Climate and Weather

EvilGoalie 21 said:
Here's tonight's existential question. A climate change researcher gets on a plane in New York, flies to Reagan airport, and takes the blue line to a symposium on climate change at George Washington University. A political economist gets on a plane in San Francisco, flies into Reagan airport, and takes the yellow line to the Cato Institute for a symposium on the power of free markets to transform American infrastructure. Who's the bigger hypocrite?
Click to expand...

EvilGoalie 21 said:
They are both scientists, remember. I suppose I should risk a peek inside your ACC hall of mirrors to ask what Di Caprio alarmism means, or, more to the point, its relevance. I imagine you do not mean this.

My guess is a Hollywood actor made a statement about global warming. If that's it, so what? They are entitled to an opinion just like Warren Meyer. Doesn't mean anything with respect to the science we are considering here one way or another.
Click to expand...
Everybody is a Scientist. Didn't you know?
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
To summarize, so far we have an argument formulated around Warren Meyer, our Viscount friend, Leonardo DiCaprio, hair products, Venezuela and Aff's truck. On the Badger thread, whatever. On the Dachshund thread, whatever. On the BS about everything thread, if one can press the exclamation point key one is overqualified. But on this thread so far you're bringing class 200 pipe to a schedule 40 job.
Click to expand...
Basically what is actually happening (200 pipe) vs. Climate model projections (40 job).
 
Last edited:
Bernie Sanders said:
We wait.
Eventually the deniers will be either proved wrong or right.
In the mean time life goes on as always.
Click to expand...
In the mean time, life has never been better in the U.S. and many other countries around the world. No such thing as deniers. Alarmist made up that label to justify further funding for their projects and teaching jobs so that they can pay off their student loans.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
In the mean time, life has never been better in the U.S. and many other countries around the world. No such thing as deniers. Alarmist made up that label to justify further funding for their projects and teaching jobs so that they can pay off their student loans.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Let me help.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deny

"to say that something is not true"

It's only the idiots who choose to ignore what a scientist tells them that dislikes the term denier, because it reminds them that they have chosen a political stance hand fed to them by the fossil fuel industry.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
In the mean time, life has never been better in the U.S. and many other countries around the world. No such thing as deniers. Alarmist made up that label to justify further funding for their projects and teaching jobs so that they can pay off their student loans.
Click to expand...

What happens when the prognostications just dont pan out?
Ill tell you what happens.
We claim victory for saving the planet.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
In the mean time, life has never been better in the U.S. and many other countries around the world. No such thing as deniers. Alarmist made up that label to justify further funding for their projects and teaching jobs so that they can pay off their student loans.
Click to expand...

The plural of alarmist is alarmists.

The plural of idiot is idiots.
 
Wez said:
Bullshit. Let me help.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deny

"to say that something is not true"

It's only the idiots who choose to ignore what a scientist tells them that dislikes the term denier, because it reminds them that they have chosen a political stance hand fed to them by the fossil fuel industry.
Click to expand...
I always love when you return to the government subsidized fossil fuel industry that you complain about while your consumption of cheap fossil fuel continues.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
I always love when you return to the government subsidized fossil fuel industry that you complain about while your consumption of cheap fossil fuel continues.
Click to expand...

Do you actually have something to add to the discussion, or do you just like to play imaginary gotcha?
 
Wez said:
Do you actually have something to add to the discussion, or do you just like to play imaginary gotcha?
Click to expand...
Are you denying that you left a huge CO2 trail in the atmosphere from California to Hawaii and back about 2 months ago? That's not a gotcha. It's a better then 97% consensus I imagine. Please continue.
 
Smart meters help consumers avoid wasting money on energy efficiency
Posted on August 12, 2016 by Michael Giberson


Analysis of a randomised-controlled trial on a sample of almost 2500 Irish households revealed one surprising result: compared to the control group, households provided with a smart meter, detailed feedback on usage, and time-of-use pricing reduced investment in energy efficiency projects.

While this unexpected development appears treated by the researchers as an embarrassment to be overcome, the result should be celebrated. Despite spending less on energy efficiency projects like insulating blankets on water heaters or extra attic insulation, treatment-group households still reduced power consumption both at peak and overall as compared to control-group households. Or, to put it the other way, control-group households spent more on energy efficiency projects and still consumed relatively more power than consumers provided with smart meters, feedback, and time-of-use pricing.

Or, to sum it up more pointedly, giving consumers better information and better incentives helps consumers avoid wasting money on feel-good energy efficiency projects.

Citation: McCoy, Daire, and Sean Lyons. “Unintended outcomes of electricity smart-metering: trading-off consumption and investment behaviour.” Energy Efficiency (2016): 1-20. http://doi.org/bmtr.
 
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...-with-q&a-climate-claims-20160815-gqt9a4.html

"Malcolm Roberts leaves NASA 'flummoxed' with Q&A climate claims"

"Former coal miner and now One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts says NASA data on climate change is 'corrupted'."

"We've based our views on empirical science, and there's nothing in the Muller study to undercut that," Roberts told Cubby at the time. Climate change science had been captured by "some of the major banking families in the world" who form a "tight-knit cabal", he insisted."

"That sense of capture - if not the sinister anti-semitic hints that prompted even fellow denier commentator Andrew Bolt to distance himself from Roberts - remains four years on.

Anyway, when Cox pulled out some charts on Q&A from US space agency NASA showing a clear upward trend in global temperatures, Roberts readily dismissed the data as "corrupted" and "manipulated"."
 
All you AGW deniers will love this one:

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change

"There's also a moral duty to future generations that will live amid the climate devastation being created now.

"Here's a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them," Rieder says."

Yes folks, some of the AGW crowd have officially gone off the deep end. The best way to save the human race from AGW destruction is to stop making humans...
 
Wez said:
All you AGW deniers will love this one:

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change

"There's also a moral duty to future generations that will live amid the climate devastation being created now.

"Here's a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them," Rieder says."

Yes folks, some of the AGW crowd have officially gone off the deep end. The best way to save the human race from AGW destruction is to stop making humans...
Click to expand...
They went off the deep end a long time ago.
Im sitting on the bottom with my scuba gear, waving them in.
 
In almost every way human beings today lead more prosperous, safer and longer lives — and we have all the data we need to prove it. So why does everybody remain convinced that the world is going to the dogs? Because that is what we pay attention to, as the thoroughbred fretters we are. The psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky have shown that people do not base their assumptions on how frequently something happens, but on how easy it is to recall examples. This ‘availability heuristic’ means that the more memorable an incident is, the more probable we think it is. And what is more memorable than horror? What do you remember best — your neighbour’s story about a decent restaurant which serves excellent lamb stew, or his warning about the place where he was poisoned and threw up all over his boss’s wife?--J. Norbert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top