Quote: @Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ Mike Olson said:
Wait how did the keystone pipeline have anything to do with our gas prices? It was to move Canadian oil to be exported….
Also pressuring opec to produce more to lower gas prices is what every president has done. There are but only a couple factora that set the pricing. Opec, and domestic refining. So if you want more expensive gas then I guess yeah you could criticize him.
For me until the auto industry is putting out more electric vehicles (seems about 5 years out) and there is a good charging infrastructure, which we shouldd be passing funding for. I wouldnlike to continue to see lower gas prices. At least affordable.
Seems to me he’s walking AND chewing bubblegum.
Oil prices are caused by global demand. Getting Canadian oil to market efficently helps everyone.
Our problem is caused by refining capacity. Ours are mainly set up to refine light sweet. Theyre not set up to process heavy sour crude exstracted from Canada’s tar sands.
Electric cars dont solve our problems. We still need to extract the materials for batteries and figure out how to beef up the current grid to meet higher demand. California for instance, cant power everyones house if its to hot.
1. The world has enough oil reserves ready if necessary, it doesn't need the extraction of more from the tar sands. The only parties who believe this lie are Transcanada and the majority foreign off takers on discounted prices (leverage to negotiate with other global suppliers). Most economists put that impact of pipeline vs no pipeline at $4 per barrel. Factoring in the cost of carbon, the "price savings" difference is negligible. If anyone was going to feel a price difference, it was the US midwest with a rising price per gallon.
2. Yes, the tar sands are heavy and produce the most CO2 of any oil product extracted. This the reason why the Alberta Cap and Trade system is the oldest in the Western Hemisphere, extraction in the province is Canada's number 1 driver of CO2 emissions. The whole world outside of oil and gas shareholders understand the impact of rising levels of CO2, it is settled science, this isn't debatable.
3. No one said electric cars solve our problems. They are a part of the solution, much like taking an antibiotic for an infected open wound. It helps but its not end all be all if you don't apply other necessary techniques. Beefing up the current grid is a US infrastructure issue that has little to do with technology and more to do with years of lobbying and special interest. See ERCOT.
that is quite likely the most unscientific statement possible.
Ok, then explain climate science to all of us.
i dont have to, there are plenty out there that are willing to do that for you, but you wont listen to them because they believe contrary to your view points...
however my comment was speaking in general terms, science if never settled, at least according to most real and honest scientists that arent following a crowd just to keep their grant coffers full.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ Mike Olson said:
Wait how did the keystone pipeline have anything to do with our gas prices? It was to move Canadian oil to be exported….
Also pressuring opec to produce more to lower gas prices is what every president has done. There are but only a couple factora that set the pricing. Opec, and domestic refining. So if you want more expensive gas then I guess yeah you could criticize him.
For me until the auto industry is putting out more electric vehicles (seems about 5 years out) and there is a good charging infrastructure, which we shouldd be passing funding for. I wouldnlike to continue to see lower gas prices. At least affordable.
Seems to me he’s walking AND chewing bubblegum.
Oil prices are caused by global demand. Getting Canadian oil to market efficently helps everyone.
Our problem is caused by refining capacity. Ours are mainly set up to refine light sweet. Theyre not set up to process heavy sour crude exstracted from Canada’s tar sands.
Electric cars dont solve our problems. We still need to extract the materials for batteries and figure out how to beef up the current grid to meet higher demand. California for instance, cant power everyones house if its to hot.
1. The world has enough oil reserves ready if necessary, it doesn't need the extraction of more from the tar sands. The only parties who believe this lie are Transcanada and the majority foreign off takers on discounted prices (leverage to negotiate with other global suppliers). Most economists put that impact of pipeline vs no pipeline at $4 per barrel. Factoring in the cost of carbon, the "price savings" difference is negligible. If anyone was going to feel a price difference, it was the US midwest with a rising price per gallon.
2. Yes, the tar sands are heavy and produce the most CO2 of any oil product extracted. This the reason why the Alberta Cap and Trade system is the oldest in the Western Hemisphere, extraction in the province is Canada's number 1 driver of CO2 emissions. The whole world outside of oil and gas shareholders understand the impact of rising levels of CO2, it is settled science, this isn't debatable.
