3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

(edited)
1 hour ago, billvon said:

Average temperatures (averaged over a decade) have increased 1.3F since the 1950's.  They have increased 1.8F since the 1880's.

You can, of course, try to cherrypick years to reduce that, or switch to degrees C to try to minimize it. or use a smaller timeframe to try to make the data say what you want.  But that doesn't change the facts.

Ok here is a is a century's worth

https://principia-scientific.org/climate-related-deaths-down-by-98-9-last-year-all-time-low/

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

"Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas."

And, of course, rescue services have significantly improved since 1920 - helicopters, telephones, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

There have been helicopters and telephones for most of the last ninety years.  And the incredible drop in climate related deaths correlates nicely with elevated CO2 levels, buttressing my argument that a large carbon footprint = a better life.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


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

There have been helicopters and telephones for most of the last ninety years.  And the incredible drop in climate related deaths correlates nicely with elevated CO2 levels, buttressing my argument that a large carbon footprint = a better life.

So:

You claim there's almost no temperature rise

I show you that that is false

You now claim that the CO2 rise/temperature rise is good.

Can't wait for your next angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, billvon said:

So:

You claim there's almost no temperature rise

I show you that that is false

You now claim that the CO2 rise/temperature rise is good.

Can't wait for your next angle.

I can walk and chew gum. 

I never characterized the temperature rise,  I just sited NOAA data for the last two decades, beginning in the most recent complete year. (.15C).  You characterized it as “massive”

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I can walk and chew gum. 

I never characterized the temperature rise,  I just sited NOAA data for the last two decades, beginning in the most recent complete year. (.15C).  You characterized it as “massive”

At what degree of change do you think it's an issue and over what time period? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I can walk and chew gum. 

I never characterized the temperature rise,  I just sited NOAA data for the last two decades, beginning in the most recent complete year. (.15C).  You characterized it as “massive”

To repeat: Increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 50% is massively messing with the atmosphere.   That's what is "massive."  It is having a lot of results, including ocean acidification, greening of vegetated areas, and increases in temperature.  Temperatures have increased 1.3F since the 1950's, which is why we are seeing sea level rises and melting glaciers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/ocean-acidification-yet-another-wobbly-pillar-of-climate-alarmism/

Bill, temps have been rising, glaciers have been melting and sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age.

It would pretty much settle it then, if one could show a graph that shows the acceleration of warming vs  CO2.

A scale with a base of one year, showing data for, say, 750 years.

Edited by turtlespeed
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I don't use this word often but.......DUDE.      Are you seriously using Michael Crichton and material from his book "State of Fear" to support your points?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HE'S A FUCKING FICTION NOVEL WRITER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SELLING HIS FICTIONAL BOOK ABOUT ECO-TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited: To make these ^^^ thingies line up right.

Edited by DJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, brenthutch said:

There have been helicopters and telephones for most of the last ninety years.  And the incredible drop in climate related deaths correlates nicely with elevated CO2 levels, buttressing my argument that a large carbon footprint = a better life.

Your knowledge of civilian helicopter rescues is sadly inaccurate. And for the "etcetera" we have far better weather forecasting of things like hurricanes, tornadoes and floods, we have cell phones with us 24/7. . . . . .

Your arguments are all pretty lame and your denier sources absurd, but that was maybe the lamest of them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, johnhking1 said:

World In Midst of Carbon Drought (w/ Prof. William Happer, Princeton University)

I found this video about CO2, start at 2:20.

Ah yes, the guy who said that losing the Ozone layer was not an issue.  Good to see him still getting air time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Wait - What?

AOC says that's from cows.  Which is it?

Volcanoes or cows?

Intentional misunderstanding score - 100%.  

Perhaps you could go to work on Priuses or bicycles.  I hear they are worse than Ford Expeditions, somehow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, billvon said:

It is for me.  

The impact is what is in question.

I really like irony, and the 1% that will be losing their investment properties, and the celebrities that will be losing their mansions kinda makes me giddy.  

The problem I have is that most of the alarmist predictions are mostly false.

YET, somehow, and for some reason, we are still supposed to take them seriously.

Whats the saying? The proof is in the pudding?  

Share this post


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

The problem I have is that most of the alarmist predictions are mostly false.

YET, somehow, and for some reason, we are still supposed to take them seriously.

Whats the saying? The proof is in the pudding?  

And yet we are spending money on trying to prevent large asteroids from hitting the earth.

I mean I have heard these alarmist predictions that a large asteroid could wipe out all life on earth. That's pretty damn alarmist. Yet, it clearly has never happened. Why should I believe anybody that this could be possible and we should look at ways to avoid that?

Share this post


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

And yet we are spending money on trying to prevent large asteroids from hitting the earth.

I mean I have heard these alarmist predictions that a large asteroid could wipe out all life on earth. That's pretty damn alarmist. Yet, it clearly has never happened. Why should I believe anybody that this could be possible and we should look at ways to avoid that?

LMAO - what is it that you think is going to happen to say - China - if we spend an unprecedented trillions of dollars, by (following the NGD) cleaning up the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
3 3