Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Get ready for the next ice age, global warming fanatics.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not even remotely true. The goal is to get published and secure funding.

Well then why don't you go buy a new pair of skates, and do global warming a favor. That would help the environment and help fight against global warming. Exactly? Who the hell needs ice anyway o

The Trudeau and former Obama policies have nothing to do with climate and everything to do with redistribution of wealth and obtaining revenues for the government.

Posted Images

  • 3 weeks later...
23 hours ago, cybercoma said:

You can't get published if your methods are trash and your interpretation of the data is wrong. That's true.

Lots of absolute trash gets published, as long as it supports what the reviewers have decided in advance that they are looking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/12/2016 at 0:58 PM, Omni said:

I guess that's why the arctic has been around 15 degrees warmer than usual and there's no ice, and the antarctic ice sheet melt has been deemed to be irreversible.

Really? 5 of the coldest years in the Arctic on record have happened since 2010.

I love how you say the ice melt is irreversible when all data show's increase of ice in Antarctic.

On 23/12/2016 at 3:02 PM, bcsapper said:

I agree with the nuclear option.  I would start by converting every coal fired plant to gas fired in the meantime.  Still, though, that introduces the methane leaks issue.

Stats just released showing shutting down all Ontarios coal plants did 0%. 

On 23/12/2016 at 11:28 PM, Omni said:

A lot less in the arctic and actually more in the antarctic, both a result of GW.

I love when you say this. It's both hot and cold and there's more and theres less....

On 24/12/2016 at 2:09 AM, Omni said:

I'm not saying it, I ain't there. NOAA is saying it and they are. 

NOAA has been called out for their less than truthful reporting

On 25/12/2016 at 5:27 AM, Omni said:

I'm saying that the global warming deniers are wasting their time in light of actual verifiable data. Pretty hard to get away with faking a sat photo showing the deterioration of arctic sea ice. Especially 800,000 sq. kms. of it.

Sotry,   one sentence you say there's more ice due to agw. Now there's less again?

On 25/12/2016 at 1:11 PM, kimmy said:

So basically you've disregarded the view of the large majority of scientists working in this field, but you've picked this one to agree with... because you prefer the conclusion he has arrived at?

 -k

That report from Cook at Skeptical Science has been debunked.

On 25/12/2016 at 2:24 PM, Omni said:

Do you mean the well over 90% of professional scientists in the field who agree that global warming is happening any why? I don't think they are the morons.

Read statement above. Debunked 

On 26/12/2016 at 6:53 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

40 year trend, still doesn't demonstrate that much. You generally need more than a single trend in science. You generally want a model that explains observations, has a good theoretical basis, and can be used to predict the future.

We have no reliable model. They can't even reliably predict the weather tomorrow.

On 26/12/2016 at 10:11 PM, Wilber said:

I don't know what the tipping point is but you maintain there isn't one. That is a foolish assumption because you believe there can't be a point where human influence ceases to become a factor and nature takes over. It is also foolish to assume that humans changing the very composition of our atmosphere can't have an effect on our climate.

No scientific proof of AGW.

On 26/12/2016 at 10:21 PM, Wilber said:

Sez you. You ask for models when you really want proof while providing none of your own.  There are plenty of models but you chose to ignore them with no evidence to back up your own position. 

Anything that disputes your position is trivialized as a "Flying Spaghetti Monster". You can't have a discussion such a person.

We don't have reliable model.  This is fact

 

On 27/12/2016 at 4:41 PM, Smallc said:

I don't have a closed mind so much as I tend to believe the scientific consensus on the issue. Do you have an open mind regarding the Easter bunny, as well? 

There is no consensus. 

51 minutes ago, Bryan said:

Lots of absolute trash gets published, as long as it supports what the reviewers have decided in advance that they are looking for.

See Seralini re gmos  Junk science reviewed,  thankfully rescinded. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Hmmm.Maybe not. Coal is ugly and needs to go. Why then is Wynne targeting LNG?

http://m.torontosun.com/2017/01/17/shutdown-of-coal-plants-raised-electricity-rates-failed-to-reduce-pollution-report

Beats me, I live in Alberta. 