3. No one said electric cars solve our problems. They are a part of the solution, much like taking an antibiotic for an infected open wound. It helps but its not end all be all if you don't apply other necessary techniques. Beefing up the current grid is a US infrastructure issue that has little to do with technology and more to do with years of lobbying and special interest. See ERCOT.
that is quite likely the most unscientific statement possible.
Ok, then explain climate science to all of us.
i dont have to, there are plenty out there that are willing to do that for you, but you wont listen to them because they believe contrary to your view points...
however my comment was speaking in general terms, science if never settled, at least according to most real and honest scientists that arent following a crowd just to keep their grant coffers full.
Sure and gravity is still just a theory.
My viewpoints are backed by mathematics and basic science common sense. White roofs vs black roofs have a lower need for cooling to maintain temperature, why?
If you understand how CO2 is sequestered versus how it gets released, you can put 2 and 2 together to realize the plus/minus of ghg gasses being released into the atmosphere.
I have one acre of trees/fauna/flora/biodiveristy that sequester carbon to grow (is this debatable?).
-I cut down all of those trees, with a loss of existing CO2 that could have been sequestered
Now I plant crops on that acre that do not store carbon (in this case into the ground) at the same rate an acre of trees
-I am still down the amount of CO2 being sequestered
Then I put ruminants on that acre to eat those grasses, using their stomach chambers as anaerobic digesters to produce methane which is released back into the atmosphere
-Now I am producing a gas Ch4 that is "thicker" in the atmosphere by the magnitude of 20x CO2
So I went from sequestering carbon per acre at a good rate to the complete opposite with no sequestration and significant amounts of GHG emissions in the form of CH4. Multiple that over millions of acres across the planet, what do you get, a much higher level of atmospheric gases tonnage trapping more heat on earth.
How do you believe the atmospheric science works? Do you not believe that heat is trapped by gasses creating a layer, sending heat back to earth?
Do you believe that black surfaces (or ocean surfaces) do not absorb more heat via sunlight at a higher rate than white surfaces?
Why do we have evidenced glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, shrinking ice sheets, rising water levels, warming water bodies, higher levels of ocean acidification?
How do you view all of the data from organizations like NASA and the meteorological society who depict the decreasing amount of white surfaces on this planet vs the growing number of black ones?
I am open to your answers on this because this is how the science works, this is how the math works.
Quote: @Skodin said:
@ greediron said:
@ Skodin said:
Ok, then explain climate science to all of us.
Easy. Settled science isn't actually science, but political influence.
No, I want you to explain the science of climate, various gases in the atmosphere (CO2, CH4, Nitrogen, O2), the various components of our atmosphere.
Just explain to me how you think this works, how science (not policy) works.
You say it's debatable, let's have a debate about the science
Go ahead. Pretty sure you aren't interested in a debate tho, so prove me wrong.
Quote: @Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ Mike Olson said:
Wait how did the keystone pipeline have anything to do with our gas prices? It was to move Canadian oil to be exported….
Also pressuring opec to produce more to lower gas prices is what every president has done. There are but only a couple factora that set the pricing. Opec, and domestic refining. So if you want more expensive gas then I guess yeah you could criticize him.
For me until the auto industry is putting out more electric vehicles (seems about 5 years out) and there is a good charging infrastructure, which we shouldd be passing funding for. I wouldnlike to continue to see lower gas prices. At least affordable.
Seems to me he’s walking AND chewing bubblegum.
Oil prices are caused by global demand. Getting Canadian oil to market efficently helps everyone.
Our problem is caused by refining capacity. Ours are mainly set up to refine light sweet. Theyre not set up to process heavy sour crude exstracted from Canada’s tar sands.
Electric cars dont solve our problems. We still need to extract the materials for batteries and figure out how to beef up the current grid to meet higher demand. California for instance, cant power everyones house if its to hot.
1. The world has enough oil reserves ready if necessary, it doesn't need the extraction of more from the tar sands. The only parties who believe this lie are Transcanada and the majority foreign off takers on discounted prices (leverage to negotiate with other global suppliers). Most economists put that impact of pipeline vs no pipeline at $4 per barrel. Factoring in the cost of carbon, the "price savings" difference is negligible. If anyone was going to feel a price difference, it was the US midwest with a rising price per gallon.
