Jump to content

Don't Go Being Politically Insane You Climate Change Skeptics


Recommended Posts

Posted

I got shouted down for noting that a particular piece of material I was reviewing was misusing the terms precision and accuracy. "But look at how we've defined them in the glossary." "Well, your glossary is wrong then." Lead balloon, ignored.

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted
1 hour ago, DB said:

I got shouted down for noting that a particular piece of material I was reviewing was misusing the terms precision and accuracy. "But look at how we've defined them in the glossary." "Well, your glossary is wrong then." Lead balloon, ignored.

I feel your pain.

Posted
7 hours ago, Ssnake said:

No matter how many decimals you add, the precision of the hand ruler won't be increased. But I guess that was a rhetorical question, since this is 7th grade school knowledge.

That's my point. I'm trying to figure out how 

This:
http://newsmobile.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tree-rings-0019_web.jpg

And this:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/224616499432

Can be presumed to have any sort of precision beyond a .5 at best for the latter. 

Posted

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/16/the-eu-has-lost-its-mind-private-jet-yacht-emissions-are-totally-fine-the-rest-of-you-can-go-cuddle-your-cats-to-stay-warm/


 

Quote

 

So…providers of fuel are polluters, and not welcome. Hollywood celebrities on private jets are deemed not polluters, and hailed as heroes.

Furthermore, the EU has gone one stupid step further: both private planes and yachts are exempt from the latest EU Carbon Pricing plan.

 

 

Posted
8 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

Furthermore, the EU has gone one stupid step further: both private planes and yachts are exempt from the latest EU Carbon Pricing plan.

Not that this will affect global climate one iota, but yeah, that'll go down very, very well with the public. Not that the EU commission will care much; I hope the EU parliament will recognize what an incredible PR opportunity is handed to them.

Posted

Eh, Lufthansa is playing the CO2 PR card to conceal that they can't fly at competitive prices. They want to keep their flight slots that others could service profitably, they just don't want the expense to service them.

Posted

A comment in that your last Youtube link Tim.

 

MrBuzzBill

My brother recently asked me: "How do you know that NOAAs temperature statistics have been altered?"

"Do you remember that grandma and grandpa escaped Oklahoma in 1935 because of ghastly heat waves and drought that ravaged the entire region throughout the 1930s?"

"Yes of course! I remember grandmas stories just like in the movie 'Grapes of Wrath' they went west.

Instead of grandpa being a banker in Oklahoma, he picked cotton and produce in California for years just to survive."

"Now just look at NOAAs temperature graphs. Those miserable, legendary, historical, unprecedented heat waves and subsequent "dust bowl' drought that our grandparents suffered has been erased. Like it never even happened. It shows the late 1990s HOTTER than the historical 8 year drought and massive heat waves of the 1930s that killed many thousands of people for almost a decade"

His stared for minutes at NOAAs century of falsified temperature graph records? Then he looked at me like he had just discovered the epiphany of a lifetime, and just said: "WOW!"

It was a journey through his heart. Those heat waves in North America during the 1930s left a lasting scar on our family. I remember nothing of such human suffering in 1998

 

Posted

Can confirm.  Dad told many stories of July '36 in Cape Girardeau, MO.  I had a cousin born that month, at home, during a three-week period when the temperature never got below 100 degrees F., even at night.

The preliminary step to pushing this climate nonsense is that first the subject of history had to be undermined and subverted during public education.  Is climate changing?  Probably:  change is its one constant feature.

Posted

Take that, treehuggers!

Quote

European Commission declares nuclear and gas to be green

By Marina Strauss (Brussels) | 01.02.2022

The European Commission has labeled nuclear and gas as sustainable. Critics are calling the step "greenwashing" and say it could threaten the bloc's bid to become climate-neutral by 2050.

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen cannot repeat often enough how close stepping up climate action is to her heart.

She described the European Green Deal as "Europe's man on the moon moment." She has called climate neutrality "our European destiny." And she solemnly proclaimed that no effort will be spared for Europe to become the world's first continent with net-zero emissions.

But as often, the devil is in the detail. 

The big question is how exactly the European Union intends to achieve its goals.

One measure being put into place is a so-called taxonomy, "a classification system, establishing a list of environmentally sustainable economic activities," according to the European Commission.

This taxonomy could be described as the EU's green investment rulebook, intended to serve the goal of allowing the continent to become climate neutral by 2050.

Can gas and nuclear be green? 

Critics say the objective of climate neutrality could be under threat, as the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, aims to give nuclear energy and natural gas, a fossil fuel, a green label under this taxonomy. 

A first draft of the taxonomy, published on News Year's Eve, stated that certain strings remain attached. For example, gas plants could only be considered green if the gas comes from renewable sources, such as biomass or hydrogen produced with renewable energy.

Nuclear power plants would be deemed green if the sites can manage to safely dispose of radioactive waste. But so far, worldwide, no permanent disposal site has gone into operation.

In an interview with news organization Politico, Mairead McGuinness, the EU commissioner responsible for financial services, said no major changes should be expected as her institution publishes the taxonomy act this week. Gas and nuclear are much better, McGuiness said, than continuing the use of dirty coal.

Environmental organizations most certainly see this critically. The Climate Action Network Europe wrote that the EU Commission "sacrifices the scientific integrity of the taxonomy on the altar of fossil gas and nuclear lobbies" and fails to "reorient financial flows towards genuinely climate-positive investments."

