What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
And I don’t know who you are nor why I should care what you say. And whether you know anything at all about the situation in Boulder is objectively in question.

Tony Heller, being a resident there, likely knows something you don’t. Which is why I care, regardless of what you think.
Click to expand...
OK, we can all safely assume that you have no support for your contention that wind farms are planned in a residential setting in the manner shown in your fake photograph, since you decline to give any such support.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the Boulder Daily Camera that contained the article cited by Heller doesn’t store articles from 2017 except by paid subscription.

Boulder is on the list of cities committed to going 100% renewables in the brochure from Energy Freedom Colorado


Boulder city council has been involved heavily with XCel Energy a major player in wind turbines.

A short history of that cooperation is depicted on page 21ff of the Energy Freedom Colorado brochure. Political battles over the municipalization of Boulder’s energy has been ongoing since before Heller posted his video.

What is very interesting is that in the Energy Freedom Colorado full document, under the Cities That Have 100% Renewables (p 24) the city of Georgetown, Texas is listed. Unfortunately, that city is having major regrets and suffering huge monetary losses due to its renewables program.

Actual power purchases for 2016 were 22% over budget coming in at $42.6 million against an expected cost of $35 million. In 2017, costs surged again to $52.5 million and all indications are Georgetown electricity customers will take another bath this year. (See table 2)
Source: Paying the Price for Renewables (Georgetown, TX power surplus generates cost deficits) - Master Resource

Burlington Vermont, another city mentioned in the information package is not 100% renewable in the sense of wind and solar, despite the claim. Only 20% of its power is. 50% hydro and 30% biomass generation.

Aspen is about 50% hydroelectric and almost 50% wind from Nebraska. Consider that Aspen’s population is 6600, so hardly a city of any size.
 
Last edited:
“In the end, Extinction Rebellion is facing the same dilemma that has plagued the environmental movement from the start:
1.Should it spell out the enormous effort and sacrifice involved in changing course – and thereby risk alienating the majority of those who need to be won over? Or;
2.Should it pretend – despite all the evidence to the contrary – that a few windmills and solar panels will allow us to continue growing our planet-destroying economy without even pausing to draw a breath.”
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2019/10/16/what-extinction-rebellion-is-getting-wrong/
Click to expand...
 
HarryStotle said:
Directly answers this misconception about cats, cued to go…
Click to expand...
  1. The number of eagles killed by wind farms is exaggerated. This is cued up and ready to go too:
    PolitiFact | Trump inflates wind turbine eagle deaths
  2. The industry is doing things to mitigate large bird fatalities, such as siting them away from high bird traffic areas and temporary shutdowns during migration. It’s nothing that can’t be addressed with further development.
HarryStotle said:
Boulder is on the list of cities committed to going 100% renewables in the brochure from Energy Freedom Colorado…

Boulder city council has been involved heavily with XCel Energy a major player in wind turbines.
Click to expand...
That’s nice. But it does not say that residential areas will look like your fake picture.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
40.png
Freddy:
Yup. Very little discussion on the practical problems of incorporating renewables in these parts. But plenty of politics. I’ll leave you to it.
Click to expand...
The politics and the science are intrinsically intertwined precisely because the alarmists are driving wholesale political mayhem.

A Dearth of Carbon (w/ Dr. Patrick Moore, environmentalist) - YouTube
Click to expand...
fascinating video you suggested for people to take seriously?! a guy who is a lobbyist for big petrochemical companies (who is not a man who stands behind his words!!)