2. Yes, the tar sands are heavy and produce the most CO2 of any oil product extracted. This the reason why the Alberta Cap and Trade system is the oldest in the Western Hemisphere, extraction in the province is Canada's number 1 driver of CO2 emissions. The whole world outside of oil and gas shareholders understand the impact of rising levels of CO2, it is settled science, this isn't debatable.
3. No one said electric cars solve our problems. They are a part of the solution, much like taking an antibiotic for an infected open wound. It helps but its not end all be all if you don't apply other necessary techniques. Beefing up the current grid is a US infrastructure issue that has little to do with technology and more to do with years of lobbying and special interest. See ERCOT.
that is quite likely the most unscientific statement possible.
Ok, then explain climate science to all of us.
i dont have to, there are plenty out there that are willing to do that for you, but you wont listen to them because they believe contrary to your view points...
however my comment was speaking in general terms, science if never settled, at least according to most real and honest scientists that arent following a crowd just to keep their grant coffers full.
Sure and gravity is still just a theory.
My viewpoints are backed by mathematics and basic science common sense. White roofs vs black roofs have a lower need for cooling to maintain temperature, why?
If you understand how CO2 is sequestered versus how it gets released, you can put 2 and 2 together to realize the plus/minus of ghg gasses being released into the atmosphere.
I have one acre of trees/fauna/flora/biodiveristy that sequester carbon to grow (is this debatable?).
-I cut down all of those trees, with a loss of existing CO2 that could have been sequestered
Now I plant crops on that acre that do not store carbon (in this case into the ground) at the same rate an acre of trees
-I am still down the amount of CO2 being sequestered
Then I put ruminants on that acre to eat those grasses, using their stomach chambers as anaerobic digesters to produce methane which is released back into the atmosphere
-Now I am producing a gas Ch4 that is "thicker" in the atmosphere by the magnitude of 20x CO2
So I went from sequestering carbon per acre at a good rate to the complete opposite with no sequestration and significant amounts of GHG emissions in the form of CH4. Multiple that over millions of acres across the planet, what do you get, a much higher level of atmospheric gases tonnage trapping more heat on earth.
How do you believe the atmospheric science works? Do you not believe that heat is trapped by gasses creating a layer, sending heat back to earth?
Do you believe that black surfaces (or ocean surfaces) do not absorb more heat via sunlight at a higher rate than white surfaces?
Why do we have evidenced glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, shrinking ice sheets, rising water levels, warming water bodies, higher levels of ocean acidification?
How do you view all of the data from organizations like NASA and the meteorological society who depict the decreasing amount of white surfaces on this planet vs the growing number of black ones?
I am open to your answers on this because this is how the science works, this is how the math works.
if the science is settled, why do the experts prediction models keep failing to be accurate? ( not my original thought, i read it in an article a long time ago and it still holds true ) if the science was truly settled they would be able to say with more certainty what will happen when. Also there are plenty of scientist that have been willing to call bull shit, but they are just wing nuts, nevermind that a lot of them have been studying the climate and weather before many of the so called experts now were even born.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ Skodin said:
@ greediron said:
@ Skodin said:
Ok, then explain climate science to all of us.
Easy. Settled science isn't actually science, but political influence.
No, I want you to explain the science of climate, various gases in the atmosphere (CO2, CH4, Nitrogen, O2), the various components of our atmosphere.
Just explain to me how you think this works, how science (not policy) works.
You say it's debatable, let's have a debate about the science
Go ahead. Pretty sure you aren't interested in a debate tho, so prove me wrong.
How can I prove you are wrong unless I know your actual position on the science? That's what a debate is, I'm asking you to state your points on why you don't believe in the science behind climate science?
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ Mike Olson said:
Wait how did the keystone pipeline have anything to do with our gas prices? It was to move Canadian oil to be exported….
Also pressuring opec to produce more to lower gas prices is what every president has done. There are but only a couple factora that set the pricing. Opec, and domestic refining. So if you want more expensive gas then I guess yeah you could criticize him.
