, without the former levels of retched air pollution, without EVER seeking the right wing narrative of "a sevret goal to put humanity back in the stone age." GLOBAL COOLING AND ACID RAIN ARE NOT ENVIRONMENTAL HOAXES, THEY ARE ACTUAL PROBLEMS ALREADY SOLVED THROUGH BETTER TECHNOLOGY.

Onvacation says

I expected better of YOU, Richwicks, than to act like a burned out teacher who can't be arsed to sort out a real conflict between her charges

Listen, there's an ongoing, and tiresome argument going on and from MY point of view you continue to complain that people are making assumptions about you, but you don't clear it up. I find it maddening.

I think the purpose of discourse is to understand other people's point of view, AND to be allowed to change your own point of view. If I don't know your reasoning or logic of even what your conclusion is - there's no point in discourse to me.

I've been shown MANY MANY times to be making erroneous logic and faulty conclusions, and to have incorrect beliefs and "facts". It happens less, because I'm older, and I WANT to know when I'm wrong. 30 years ago, I had an engineering mentor that told me "get rid of your cognitive dissonance" - meaning, if I had two conflicting thoughts, get rid of ONE of those thoughts - one has to be wrong - maybe BOTH are wrong, but get rid of one and you can deal with the other later.

I've been doing this for nearly 3 decades now, it's humiliating and humbling but I'm glad I did it.

When you have incorrect of faulty reasoning, when you believe lies, you end up with contradictions ALWAYS in your thinking unless you have been told one hell of a good lie. When you don't have a lot of cognitive dissonance it's either you're well brainwashed and can't see the contradictions in your thinking, or you're right. What my mentor told me 3 decades ago was about my JOB, but man, those were fucking words to live by.

Onvacation says

Automan Empire says

My problem is I HAVE explained my viewpoint

No. You never explained why you voted for Biden.

He has said he didn't vote for Biden I believe but he didn't explain who he voted for, or who he favored, or even if he voted at all.

I sit out most elections. What's the point in Silly Con Valley?

NuttBoxer says

We don't have many dissenting opinions on subjects here on patnet. Would be nice when we do if people would remember not to take it personally and attack the dissenter. If you want to flame, go to reddit, or any other social platform where you can be as nasty as you want. This should be a place where people can discuss anything without being attacked for their beliefs.

I agree and let me add that that 5g nano particle graphene brain replacement stuff is wayyyyyyyy out there ;)

Automan Empire says

The same "idiot case" keeps getting made, and it was the EARLY 70s when this one already got SOLVED. This is the environmentalism version of "There's no point working harder to earn a raise, this will only bump me into a higher tax bracket and I'll just make the same or less!"

What has not got solved is unhinged alarmism, Florida under water by 2000, and denial of the only effective tool in solving CO2 emissions problem - which is nucular energy. Instead, we should use solar energy in Greenland, litter countryside with bat-killing wind farms, and bicycle from NY to SF.

If we keep being bombarded by WRONG PREDICTIONS for 40 years, then any new predictions coming out of that crowd are met with understandable skepticism.

Furthermore, the climate panic crowd are in essence people who live in 100000 sq ft houses, and emit 1000 times more CO2 in their air travels in private jets than average climate-denying redneck.

Bd6r says

then any new predictions coming out of that crowd

I just demonstrated, what you are calling "that crowd" is three completely different phenomena, the first two occurring 10 years earlier than you even claimed and more than 2 generations prior to the "warming" alarmists and genuinely concerned people of today.

Automan Empire says

I just demonstrated, what you are calling "that crowd" is three completely different phenomena, the first two occurring 10 years earlier than you even claimed and more than 2 generations prior to the "warming" alarmists and genuinely concerned people of today.

How about Florida under water by 2000 crowd? That started around 1980. Also, "crowd" is not equal to "phenomena" - if we refer to "climate scientists" making wrong predictions since 1970 (or even earlier) as a "crowd", then it is this particular "crowd" that makes wrong predictions about climate "phenomena".

Bd6r says

if we refer to "climate scientists" making wrong predictions since 1970 (or even earlier) as a "crowd",

It's different scientists, making different claims, about different phenomena and potential sequelae, in a different era.