other fun facts about the founder of Greenspirit Enterprises, a PR company


as I have pointed out a couple of times earlier in this thread,… many are being lead astray by “Merchants of Doubt”
40.png
What do you think of climate change? Social Justice
your comment brings up an interesting theological question,… on the issue of “climate change” is god about predestination or free will? or are we being lead astray by “Merchants of Doubt” [Merchants of Doubt Official Trailer 1 (2014) - Documentary HD] if you look over a document of collective key evidence that outlines what actually happened to Roger Revelle (a pioneering scientist in the study of CO2) www.TinyURL.com/RevelleDoubt then watch an interview on the topic by key pla…
Click to expand...
40.png
What do you think of climate change? Social Justice
huh,… seems some CAF posters have been duped by various “Merchants of Doubt” into parroting their message,… for example in some older CAF discussions, we see,… just sayin,… there was a PsyOp started long ago to try and win hearts and minds,… AND this can be proven quite simply by skimming over a document of collective key evidence www.TinyURL.com/RevelleDoubt (this “redirect” link points to a PDF on GoogleDocs which outlines what actually happened behind the scenes to Roger Revelle, who wa…
Click to expand...
basically seems this PR guy has a case of,…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
FrancisFan43 said:
I can love Pope Francis while disagreeing with him in his misguided crusade to push climate alarmism on the people. Climate alarmism has always been a means to push tighter controls onto people and the population.

Tbh, I think it’s ironic that the Pope pushes climate alarmism while flying in Air Pope One ( or whatever the name of the plane is)
Click to expand...
FWIW loved the pope’s ride choice when he came to the USA


anyway WRT climate alarmism,… as I see things the basic hard science is pretty solid
phaster said:
given “global dimming” (which was known 20 years ago and indicates mankind does indeed have the ability to directly influence the global climate), “decreasing pH levels in the oceans” (which is another clear signal that indicates mankind does indeed have the ability to directly influence the environment), the 2015 Berkeley lab paper on the observation of CO2 increasing greenhouse effect at the earth’s surface, the ever increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. the keeling curve) and known physical properties of the CO2 molecule,… is just part of the overwhelming scientific evidence that basically tells mankind that we,… “human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future.”
Click to expand...
the BIG disagreements come about because of human nature (i.e. psychology) of accepting the science which implies life style changes,… if an individual has a POV that there is social inequality then they will use CC as a justification to push for a more inclusive political agenda,… like wise those on the right will use CC as a justification to push their own political agenda

in either case,… people find good news more credible than bad news,… so this human nature (i.e. psychology) of accepting how do people really think about climate change needs to be somehow be faced up to,…


other wise the fight over politics will continued to be battled over w/
phaster said:
serious consequences for ignoring the various troublesome signs that science has revealed,…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
 
phaster said:
fascinating video you suggested for people to take seriously?! a guy who is a lobbyist for big petrochemical companies (who is not a man who stands behind his words!!)
Click to expand...
And you, sir, are quite proficient at ad hominem attacks on the “messengers.”

We recognize your technique and call it out for the @# that it is.

How about we stick to what the “lobbyist” says or claims – you know, the actual arguments being made – rather than slinging dirt and calling it a day?

Otherwise the shoe – the wheeler cartoon you posted – seems a very apt fit for your own propagandist behaviour.
 
Last edited:
phaster said:
anyway WRT climate alarmism,… as I see things the basic hard science is pretty solid
Click to expand...
The basic hard science isn’t pretty solid, it is based almost entirely on climate models fed with pre-selected data.

Leaving the science, though we could also make an economic argument.

I won’t provide the source because you will simply create some ad hominem to dismiss the facts, even though they are quite solid.

So your challenge is to debunk the facts not dismiss the source. You know, “hard” economic science rather than appeals to the Pope, to Darwin Awards or propagandist cartoons.

The Facts:
  • The ocean is warming at the rate of 1°C every 450 years down to 2 km deep.
  • There has been no warming for the past 18 1/2 years in the troposphere according to both sets of available satellite data.
  • The supposed warming according to land thermometer data only exists after severe modification of the actual data to reflect the anticipated warming of models based upon the expectations of climate scientists.
  • 99.7% of the 11,944 papers published in climate science on the topic do NOT claim explicitly that CO2 has driven most (50%+) of the warming since 1950. Only 0.3% of the papers do. There is no consensus on that question. Any claims there is is pure propaganda.
Case Study: Navitus Bay Wind Array
  • There was a proposed Navitus Bay wind array of 194 wind turbines (581 ft tall – 5 MW) for near Dorset, England from 2010-2015. As originally proposed, these turbines would have had a 20 year lifespan. They would have produced 264 MW in total. That is a 1/176 of the total UK electricity demand (~46.5 GW)
Continued…
 