For me until the auto industry is putting out more electric vehicles (seems about 5 years out) and there is a good charging infrastructure, which we shouldd be passing funding for. I wouldnlike to continue to see lower gas prices. At least affordable.
Seems to me he’s walking AND chewing bubblegum.
Oil prices are caused by global demand. Getting Canadian oil to market efficently helps everyone.
Our problem is caused by refining capacity. Ours are mainly set up to refine light sweet. Theyre not set up to process heavy sour crude exstracted from Canada’s tar sands.
Electric cars dont solve our problems. We still need to extract the materials for batteries and figure out how to beef up the current grid to meet higher demand. California for instance, cant power everyones house if its to hot.
1. The world has enough oil reserves ready if necessary, it doesn't need the extraction of more from the tar sands. The only parties who believe this lie are Transcanada and the majority foreign off takers on discounted prices (leverage to negotiate with other global suppliers). Most economists put that impact of pipeline vs no pipeline at $4 per barrel. Factoring in the cost of carbon, the "price savings" difference is negligible. If anyone was going to feel a price difference, it was the US midwest with a rising price per gallon.
2. Yes, the tar sands are heavy and produce the most CO2 of any oil product extracted. This the reason why the Alberta Cap and Trade system is the oldest in the Western Hemisphere, extraction in the province is Canada's number 1 driver of CO2 emissions. The whole world outside of oil and gas shareholders understand the impact of rising levels of CO2, it is settled science, this isn't debatable.
3. No one said electric cars solve our problems. They are a part of the solution, much like taking an antibiotic for an infected open wound. It helps but its not end all be all if you don't apply other necessary techniques. Beefing up the current grid is a US infrastructure issue that has little to do with technology and more to do with years of lobbying and special interest. See ERCOT.
that is quite likely the most unscientific statement possible.
Ok, then explain climate science to all of us.
i dont have to, there are plenty out there that are willing to do that for you, but you wont listen to them because they believe contrary to your view points...
however my comment was speaking in general terms, science if never settled, at least according to most real and honest scientists that arent following a crowd just to keep their grant coffers full.
Sure and gravity is still just a theory.
My viewpoints are backed by mathematics and basic science common sense. White roofs vs black roofs have a lower need for cooling to maintain temperature, why?
If you understand how CO2 is sequestered versus how it gets released, you can put 2 and 2 together to realize the plus/minus of ghg gasses being released into the atmosphere.
I have one acre of trees/fauna/flora/biodiveristy that sequester carbon to grow (is this debatable?).
-I cut down all of those trees, with a loss of existing CO2 that could have been sequestered
Now I plant crops on that acre that do not store carbon (in this case into the ground) at the same rate an acre of trees
-I am still down the amount of CO2 being sequestered
Then I put ruminants on that acre to eat those grasses, using their stomach chambers as anaerobic digesters to produce methane which is released back into the atmosphere
-Now I am producing a gas Ch4 that is "thicker" in the atmosphere by the magnitude of 20x CO2
So I went from sequestering carbon per acre at a good rate to the complete opposite with no sequestration and significant amounts of GHG emissions in the form of CH4. Multiple that over millions of acres across the planet, what do you get, a much higher level of atmospheric gases tonnage trapping more heat on earth.
How do you believe the atmospheric science works? Do you not believe that heat is trapped by gasses creating a layer, sending heat back to earth?
Do you believe that black surfaces (or ocean surfaces) do not absorb more heat via sunlight at a higher rate than white surfaces?
Why do we have evidenced glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, shrinking ice sheets, rising water levels, warming water bodies, higher levels of ocean acidification?
How do you view all of the data from organizations like NASA and the meteorological society who depict the decreasing amount of white surfaces on this planet vs the growing number of black ones?
I am open to your answers on this because this is how the science works, this is how the math works.
if the science is settled, why do the experts prediction models keep failing to be accurate? ( not my original thought, i read it in an article a long time ago and it still holds true ) if the science was truly settled they would be able to say with more certainty what will happen when. Also there are plenty of scientist that have been willing to call bull shit, but they are just wing nuts, nevermind that a lot of them have been studying the climate and weather before many of the so called experts now were even born.