"Failed to reduce pollution" does not equal " without significantly improving air pollution levels".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

Beats me, I live in Alberta. 

"Failed to reduce pollution" does not equal " without significantly improving air pollution levels".

Did it reduce pollution which is why it was closed? No.

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-comment/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/ross-mckitrick-turns-out-ontarios-painful-coal-phase-out-didnt-help-pollution-and-queens-park-even-knew-it-wouldnt

Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Closing a coal plant can't not reduce pollution.

 

"First, ample data at the time showed that coal use had little effect on Ontario air quality. Environment Canada’s emissions inventories showed that the Ontario power generation sector was responsible for only a tiny fraction (about one per cent) of provincial particulate emissions, a common measure of air pollution."

"Further, a study by the province in 2005 showed that a majority of local particulates originated from U.S. sources. Another study done for the province predicted that eliminating coal would have extremely small effects on urban particulate levels"

Minimal effect on pollution.

Zero effect on AGW

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, drummindiver said:

 

"First, ample data at the time showed that coal use had little effect on Ontario air quality. Environment Canada’s emissions inventories showed that the Ontario power generation sector was responsible for only a tiny fraction (about one per cent) of provincial particulate emissions, a common measure of air pollution."

"Further, a study by the province in 2005 showed that a majority of local particulates originated from U.S. sources. Another study done for the province predicted that eliminating coal would have extremely small effects on urban particulate levels"

Minimal effect on pollution.

Zero effect on AGW

Different coal in Ontario, maybe?  We have the polluting kind here in Alberta, the stuff that puts out Sulphur Dioxide, Pariculates, Mercury, etc.  I guess we could get Ontario coal for our power plants instead of converting them to natural gas.  That would work better, given your coal does not give off any emissions when burned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Different coal in Ontario, maybe?  We have the polluting kind here in Alberta, the stuff that puts out Sulphur Dioxide, Pariculates, Mercury, etc.  I guess we could get Ontario coal for our power plants instead of converting them to natural gas.  That would work better, given your coal does not give off any emissions when burned.

With all the oil you have out there why are you using dirty coal at all? Here in Ontario coal had only accounted for 1% of the grid which is why zero effect on AGW when phased out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

We're talking AGW.

Zero effect. 

Sure, if you are only talking about AGW, the effect is so negligible as to equal zero for all intents and purposes. It's the same with every effort made that doesn't include worldwide adoption of nuclear power or the forced sterilization of all newborn children.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

With all the oil you have out there why are you using dirty coal at all? Here in Ontario coal had only accounted for 1% of the grid which is why zero effect on AGW when phased out.

I don't know for sure, but I guess it was a combination of the availability of coal, the technology at the time and the lack of scientific knowledge about the long term effects of burning coal when they built the plants.  Then, inertia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

We have no reliable model. They can't even reliably predict the weather tomorrow.

Your comment does not make sense in the context of responding to what I wrote (which was that you can't infer too much from a simple linear trend). But with respect to what you wrote above, climate and weather are not the same thing. Climate is the statistical distribution of weather.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Your comment does not make sense in the context of responding to what I wrote (which was that you can't infer too much from a simple linear trend). But with respect to what you wrote above, climate and weather are not the same thing. Climate is the statistical distribution of weather.

It absolutely makes sense.  No reliable model to predict the weather. Climate is weather over an extended period (30 yrs usually). If they cannot predict a shot period chances are they cannot predict a long period.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

It absolutely makes sense.  No reliable model to predict the weather.

I wasn't referring to general circulation models in my comment. So yes it doesn't make sense. I was referring to models more generally in science and inferring information from a single time series data set.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I wasn't referring to general circulation models in my comment. So yes it doesn't make sense. I was referring to models more generally in science and inferring information from a single time series data set.

?

Are we agreed no reliable model or models re AGW or even CC in general?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...