Literally every connection you try to make or equivocation you falsely assume betweem the two, has no connection to actual climate science or actual climate scientists.

Climate change in either direction wasn't a salient issue in 1980. Nuclear proliferation and the plummeting population of whales were the "big" issues of the era, leading some band to make a song called "Nuke the whales!"

Automan Empire says

It's different scientists, making different claims, about different phenomena and potential sequelae, in a different era.

Literally every connection you try to make or equivocation you falsely assume betweem the two, has no connection to actual climate science or actual climate scientists.

I have a feeling that you are obfuscating. It is climate scientists making wrong predictions in both cases. I am saying that established climate science in 1970's said that we will have global cooling, and in 1980's established science changed tune to global warming, with prediction that Florida will be under water by 2000. None of that has happened. As simple as that, and factual.

Automan Empire says

Literally every connection you try to make or equivocation you falsely assume betweem the two

The connection perhaps is called "climate science" in both cases.

Bd6r says

The connection perhaps is called "climate science" in both cases.

The medical system in America is broken in 1000 ways as well. Your argumentation is like saying medicine sucks today and modern doctors can't be trusted, because bloodletting and mercurochrome, then leaving it at that and dismissing anyone questioning the claim as some kind of shill.

Automan Empire says

The medical system in America is broken in 1000 ways as well. Your argumentation is like saying medicine sucks today and modern doctors can't be trusted, because bloodletting and mercurochrome, then leaving it at that and dismissing anyone questioning the claim as some kind of shill.

We should question everything in science, including the currently accepted theory of global warming (and also the opposite). However, if a particular field becomes too politicized then we should be extra careful. I get that some of this panic is created by MSM journos who need audience to earn $$$, but even if we discount that, there were several relatively high profile cases where climate scientists of the global warming panic type were refusing to dissect their models etc. Any opposition is shouted down, and not in a very scientific way, which is irritating. With respect to medicine, the politicization factor is similar nowadays - see how they push covid vaccines. I will not believe them even though they do not prescribe bloodletting any more.

It can not be denied that Earth is warming. However, I don't know what is % of human influence in this warming. May be it is 1%, may be be 91%. There are measurable issues with excess CO2 in atmosphere, such as ocean acidification. Then again, more CO2 means greener Earth and it is demonstrably better for plant life. If we think that burning fossil fuels is bad, we should use nuclear energy, which is way safer than wind or even solar, and better with respect to CO2 emissions. Why is this not pushed by people who want less CO2 emissions?

Bd6r says

Automan Empire says

The medical system in America is broken in 1000 ways as well. Your argumentation is like saying medicine sucks today and modern doctors can't be trusted, because bloodletting and mercurochrome, then leaving it at that and dismissing anyone questioning the claim as some kind of shill.

We should question everything in science, including the currently accepted theory of global warming (and also the opposite). However, if a particular field becomes too politicized then we should be extra careful. I get that some of this panic is created by MSM journos who need audience to earn $$$, but even if we discount that, there were several relatively high profile cases where climate scientists of the global warming panic type were refusing to dissect their models etc. Any opposition is shouted down, and not in a very scientific way, which is irritating. With respect to medicine, the politiciza...

Well because of Fukushima and chernobyl. Of course the degree of environmental and health impact of both has been debated and there is no clear conclusion.

Bd6r says

Then again, more CO2 means greener Earth and it is demonstrably better for plant life.

All things being equal, CO2 enrichment will only accelerate growth to the limits of some other factor, and if CO2 isn't the primary limiting factor for a given plant in a given microclimate, it won't help and may make the plant suffer, as from chlorosis if iron or magnesium isn't locally bioavailable. CO2 has been well known to "the left" for 30 years as clandestine pot growers developed the technology and technique. The optimum CO2 concentration for "ideal" plant growth is therefore well documented in actual practice, and it's nowhere near a desirable atmospheric level for the entire planet and everything in the biosphere, to say nothing of the warming that would occur should we reach a fraction of this amount.

"Higher CO2 helps plant growth, so it's not a flaw it's a feature for the environment" is a red herring whose only utility is distraction and propaganda in the discussion of fossil fuels and atmospheric CO2 levels. IOW it's not a desirable goal or an actionable idea, just an excuse for people who don't care anyway to cite as a thought terminating cliche.