Ok, let's say that despite 97% of reporting from the scientific community stating climate change is real and the causes of it have been identified, it is still not "settled science".
I am more interested in your take on these questions of the science, not policy, not how we handle carbon, carbon pricing, incentives, subsidies, technology, etc.
Just some of the basics around the science behind this changing climate issue.
Quote: @Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Sure and gravity is still just a theory.
My viewpoints are backed by mathematics and basic science common sense. White roofs vs black roofs have a lower need for cooling to maintain temperature, why?
If you understand how CO2 is sequestered versus how it gets released, you can put 2 and 2 together to realize the plus/minus of ghg gasses being released into the atmosphere.
I have one acre of trees/fauna/flora/biodiveristy that sequester carbon to grow (is this debatable?).
-I cut down all of those trees, with a loss of existing CO2 that could have been sequestered
Now I plant crops on that acre that do not store carbon (in this case into the ground) at the same rate an acre of trees
-I am still down the amount of CO2 being sequestered
Then I put ruminants on that acre to eat those grasses, using their stomach chambers as anaerobic digesters to produce methane which is released back into the atmosphere
-Now I am producing a gas Ch4 that is "thicker" in the atmosphere by the magnitude of 20x CO2
So I went from sequestering carbon per acre at a good rate to the complete opposite with no sequestration and significant amounts of GHG emissions in the form of CH4. Multiple that over millions of acres across the planet, what do you get, a much higher level of atmospheric gases tonnage trapping more heat on earth.
How do you believe the atmospheric science works? Do you not believe that heat is trapped by gasses creating a layer, sending heat back to earth?
Do you believe that black surfaces (or ocean surfaces) do not absorb more heat via sunlight at a higher rate than white surfaces?
Why do we have evidenced glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, shrinking ice sheets, rising water levels, warming water bodies, higher levels of ocean acidification?
How do you view all of the data from organizations like NASA and the meteorological society who depict the decreasing amount of white surfaces on this planet vs the growing number of black ones?
I am open to your answers on this because this is how the science works, this is how the math works.
if the science is settled, why do the experts prediction models keep failing to be accurate? ( not my original thought, i read it in an article a long time ago and it still holds true ) if the science was truly settled they would be able to say with more certainty what will happen when. Also there are plenty of scientist that have been willing to call bull shit, but they are just wing nuts, nevermind that a lot of them have been studying the climate and weather before many of the so called experts now were even born.
Ok, let's say that despite 97% of reporting from the scientific community stating climate change is real and the causes of it have been identified, it is still not "settled science".
I am more interested in your take on these questions of the science, not policy, not how we handle carbon, carbon pricing, incentives, subsidies, technology, etc.
Just some of the basics around the science behind this changing climate issue.
i dont have to be completely up on a subject to be able to have an informed opinion and I am not going to try and debate this with you. I can tell you that the bull shit policies are not about saving the planet as much as they are about lining somebodies pockets, quite often at the expense of those who cant afford to do a damn thing about. you can spout all you want, but its not going to change the fact that your position is not one of settled science, any more than I can say with certainty that my position is 100% factual based.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Sure and gravity is still just a theory.
My viewpoints are backed by mathematics and basic science common sense. White roofs vs black roofs have a lower need for cooling to maintain temperature, why?
If you understand how CO2 is sequestered versus how it gets released, you can put 2 and 2 together to realize the plus/minus of ghg gasses being released into the atmosphere.
I have one acre of trees/fauna/flora/biodiveristy that sequester carbon to grow (is this debatable?).
-I cut down all of those trees, with a loss of existing CO2 that could have been sequestered
Now I plant crops on that acre that do not store carbon (in this case into the ground) at the same rate an acre of trees
-I am still down the amount of CO2 being sequestered
Then I put ruminants on that acre to eat those grasses, using their stomach chambers as anaerobic digesters to produce methane which is released back into the atmosphere
-Now I am producing a gas Ch4 that is "thicker" in the atmosphere by the magnitude of 20x CO2
So I went from sequestering carbon per acre at a good rate to the complete opposite with no sequestration and significant amounts of GHG emissions in the form of CH4. Multiple that over millions of acres across the planet, what do you get, a much higher level of atmospheric gases tonnage trapping more heat on earth.
