May’s Global Temperature coldest in 9 years

[jakee 1,257]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’m only responsible for my posts, I was just giving him a heads up before he takes a seat in the church of climate panic.

Right, he might even be asked to demonstrate he’s read anything in the links he posts! I know that idea gives you both the cold sweats.

[billvon 2,406]

There's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 1998!  2010!  2013!  2014!  2016!

[SkyDekker 1,130]

3 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Would you (and your twin) advise skydiving students there is no need to deploy their parachute until after they've reached the ground?  After all, one second before impact they are fine, they are breathing, their heart is beating, they can move their arms and legs.  Anyone who says there is an emergency is just pushing panic. 

Prudent people take action before the problem becomes irreversible

 

Not only that, but not everybody agrees a parachute is required to survive jumping out of a plane. All these people telling students to wear a parachute is nothing more than trying to induce panic to make money. Whole industry is based on panic and sudo science that isn't universally agreed on.

[brenthutch 384]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Not only that, but not everybody agrees a parachute is required to survive jumping out of a plane. All these people telling students to wear a parachute is nothing more than trying to induce panic to make money. Whole industry is based on panic and sudo science that isn't universally agreed on.

Yeah, it’s just like that 

[JoeWeber 2,316]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

All you are going to get from these guys is deflection, denial and ad hominem attacks. (As illustrated in the last four posts). To them, catastrophic man made, global warming is their religion and you are a heretic. 

The word catastrophic is a poor usage in the current context and may be what affects your conclusions about us'n nincompoops. I'm pretty sure no one here believes we'll simply, and suddenly, wake up to a world without snow leopards, Dutch skating ponds, or frozen yoghurt bars. No, we simply see a line on a graph on what appears to be an inexorable, but not inexplicable, upward trend; an upward trend that seems strongly associated with someone drilling a hole in your neck of the woods back in 1859.

[wmw999 2,130]

3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

an upward trend that seems strongly associated with someone drilling a hole in your neck of the woods back in 1859.

Gotta admit that in terms of immediate pollution and impact, petroleum was probably an improvement in air quality and health over the coal that preceded it, and the charcoal that preceded that (given that forests were nearly denuded in much of Europe). But just as there were, I'm sure, people who thought that coal was just fine for burning in their grates, then furnaces, because of the sunk investment, now there are people who feel the same about petroleum products.

The thing is, the cost is reduced by reducing use in the first place. That's the best possible way to cut back on fossil fuels, is increase the efficiency of what does need to be used with today's technology. Eke it out, rather than rushing headlong into a hopeful miracle replacement.

Kind of like trusting Metformin to fix diabetes. Yeah, I have a relative who is a retired diabetes nurse. She had tons of those "give me a pill because I don't want to change" patients.

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,316]

3 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Gotta admit that in terms of immediate pollution and impact, petroleum was probably an improvement in air quality and health over the coal that preceded it, and the charcoal that preceded that (given that forests were nearly denuded in much of Europe). But just as there were, I'm sure, people who thought that coal was just fine for burning in their grates, then furnaces, because of the sunk investment, now there are people who feel the same about petroleum products.

The thing is, the cost is reduced by reducing use in the first place. That's the best possible way to cut back on fossil fuels, is increase the efficiency of what does need to be used with today's technology. Eke it out, rather than rushing headlong into a hopeful miracle replacement.

Kind of like trusting Metformin to fix diabetes. Yeah, I have a relative who is a retired diabetes nurse. She had tons of those "give me a pill because I don't want to change" patients.

Wendy P.

Sure, but by the same metrics coal was an improvement over whale oil. The whales might disagree, I suppose.

[brenthutch 384]

13 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The word catastrophic is a poor usage in the current context and may be what affects your conclusions about us'n nincompoops. I'm pretty sure no one here believes we'll simply, and suddenly, wake up to a world without snow leopards, Dutch skating ponds, or frozen yoghurt bars. No, we simply see a line on a graph on what appears to be an inexorable, but not inexplicable, upward trend; an upward trend that seems strongly associated with someone drilling a hole in your neck of the woods back in 1859.

BillV says:

“Mounting deaths from heat waves, melting of glaciers and ice caps, emptying reservoirs, out of control wildfires, worsening storms, loss of crops to drought, crippling drought restrictions, much larger precipitation events, insurance company panics over climate change, military warnings about the security threats of climate change, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria and the literal melting of infrastructure”

Sounds like a catastrophist to me.

 

[JoeWeber 2,316]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

BillV says:

“Mounting deaths from heat waves, melting of glaciers and ice caps, emptying reservoirs, out of control wildfires, worsening storms, loss of crops to drought, crippling drought restrictions, much larger precipitation events, insurance company panics over climate change, military warnings about the security threats of climate change, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria and the literal melting of infrastructure”

Sounds like a catastrophist to me.

 

Mounting, melting, emptying, and worsening seem descriptive of negative effects that are increasing. A catastrophe is a disaster that has already happened. 

