Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[the other mike]

The cure for higher fuel prices in the future is higher fuel prices now? Dude!

Let's just run on corn ethanol.
Except corn flakes will be $20 a box and our motors will only last 4 years.

 

[ReinyDays]

Well ... the electricity will hold, plenty of land to grow food, clean water in abundance ... just get rid of Federal gubbermint and we're fine here ... change for the good I say ...

 

[ReinyDays]

So like 10,000 years of uranium left?

If that's God's plan, so be it.

God's wants us to build fossil fuel power plants everyplace there's no electricity ... duh ... we're supposed to burn fossil fuels to better the human condition ... plus warm things up some ... who the hell likes snow? ...

 

[the other mike]

God's wants us to build fossil fuel power plants everyplace there's no electricity ... duh ... we're supposed to burn fossil fuels to better the human condition ... plus warm things up some ... who the hell likes snow? ...

When I was a kid , I thought we'd be travelling like the Jetson's by 2020.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The cure for higher fuel prices in the future is higher fuel prices now? Dude!

Let's just run on corn ethanol.
Except corn flakes will be $20 a box and our motors will only last 4 years.

Let's just run on corn ethanol.

Awful idea. End the ethanol mandate, today.

 

[ReinyDays]

Are we trying to replace fossil fuels and still maintain such a high level of energy consumption? ... I don't think it can be done ... it doesn't matter how much alternative energy sources we come up with, we'll just use more energy and keep burning fossil fuels ... alternatives fail without conservation ...

Much better is making ethanol out of sugar cane ... and in no small part this is because sugar cane only grows where there's plenty of hydropower potential ... tropical Brazil for example ...

 

[Chuz Life]

I have (I think) a rather unique take on the whole "global warming" debate.

Based on the most basic principles of physics, man (mankind) has to have an affect on our environment. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Mankind has undeniably altered the planet with not only gas emissions but also by deforestation, blacktopping and concreting a large percentage of the land masses, countless billions of heat sources, including Transportation engines and other machinery, Commercial and residential Air Conditioners / Heat Pumps, Electrical Grids, Lighting, etc. . . All the way down to the numbers of human bodies, each one radiating an average of 98.6 degrees, 24/7.

We basically have an enormous electric blanket on our planet that didn't use to be there.

If by nothing more than simple displacement (physics,) Our sea levels have to rise from the simple numbers of floating ships, ship wrecks, man made islands, trash, plane crashes, river flow increases resulting from man made attempts to eliminate flood zones,etc.

Bottom line, it's cumulative and undeniable.

However, despite all of our efforts to warm the planet (intentional or not) our impact simply isn't all that serious.

It is just as undeniable that the planet's own activity with volcanos and such, above and below the oceans, fluctuations in the Sun's output, etc. . . all varies considerably and HAS historically drastically affected the climate, many times before the industrial revolution was in the mix.

I have yet to see anything from any of the alarmists to get me even the slightest bit worried that Man can or has done anything to the planet that the Planet can not absorb or remedy in a way that would render itself uninhabitable to an otherwise intelligent species, like man.

 

[ReinyDays]

I would add domesticated livestock to the list man's altering of the environment ... but otherwise agree completely ... we are warming the planet, but it's trivial ...

 

[jc456]

Drowning in pollution and debt.

Why would we be drowning in pollution?
The solution to debt is to use more expensive, less reliable energy?

Peak oil has passed.
When it get's to the last 10 - 20 % of coal and petroleum left in the ground
it will be devastating for whoever is unprepared.

Our way of life will totally change.
OTR trucking will shut down and every region will go local
,hyperinflation we can't imagine. Karma I say.

Well oil we now know replenishes and coal, we have sooo much of hard to say we would ever run out.

 

[jc456]

I have (I think) a rather unique take on the whole "global warming" debate.

Based on the most basic principles of physics, man (mankind) has to have an affect on our environment. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Mankind has undeniably altered the planet with not only gas emissions but also by deforestation, blacktopping and concreting a large percentage of the land masses, countless billions of heat sources, including Transportation engines and other machinery, Commercial and residential Air Conditioners / Heat Pumps, Electrical Grids, Lighting, etc. . . All the way down to the numbers of human bodies, each one radiating an average of 98.6 degrees, 24/7.

We basically have an enormous electric blanket on our planet that didn't use to be there.

If by nothing more than simple displacement (physics,) Our sea levels have to rise from the simple numbers of floating ships, ship wrecks, man made islands, trash, plane crashes, river flow increases resulting from man made attempts to eliminate flood zones,etc.

Bottom line, it's cumulative and undeniable.

However, despite all of our efforts to warm the planet (intentional or not) our impact simply isn't all that serious.

It is just as undeniable that the planet's own activity with volcanos and such, above and below the oceans, fluctuations in the Sun's output, etc. . . all varies considerably and HAS historically drastically affected the climate, many times before the industrial revolution was in the mix.