How do you believe the atmospheric science works? Do you not believe that heat is trapped by gasses creating a layer, sending heat back to earth?
Do you believe that black surfaces (or ocean surfaces) do not absorb more heat via sunlight at a higher rate than white surfaces?
Why do we have evidenced glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, shrinking ice sheets, rising water levels, warming water bodies, higher levels of ocean acidification?
How do you view all of the data from organizations like NASA and the meteorological society who depict the decreasing amount of white surfaces on this planet vs the growing number of black ones?
I am open to your answers on this because this is how the science works, this is how the math works.
if the science is settled, why do the experts prediction models keep failing to be accurate? ( not my original thought, i read it in an article a long time ago and it still holds true ) if the science was truly settled they would be able to say with more certainty what will happen when. Also there are plenty of scientist that have been willing to call bull shit, but they are just wing nuts, nevermind that a lot of them have been studying the climate and weather before many of the so called experts now were even born.
Ok, let's say that despite 97% of reporting from the scientific community stating climate change is real and the causes of it have been identified, it is still not "settled science".
I am more interested in your take on these questions of the science, not policy, not how we handle carbon, carbon pricing, incentives, subsidies, technology, etc.
Just some of the basics around the science behind this changing climate issue.
i dont have to be completely up on a subject to be able to have an informed opinion and I am not going to try and debate this with you. I can tell you that the bull shit policies are not about saving the planet as much as they are about lining somebodies pockets, quite often at the expense of those who cant afford to do a damn thing about. you can spout all you want, but its not going to change the fact that your position is not one of settled science, any more than I can say with certainty that my position is 100% factual based.
One just has to look at the circumstantial evidence, those that profit from the BS regulations and propaganda don't believe it. Otherwise they wouldn't buy beach front mansions and fly everywhere in fuel guzzling private jets.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Sure and gravity is still just a theory.
My viewpoints are backed by mathematics and basic science common sense. White roofs vs black roofs have a lower need for cooling to maintain temperature, why?
If you understand how CO2 is sequestered versus how it gets released, you can put 2 and 2 together to realize the plus/minus of ghg gasses being released into the atmosphere.
I have one acre of trees/fauna/flora/biodiveristy that sequester carbon to grow (is this debatable?).
-I cut down all of those trees, with a loss of existing CO2 that could have been sequestered
Now I plant crops on that acre that do not store carbon (in this case into the ground) at the same rate an acre of trees
-I am still down the amount of CO2 being sequestered
Then I put ruminants on that acre to eat those grasses, using their stomach chambers as anaerobic digesters to produce methane which is released back into the atmosphere
-Now I am producing a gas Ch4 that is "thicker" in the atmosphere by the magnitude of 20x CO2
So I went from sequestering carbon per acre at a good rate to the complete opposite with no sequestration and significant amounts of GHG emissions in the form of CH4. Multiple that over millions of acres across the planet, what do you get, a much higher level of atmospheric gases tonnage trapping more heat on earth.
How do you believe the atmospheric science works? Do you not believe that heat is trapped by gasses creating a layer, sending heat back to earth?
Do you believe that black surfaces (or ocean surfaces) do not absorb more heat via sunlight at a higher rate than white surfaces?
Why do we have evidenced glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, shrinking ice sheets, rising water levels, warming water bodies, higher levels of ocean acidification?
How do you view all of the data from organizations like NASA and the meteorological society who depict the decreasing amount of white surfaces on this planet vs the growing number of black ones?
I am open to your answers on this because this is how the science works, this is how the math works.
if the science is settled, why do the experts prediction models keep failing to be accurate? ( not my original thought, i read it in an article a long time ago and it still holds true ) if the science was truly settled they would be able to say with more certainty what will happen when. Also there are plenty of scientist that have been willing to call bull shit, but they are just wing nuts, nevermind that a lot of them have been studying the climate and weather before many of the so called experts now were even born.
Ok, let's say that despite 97% of reporting from the scientific community stating climate change is real and the causes of it have been identified, it is still not "settled science".