[billvon 2,406]

16 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Gotta admit that in terms of immediate pollution and impact, petroleum was probably an improvement in air quality and health over the coal that preceded it, and the charcoal that preceded that (given that forests were nearly denuded in much of Europe).

Yep.  And gas cars improved things over horses.  EV's are the next improvement. 

No country ever prospered by clinging to the outdated technologies of the past - and no country's population ever thrived if, at every juncture, profit was chosen over health.  Bhopal, India comes to mind.

[billvon 2,406]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Sounds like a catastrophist to me.

If facts make you think something is a catastrophe, that's on you.

[brenthutch 384]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Mounting, melting, emptying, and worsening seem descriptive of negative effects that are increasing. A catastrophe is a disaster that has already happened. 

We do have dogs and cats living together 

[JoeWeber 2,316]

25 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

We do have dogs and cats living together 

As I attempted to explain in my bumbling manner in Pedophiles #39, we don't have to be right about global warming for you to be wrong about transitioning away from fossil fuels. If the world survives humanity, 10,000 years from now the history of fossil fuel use and the economic impacts, beneficial or not, won't merit a paragraph in a Texas school book. 

[brenthutch 384]

49 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

As I attempted to explain in my bumbling manner in Pedophiles #39, we don't have to be right about global warming for you to be wrong about transitioning away from fossil fuels.

We don’t need to spend billions of dollars to make an energy transition.  We went from wood to charcoal to coal to oil to natural gas without spending hundreds of billions of dollars. 20 years ago President George W. Bush announced $1.2 billion in research funding so that “America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.” Where did that go? If you can’t see the pigs lining up at the “transition trough” you need a stronger prescription. 

[JoeWeber 2,316]

20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

We don’t need to spend billions of dollars to make an energy transition.  We went from wood to charcoal to coal to oil to natural gas without spending hundreds of billions of dollars. 20 years ago President George W. Bush announced $1.2 billion in research funding so that “America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.” Where did that go? If you can’t see the pigs lining up at the “transition trough” you need a stronger prescription. 

You don't need to spend thousands to have a doctor reset a broken arm but you'll get on with your future sooner, and be money ahead, if you do.

[billvon 2,406]

6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

You don't need to spend thousands to have a doctor reset a broken arm but you'll get on with your future sooner, and be money ahead, if you do.

Sure, compound fractures are "bad" and medical scaremongers will be all "oh but infection"  "won't heal well"  "oh but gangrene."  But until it's amputated there's no catastrophe to worry about.

[brenthutch 384]

29 minutes ago, billvon said:

Sure, compound fractures are "bad" and medical scaremongers will be all "oh but infection"  "won't heal well"  "oh but gangrene."  But until it's amputated there's no catastrophe to worry about.

Straw man much?

[olofscience 422]

13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Straw man much?

I think it's called sarcasm.

[kallend 1,635]

14 hours ago, olofscience said:

Claims to not watch Fox. check.

Claims to not be Republican. check.

Makes argument that CO2 concentrations at the time of dinosaurs means it's fine, check.

Makes up straw man argument no one said, check.

 

Doesn't seem like it's brent, but brainwashing has produced an almost perfect carbon copy! Impressive.

At least rushmc (Marc) was good for a laugh.

[billvon 2,406]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Straw man much?

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

[brenthutch 384]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

straw man

/ˌstrô ˈman/

noun

1. 1. 

   an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

    

    

[jakee 1,257]

29 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

straw man

/ˌstrô ˈman/

noun

1. 1. 

   an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

    

    

Do us a favour and look up the definition of analogy would ya?

[brenthutch 384]

7 minutes ago, jakee said:

Do us a favour and look up the definition of analogy would ya?

“Sure, compound fractures are "bad" and medical scaremongers will be all "oh but infection"  "won't heal well"  "oh but gangrene."  But until it's amputated there's no catastrophe to worry about.”

is analogous to 

“We don’t need to spend billions of dollars to make an energy transition.  We went from wood to charcoal to coal to oil to natural gas without spending hundreds of billions of dollars.”

???

I think YOU need to look up the definition of analogy.
 

 

[billvon 2,406]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

straw man

/ˌstrô ˈman/

noun

1. 1. 

   an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

    

    

As I suspected, you don't know what that word means.  

Or you do and are intentionally misunderstanding, which makes more sense knowing you.

Well, at least you now admit that climate change is a catastrophe.

[JoeWeber 2,316]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“Sure, compound fractures are "bad" and medical scaremongers will be all "oh but infection"  "won't heal well"  "oh but gangrene."  But until it's amputated there's no catastrophe to worry about.”

is analogous to 

“We don’t need to spend billions of dollars to make an energy transition.  We went from wood to charcoal to coal to oil to natural gas without spending hundreds of billions of dollars.”

???

I think YOU need to look up the definition of analogy.
 

 

That's some real Trump legal team level scrambling there, buddy. You may have a future.