Bd6r says

We should question everything in science

^.. This!

Also, climate science is political science, not real science. It's the shittiest science we have (surpassed recently by covid science).

Anyone who thinks we wouldn't be better off with more reservoirs has a hole in their head. In the 60s-70s my grandfather was parceling land in the Sierras in retirement. Taking large tracks, breaking them up into 20 acres, bringing in power, utilities and then selling them off for the owners. His pay? He took land.

He had amassed a large chunk of Sierra and was sooo close to getting a dam approved to create a new reservoir near Sacramento but the fucking hippies blocked it. It would have been much larger than the nearby Fulton reservoir. I'd be fucking rich right now and we'd have lots more water.

More recently a stats grad I worked with from San Diego State University told me:

1. My environmental science professor said, "Reservoirs are stupid!".
2. Gender is fluid (she's gay)

Now pension and hedge funds need to get approval from fucking hippies (ESG) in order to invest in things. We're fucked!

Yes, we dump a shit load of water into the ocean and yes, most of the water usage in the state isn't used by home owners who are now by law not supposed to use more than 55 gallons of water per day per household - might be per person but I'm pretty sure household. Even in non-drought years:

https://patch.com/california/sanbruno/coming-limit-50-gallons-water-person-day

Fucking insane.

There is NO refilling aquafers in CA they aren't limestone like in some places. They are more like a squashed grapefruit, they ain't coming back.

Automan Empire says

All things being equal, CO2 enrichment will only accelerate growth to the limits of some other factor, and if CO2 isn't the primary limiting factor for a given plant in a given microclimate, it won't help and may make the plant suffer, as from chlorosis if iron or magnesium isn't locally bioavailable. CO2 has been well known to "the left" for 30 years as clandestine pot growers developed the technology and technique. The optimum CO2 concentration for "ideal" plant growth is therefore well documented in actual practice, and it's nowhere near a desirable atmospheric level for the entire planet and everything in the biosphere, to say nothing of the warming that would occur should we reach a fraction of this amount.

It is a fact that current increased CO2 levels have resulted in a greener earth aka greater mass of plants. If you care, i can track down the peer-reviewed article. Its not fantasy or modelling by any stretch of imagination, it if I recall correctly comes from satellite observation data.

mell says

Well because of Fukushima and chernobyl. Of course the degree of environmental and health impact of both has been debated and there is no clear conclusion.

There is a hard number of deaths per produced unit of energy. Nuclear fares pretty well, so opposition is unscientific.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3ug7ju/deaths_per_pwh_electricity_produced_by_energy/?source=patrick.net

The old school scientists (many dead) who came up with this stuff weren't climate alarmists. There are some, I forget the oldsters name, University of Stockholm that track ocean levels - the water is not rising any faster than it has in a long long time.

just_passing_through says

Anyone who thinks we wouldn't be better off with more reservoirs has a hole in their head.

My argument isn't that we wouldn't be better off without more reservoirs, or that none should be built. The argument is that "more reservoirs" is not the panacea proponents seem to think, and the reasons include less "hippies blocking them" and more "cost benefit analysis" and "total watershed volume" in the big picture.

Americans have already reached 100% draw from one MAJOR river system, and many others already struggle to balance agricultural and municipal needs with ecological and environmental needs. It's not an acceptable solution to draw down EVERY river on the planet to meet human needs, regardless of the externalized costs of this.

The real reckoning here, is the stark reality that the more humans we collectively breed, the more Earth's finite resources must get divided up. You're living the historic moment when a commodity you assume is your right and available in limitless abundance, is strained to the point where there's less than you want available as your "share." There is plenty of historical precedent actually. The ancient Egyptians and Mayans expanded then faced a crisis on an unsustainable hydraulic economy bubble.

Bd6r says

mell says

Well because of Fukushima and chernobyl. Of course the degree of environmental and health impact of both has been debated and there is no clear conclusion.