I have yet to see anything from any of the alarmists to get me even the slightest bit worried that Man can or has done anything to the planet that the Planet can not absorb or remedy in a way that would render itself uninhabitable to an otherwise intelligent species, like man.

When trees grow, they use water, and can deplete the water enough to kill other plants that need water too. Should we kill trees?

 

[Silver Cat]

I have (I think) a rather unique take on the whole "global warming" debate.

Based on the most basic principles of physics, man (mankind) has to have an affect on our environment. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Mankind has undeniably altered the planet with not only gas emissions but also by deforestation, blacktopping and concreting a large percentage of the land masses, countless billions of heat sources, including Transportation engines and other machinery, Commercial and residential Air Conditioners / Heat Pumps, Electrical Grids, Lighting, etc. . . All the way down to the numbers of human bodies, each one radiating an average of 98.6 degrees, 24/7.

We basically have an enormous electric blanket on our planet that didn't use to be there.

If by nothing more than simple displacement (physics,) Our sea levels have to rise from the simple numbers of floating ships, ship wrecks, man made islands, trash, plane crashes, river flow increases resulting from man made attempts to eliminate flood zones,etc.

Bottom line, it's cumulative and undeniable.

However, despite all of our efforts to warm the planet (intentional or not) our impact simply isn't all that serious.

It is just as undeniable that the planet's own activity with volcanos and such, above and below the oceans, fluctuations in the Sun's output, etc. . . all varies considerably and HAS historically drastically affected the climate, many times before the industrial revolution was in the mix.

I have yet to see anything from any of the alarmists to get me even the slightest bit worried that Man can or has done anything to the planet that the Planet can not absorb or remedy in a way that would render itself uninhabitable to an otherwise intelligent species, like man.

The most important greenhouse gas is H_2O, water vapour. The most effective vaporisators are trees. More deforestation - less water vapour - less greenhouse effect.

From another hand - large forests are antropogenic landscapes. They were produced by hunters, whose activity eliminated large herbivores.
There were no large forests in Pleistocene epoche, you know, and greenhouse effect was much weaker.

 

[Silver Cat]

When trees grow, they use water, and can deplete the water enough to kill other plants that need water too. Should we kill trees?

If "no" should we kill beavers to save trees?
In fact, does not matter will we kill trees or not. If you don't manage forests and don't do fire-protection logging, and gathering dead trees, it will be fire, that will clean all of it. Look at Australia, where the mad environmentalists were fighting against fire-prevention measures.

 

[Crick]

Fire prevention measures are not to the benefit of the forest, they are to the benefit of man. Intermittent small fires are beneficial. Putting them off allows fuel to build till the day when condition are right and you get an enormous blaze that destroys the forest and any human infrastructure in the way.

 

[the other mike]

Fire prevention measures are not to the benefit of the forest, they are to the benefit of man. Intermittent small fires are beneficial. Putting them off allows fuel to build till the day when condition are right and you get an enormous blaze that destroys the forest and any human infrastructure in the way.

Just a couple decades ago, we never anticipated having to worry about
it as far north as Canada either.

Climate change driving up risk of wildfires in Canada: fire experts | Globalnews.ca

Canadian wildfire experts say Canada is very vulnerable to the kind of devastating wildfires ravaging Australia right now.

globalnews.ca

 

[ChemEngineer]

I hope we get past this stage of trying to demonize and discredit
one group or approach or another. And just focus on the reforms
we CAN agree on which is plenty to work on for sustainable living!

Ah, "sustainable living." As in hunter-gatherers, such as those 500 or so on North Sentinel Island in the Andaman Sea.

Do you have any idea of what the ONLY country on earth currently classified as "sustainable" is? Any idea? If you consider sustainability so very important, would you like to live there, before finding out where it is?

 

[fncceo]

sustainable living!

No life is sustainable indefinitely...

 

[ChemEngineer]

The most important greenhouse gas is H_2O, water vapour. The most effective vaporisators are trees. More deforestation - less water vapour - less greenhouse effect.

Trees cannot begin to compete with the water vapor contributions of the oceans. No comparison. Consider the respective surface areas, coupled with the fact that most plant life on solid earth consists of grasslands and by far most oxygen is produced by oceanic algae. So planting a tree or many trees, as environmental saviors are wont to do is absurdly futile.

 

[toobfreak]

I hope we get past this stage of trying to demonize and discredit
one group or approach or another. And just focus on the reforms
we CAN agree on which is plenty to work on for sustainable living!

Ah, "sustainable living." As in hunter-gatherers, such as those 500 or so on North Sentinel Island in the Andaman Sea.

Do you have any idea of what the ONLY country on earth currently classified as "sustainable" is? Any idea? If you consider sustainability so very important, would you like to live there, before finding out where it is?

Papua New Guinea.

 

[the other mike]

sustainable living!

No life is sustainable indefinitely...

View attachment 377949

 

[the other mike]

Papua New Guinea.

Is that headhunter territory ?

I think Tasmania's a good spot for sustainability.