Environmental activists say this could jeopardize the EU's aim to reach climate neutrality by 2050.

And it's not just them: Also a group of experts advising the EU on the matter announced how they are worried about "the environmental impacts that may result," for example the consequences of a nuclear accident. Building new nuclear plants would also take too long to contribute to the 2050 neutrality goals, they believe.

The proposal was proceeded by a heated debate among EU countries. While some consider nuclear a good bridging technology, others are strongly opposed, and prefer gas instead.

Germany pro-gas, France pro-nuclear

France, which derives about 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants, is — unsurprisingly — heading up the pro-nuclear fraction. It is supported by a group of EU states including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Finland. 

Especially France wants to invest in new nuclear power plants, particularly in new generation, so-called small modular reactors.

Energy expert Nicolas Mazzucchi, who works for the Foundation of Strategic Research think tank in Paris, supports the French government's plans. "These reactors can be produced on an industrial level at factories, as automated as possible, to make it cheaper and guarantee quality," Mazzucchi told DW.

Germany, however, has argued against nuclear power — also unsurprisingly, as it decided to shut down all its nuclear power plants by the end of 2022 following the Fukushima disaster in 2011.

Denmark, Austria and Luxembourg share this view, highlighting the controversial point of where to safely store highly radioactive nuclear waste. 

Germany's current governing coalition has clearly said in a letter to the European Commission that gas is needed as an interim energy source until enough renewables are available.

To avoid a clash with its EU neighbor France, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz downplayed the importance of the taxonomy at an EU leaders' meeting last year, saying the debate was "completely overrated."

[...]

While EU states are not likely to reject the taxonomy, a win in the European Parliament is not yet certain. Parliamentarians from across the political spectrum have expressed anger over the inclusion of fossil gas and nuclear power in the EU taxonomy.

Both Green lawmaker Rasmus Andresen as well as conservative parliamentarian Peter Liese recently underlined how they'd prefer for the EU Commission to simply withdraw its proposal. 

German Social Democrat Joachim Schuster told DW he thought it possible that the European Parliament could vote against the act. 

And even if lawmakers were to support it, there is another threat looming: Austria and Luxembourg have already threatened to sue  the European Commission over the taxonomy rules.

https://m.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990

Posted
3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

European Commission declares nuclear to be green

Why, it's always been.

Homer_nuclear_waste-min.gif

Posted (edited)

[MrPicky]It is actually blue.[/MrPicky]

Edited by bojan
Posted (edited)

Pretty blue pool lights. Just don't swim too close to it. 


pool_danger.png

https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/


"But just to be sure, I got in touch with a friend of mine who works at a research reactor, and asked him what he thought would happen to you if you tried to swim in their radiation containment pool."

“In our reactor?” He thought about it for a moment. “You’d die pretty quickly, before reaching the water, from gunshot wounds.”"

Edited by rmgill
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Facebook, other tech giants censor inconvenient facts about climate change.

Bjorn Lomborg 

Here’s something Facebook’s censors deemed unacceptable: I wrote a comment using the latest peer-reviewed research from the medical journal Lancet on deaths caused by heat and cold. The paper is the first to show that globally, every year, half a million people die because temperatures are too hot, while 4.5 million people die because it is too cold. In other words, nine times more people die from the cold than the heat.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/07/facebook-other-tech-giants-censor-facts-about-climate-change/

Posted (edited)
On 2/12/2022 at 6:29 PM, JWB said:

Facebook, other tech giants censor inconvenient facts about climate change.

Bjorn Lomborg 

Here’s something Facebook’s censors deemed unacceptable: I wrote a comment using the latest peer-reviewed research from the medical journal Lancet on deaths caused by heat and cold. The paper is the first to show that globally, every year, half a million people die because temperatures are too hot, while 4.5 million people die because it is too cold. In other words, nine times more people die from the cold than the heat.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/07/facebook-other-tech-giants-censor-facts-about-climate-change/

Thanks for that article. I think everyone with even a mild interest on the Global Warming debate must read Lomborg works.

Edited by sunday
  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

In Sri Lanka, Organic Farming Went Catastrophically Wrong
A nationwide experiment is abandoned after producing only misery.
MARCH 5, 2022, 7:00 AM
Tea pickers remove weeds at an organic tea plantation.
Tea pickers remove weeds at an organic tea plantation in the southern district of in Ratnapura, Sri Lanka, on Aug. 3, 2021. ISHARA S. KODIKARA/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
By Ted Nordhaus, the executive director of the Breakthrough Institute, and Saloni Shah, a food and agriculture analyst at the Breakthrough Institute.
Faced with a deepening economic and humanitarian crisis, Sri Lanka called off an ill-conceived national experiment in organic agriculture this winter. Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa promised in his 2019 election campaign to transition the country’s farmers to organic agriculture over a period of 10 years. Last April, Rajapaksa’s government made good on that promise, imposing a nationwide ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordering the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic.

The result was brutal and swift. Against claims that organic methods can produce comparable yields to conventional farming, domestic rice production fell 20 percent in just the first six months. Sri Lanka, long self-sufficient in rice production, has been forced to import $450 million worth of rice even as domestic prices for this staple of the national diet surged by around 50 percent. The ban also devastated the nation’s tea crop, its primary export and source of foreign exchange.

(...)

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...