Last edited:
  • After being turned down, alternatives of 121 8MW (690 ft) and 78 smaller turbines were also proposed. All were refused by the planning commission on the grounds that they would have negatively impacted the area as a tourist destination.
  • Electricity is 1/3 of UK carbon emissions which in aggregate are 1/200 of global CO2 emissions.
  • Navitus would have abated less than 0.003% of total UK carbon emissions.
  • Today’s CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 400ppm. By 2035 it is projected to rise to 460 ppm without Navitus.
  • Given the amount of CO2 abated by Navitus the concentration of CO2 WITH the project will be 459.998 ppm.
  • So the CO2 abated after 20 years with Navitus operational would be 0.00000195 W m2 or 0.000007 K at a proposed cost of $12.5 B over the life of the project, including subsidies. Proposal claimed £6.1 billion to build.
  • The cost to abate one Kelvin of warming scaled to the level of the entire globe given the economics of Navitus would be $2 quadrillion or $2000 trillion.
  • Given the wide margin of error in warming models, the warming may not actually be 2°C by 2035, but only 1°C, so the $2 quadrillion would have been spent on warming that may or may not even happen.
  • According to the Stern Report and the IPCC’s latest report the cost of just letting global warming happen and merely adapt to it will be about 1% of total global GDP (~$90 trillion 2019) over the 20 years = $1.8 quadrillion X 1% = $18 trillion
  • So why would we spend the equivalent of $2000 trillion on CO2 abatement projects such as Navitus if we could just respond to needs and suffer the 1% hit to GDP annually as the cost of adapting to warming when that would cost us 50-100 times less in the end, assuming that the IPCC predictions are anywhere near accurate?
  • Other costs not factored in are costs to employment and possible environmental damage, tourist loss and decommissioning costs.
  • Birds are killed because the blade tips are rotating at 300 kmh. Extreme pressure differentials around the sweep area is causing lung collapse and death in many bat species.
  • Focussed adaptation to climate change will be far more prudential and cost effective because the response will be to real effects not those forecasted in the imaginations of alarmists.
  • Fossil fuel powered electricity will give the populations of developing countries what they need to reduce the carbon footprint caused by increasing human populations. Development is the quickest and surest way to reduce population growth and total carbon footprint.
 
Last edited:
Responses embedded:
HarryStotle said:
The Facts:
  • The ocean is warming at the rate of 1°C every 450 years down to 2 km deep.
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
(Yet coral bleaching due to algae fed by warming oceans has severely changed the color of the great barrier reef as seen from space, indicating huge swaths of coral are dying and crumbling, taking with them the habitat that has so richly supplied marine life, including species found nowhere else in the world.)
Click to expand...
  • There has been no warming for the past 18 1/2 years in the troposphere according to both sets of available satellite data.
LeafByNiggle said:
(Citing a subset of data that has not showed warming does not change the fact that warming is proceeding.)
Click to expand...
  • The supposed warming according to land thermometer data only exists after severe modification of the actual data to reflect the anticipated warming of models based upon the expectations of climate scientists.
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
What opponents call “severe modification” scientists call “calibration of raw sensor readings” and a full explanation has been given and algorithms published for this calibration.
Click to expand...
  • 99.7% of the 11,944 papers published in climate science on the topic do NOT claim explicitly that CO2 has driven most (50%+) of the warming since 1950. Only 0.3% of the papers do.
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Those 11,944 papers were not all about the question of whether there is climate change and whether it is caused by man, so it is meaningless to put them in the denominator of a fraction. Basic statistical mistake.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
(Yet coral bleaching due to algae fed by warming oceans has severely changed the color of the great barrier reef as seen from space, indicating huge swaths of coral are dying and crumbling, taking with them the habitat that has so richly supplied marine life, including species found nowhere else in the world.)
Click to expand...
Peter Ridd, an Australian who has researched the Great Barrier Reef for three decades, disputes that the coral bleaching is widespread or that “huge swaths of coral are dying” as a result of climate change.