I am more interested in your take on these questions of the science, not policy, not how we handle carbon, carbon pricing, incentives, subsidies, technology, etc.
Just some of the basics around the science behind this changing climate issue.
i dont have to be completely up on a subject to be able to have an informed opinion and I am not going to try and debate this with you. I can tell you that the bull shit policies are not about saving the planet as much as they are about lining somebodies pockets, quite often at the expense of those who cant afford to do a damn thing about. you can spout all you want, but its not going to change the fact that your position is not one of settled science, any more than I can say with certainty that my position is 100% factual based.
One just has to look at the circumstantial evidence, those that profit from the BS regulations and propaganda don't believe it. Otherwise they wouldn't buy beach front mansions and fly everywhere in fuel guzzling private jets.
just like those pushing for covid mandates for the general public not following those same mandates and ignoring precautions.
wow, so there isn't one single point you can bring up about science? Not one?
You don't have to be "up on the subject" to discuss how heat works, how sunlight works, how gases work.
Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say if you aren't willing to debate, let alone answer the basic questions about the math/science?
@ greediron said: Quote:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Sure and gravity is still just a theory.
My viewpoints are backed by mathematics and basic science common sense. White roofs vs black roofs have a lower need for cooling to maintain temperature, why?
If you understand how CO2 is sequestered versus how it gets released, you can put 2 and 2 together to realize the plus/minus of ghg gasses being released into the atmosphere.
I have one acre of trees/fauna/flora/biodiveristy that sequester carbon to grow (is this debatable?).
-I cut down all of those trees, with a loss of existing CO2 that could have been sequestered
Now I plant crops on that acre that do not store carbon (in this case into the ground) at the same rate an acre of trees
-I am still down the amount of CO2 being sequestered
Then I put ruminants on that acre to eat those grasses, using their stomach chambers as anaerobic digesters to produce methane which is released back into the atmosphere
-Now I am producing a gas Ch4 that is "thicker" in the atmosphere by the magnitude of 20x CO2
So I went from sequestering carbon per acre at a good rate to the complete opposite with no sequestration and significant amounts of GHG emissions in the form of CH4. Multiple that over millions of acres across the planet, what do you get, a much higher level of atmospheric gases tonnage trapping more heat on earth.
How do you believe the atmospheric science works? Do you not believe that heat is trapped by gasses creating a layer, sending heat back to earth?
Do you believe that black surfaces (or ocean surfaces) do not absorb more heat via sunlight at a higher rate than white surfaces?
Why do we have evidenced glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, shrinking ice sheets, rising water levels, warming water bodies, higher levels of ocean acidification?
How do you view all of the data from organizations like NASA and the meteorological society who depict the decreasing amount of white surfaces on this planet vs the growing number of black ones?
I am open to your answers on this because this is how the science works, this is how the math works.
if the science is settled, why do the experts prediction models keep failing to be accurate? ( not my original thought, i read it in an article a long time ago and it still holds true ) if the science was truly settled they would be able to say with more certainty what will happen when. Also there are plenty of scientist that have been willing to call bull shit, but they are just wing nuts, nevermind that a lot of them have been studying the climate and weather before many of the so called experts now were even born.
Ok, let's say that despite 97% of reporting from the scientific community stating climate change is real and the causes of it have been identified, it is still not "settled science".
I am more interested in your take on these questions of the science, not policy, not how we handle carbon, carbon pricing, incentives, subsidies, technology, etc.
Just some of the basics around the science behind this changing climate issue.
i dont have to be completely up on a subject to be able to have an informed opinion and I am not going to try and debate this with you. I can tell you that the bull shit policies are not about saving the planet as much as they are about lining somebodies pockets, quite often at the expense of those who cant afford to do a damn thing about. you can spout all you want, but its not going to change the fact that your position is not one of settled science, any more than I can say with certainty that my position is 100% factual based.
One just has to look at the circumstantial evidence, those that profit from the BS regulations and propaganda don't believe it. Otherwise they wouldn't buy beach front mansions and fly everywhere in fuel guzzling private jets.
why die on this hill filled with nothing but straw men? Do you not think that warming climates, disrupted weather patterns, agricultural losses, won't affect you?
|