There is a hard number of deaths per produced unit of energy. Nuclear fares pretty well, so opposition is unscientific.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3ug7ju/deaths_per_pwh_electricity_produced_by_energy/?source=patrick.net

I don't think that number is very reliable, it's extremely hard to estimate deaths from radiation (and there's even the theory of hormesis where radiation up to a certain point, higher than many think, is beneficial). I do think though that it fares well as well compared to many other forms of energy, however the events are very localized (esp. when carastrophic), so you will see opposition, the more the closer to the reactors people live. People taking that extra - albeit small - risk by living close by should get cheaper rates perhaps (not sure of they do already).

Automan Empire says

My argument isn't that we wouldn't be better off without more reservoirs

I was not referencing you specifically. I see your point about population but I disagree with it entirely. Population time series isn't a pyramid anymore it's becoming a cylinder and will stop expanding soon by most measures.

You could argue CA/dry climate/etc., and I'd agree with you on that but we are nowhere near where we could be and the state has natural population filters like high prices and communist totalitarian politicians.

Automan Empire says

GLOBAL COOLING AND ACID RAIN ARE NOT ENVIRONMENTAL HOAXES

No idea about acid rain, but definitely agree on global cooling. Data I've seen shows we are in a long-term cooling trend, combined with the lack of solar activity. Explains why I'm always so fucking cold despite living in SoCal.

My problem with environmentalists is real simple. They seem to gravitate toward complaining about problems too big for them to solve. I have no time for whiners who won't take personal responsibility. I have actively supported a cleaner planet through preventative health that means I don't spend on industrialized food, one of the worst sources of human pollution I'm aware of. I try to buy things that last, or repair things that break. I use organic products when I garden. I feed my dogs food that's so good, their waste is usually eaten before I can pick it up by insects. That's right, my dogs shit is recyclable. I rented several places with dirt for a yard, and brought the grass back just by watering and mowing. No synthetic fertilizers, no poisonous weed killers. I don't preach to others or wait on government, I make my planet cleaner and safer every day. When I meet an "environmentalist" who does as much as I do, then I'll listen.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/kitten-corner-al-gore

kitten corner: al gore
the wages of spin look pretty good

gatito bueno
10 hr ago
jeez you guys, $300 million?

i would have thought probably he’d be a lot richer after inventing the internet and everything…

If you believe in global warming, convert your car to run on natural gas (like a Tesla does).

You can actually do something about it.

If you don’t, you’re a hypocrite.

The biggest proponents of the hoax are riding in yachts and private jets; they are hypocrites too.

It is my lifetime goal to have a smaller carbon footprint than our current climate Czar.

HEY YOU says

That was then. Was he wrong?

Al Gore? Absolutely. Go watch An Inconvenient Truth again.

If you want to spend the time, listen to the predictions, then start checking them. I understand this is a laborious process, but the only way you'll believe that literally NOTHING in that "documentary" was correct is for you to verify yourself.

I was a believer when that film came out. There is no hockey stick, glaciers didn't disappear, it's all bullshit.

richwicks says

I was a believer when that film came out.

Al Gore never believed it, but he convinced a lot of useful idiots. And most people once convinced will never change their mind.

clambo says

If you believe in global warming, convert your car to run on natural gas (like a Tesla does).

You can actually do something about it.

If you don’t, you’re a hypocrite.

Also get rid of the dryer and use a clothes line.

HeadSet says

clambo says

If you believe in global warming, convert your car to run on natural gas (like a Tesla does).

You can actually do something about it.

If you don’t, you’re a hypocrite.

Also get rid of the dryer and use a clothes line.

And throw out phone and computer, and live in a 900sq ft house.

HeadSet says

Also get rid of the dryer and use a clothes line.

That doesn't work in most of the country unless you can somehow shield your clothesline from the rain. I also wonder about insects getting on the clothes.

zzyzzx says

That doesn't work in most of the country unless you can somehow shield your clothesline from the rain. I also wonder about insects getting on the clothes.

During the '40s. 50s, and '60s, a clothesline was the norm throughout the country. Nobody said a clothesline is better than a dryer, just that a dryer uses a vast amount of energy so any true carbon conscience guy should forgo the convenience of that dryer.

richwicks says

I was a believer when that film came out.

Yeah, you come across as a pretty gullible type.