The evidence is here.


He was fired from his position for dissenting from the allowable and politically correct narrative, and subsequently won the lawsuit against his unlawful dismissal.

But of course, you will insist you don’t watch YouTube videos, so here is his body of peer reviewed articles and research:

https://web.archive.org/web/2017042...iew/jcu/DA5453C168D269833E636FF058546F84.html
 
Last edited:
Let’s assume that everything in the WUWT story is true. (I have no reason to believe it isn’t.) What is the core of the story? It is this:

Attenborough therefore seems to be tacitly admitting that the claims he made in the Netflix film, and the denials issued by the show’s camera team and producers, were untrue.

That is, David Attenborough had previous asserted that polar bears were not present at the time he took pictures of walruses falling off of cliffs. That’s it. There nothing else factual in the story except that one scandalous admission that Attenborough was wrong about the presence of polar bears in a story about walrus. Oh, the horror! This of course will cast doubt on everything the scientific community has said about sea ice, warming waters, melting glaciers, coral bleaching, acidification of oceans, greenhouse gases, and general temperature rise - all because there were polar bears just out of sight on the cliff.
 
Right, the documentary team and the BBC lied to increase the emotional manipulation in their product. Deception.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Maybe. But it has no bearing on climate change.
Click to expand...
Pointing out CAGW lying in the media is relevant.

David Attenborough (BBC) claimed that lack of sea ice is forcing walruses ashore, where they fall from cliffs (LYING)
  1. Long before global warming could have been a factor, walruses hauled out on shore every year at the same location where falling walruses were filmed by the Netflix team.
  2. Many or even most of the walruses that fell were reportedly driven over the cliffs by polar bears. There is a contemporaneous news report of hundreds of walruses being driven over the cliffs at the same location a few days before the film crew arrived.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Pointing out CAGW lying in the media is relevant.
Click to expand...
Relevant to shrinking sea ice ?
Relevant to warming waters ?
Relevant to melting glaciers ?
Relevant to coral bleaching ?
Relevant to acidification of oceans ?
Relevant to greenhouse gases ?
Relevant to global temperature rise ?

Which one of these subjects is seriously affected by the polar bears driving walruses off a cliff?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Theo520:
Pointing out CAGW lying in the media is relevant.
Click to expand...
Relevant to shrinking sea ice ?
Relevant to warming waters ?
Relevant to melting glaciers ?
Relevant to coral bleaching ?
Relevant to acidification of oceans ?
Relevant to greenhouse gases ?
Relevant to global temperature rise ?

Which one of these subjects is seriously affected by the polar bears driving walruses off a cliff?
Click to expand...
And what do you think about the relevancy of all of the above to the current proposal by 11, 000 scientists that the population of the Earth will need to be severely curtailed and reduced?

The image that comes to mind is 11, 000 scientists driving millions of humans off cliffs to their demise. Not exactly too far from the polar bear and walrus picture, is it?



Are you so absolutely convinced of the claims of alarmists that human populations will need to be “reduced” whatever that means?

The scientists claim to “stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future” whatever that implies.

How does this comport with faith in God? Do you think governments should begin to impose population control a la China’s policies?

This is insane. And it ought to bring into question any trust we have in scientists proposing such ominous measures.

Climate alarmism should be challenged at every turn and these “scientists” need to fully prove their conclusions in manner completely open to be challenged by every dissenter. Their “word” is not to be trusted nor taken at face.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
And what do you think about the relevancy of all of the above to the current proposal by 11, 000 scientists that the population of the Earth will need to be severely curtailed and reduced?
Click to expand...
Fake. There is no such 11,000 scientists who say the population of the Earth needs to be reduced.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top