Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2181  
Old 26.10.2017, 13:09
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
There are many hypotheses for and against the idea that global warming is caused by the human activity. I once watched an interview of a climatologist and university professor and he used the laws of thermodynamics to show that even if all cars in the whole world were running together at the same time, with all power stations, all burners of any type, all steel mills, all cows farting, or any others CO2 producing devices, the calories produced by all them combined wouldn't be enough to raise the earth temperature by 0,1 Celsius. On the other hand, the sun and micro climate systems have way more influence in the temperatures than any other human activity.
Perfectly true. Of course it completely ignores the fact that it is not the heat produced by all those that is the issue but the CO2 and methane byproducts that traps in a higher proportion of solar energy and therefore the point is totally and utterly irrelevant.

Quote:
View Post
Not suspiciously, a lot of politicians and companies that receive subsides sponsor this man-made global warming religion. For example, Germany in the 2000's invested a huge sum of public and private money to become the green energy industry leader of the world. However, with a 50% drop in the price of oil, the only way to have a return on that investment is to have an army of "man-made" global warming supporters. Add to that that China is copying their technology and producing components such as photo-voltaic cells for a fifth of the price, and seems like the Germans should instead have continued in their traditional industries.
Possibly economically true then specifically for solar until you factor in the true cost of global warming. In any event it is no longer true even on a direct comparasion. Even with the gas and coal price where they are (oil is less relevant) the current electricity price mix has often tipped in favour of renewables.


Quote:
View Post
That's what happens when people only want to hear one side of the story or prefer to politicize a scientific debate. .
Science is something that is almost totally missing from the deniers side of the argument so how can there be a scientific debate?

Last edited by baboon; 26.10.2017 at 13:24.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at for this post:
  #2182  
Old 26.10.2017, 13:24
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SG
Posts: 8,929
Groaned at 466 Times in 349 Posts
Thanked 11,856 Times in 6,168 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
the calories produced by all them combined wouldn't be enough to raise the earth temperature by 0,1 Celsius.
That's the first time I've seen this even considered to be relevant for CC.
Reply With Quote
  #2183  
Old 26.10.2017, 13:47
PaddyG's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pensier, Fribourg
Posts: 9,243
Groaned at 118 Times in 102 Posts
Thanked 16,857 Times in 5,912 Posts
PaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I used to be a fervent denialist before I became interested in science advocacy. At which point I had to ask myself: "If I agree with the scientific consensus on vaccines, GMOs, water fluoridation, evolution etc, then why do I reject the consensus on climate change?". At least I have a working or passing knowledge for the aforementioned subjects, so I am better informed, whereas I am not a physicist or climatologist. Therefore I have to concede that I will rely on the experts to inform me and when 99% of the consensus is that anthropogenic climate warming is real, I will hold my hands up and admit I was wrong. By the way, "consensus" is not a group of scientists just simply agreeing with each other, it is a vast body of independent research and data that point to the same conclusion. A single publication or article refuting that is not evidence otherwise, unless it can be independently verified. That is cherry-picking and is the equivalent of an anti-vaxxers citing the single paper linking autism to vaccines, whilst ignoring the hundreds or thousands of papers to the contrary.
I do still have unanswered questions such as the predicted effect or increase and whether, as Loz says, it really bothers me or not, but for the time being I'll rely on the experts and specialists for my information.
By the way, I'm not an environmental freak and don't understand how anyone can say the future is in renewable energy, without considering and advocating for nuclear power at the same time.
__________________
Stealing jokes off the internet and passing them off as my own since 1995
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank PaddyG for this useful post:
  #2184  
Old 26.10.2017, 13:57
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 31,577
Groaned at 2,353 Times in 1,711 Posts
Thanked 38,371 Times in 18,109 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
By the way, I'm not an environmental freak and don't understand how anyone can say the future is in renewable energy, without considering and advocating for nuclear power at the same time.
Because you're not on the bandwagon.

Tom
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank st2lemans for this useful post:
  #2185  
Old 26.10.2017, 14:02
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
By the way, I'm not an environmental freak and don't understand how anyone can say the future is in renewable energy, without considering and advocating for nuclear power at the same time.
Many of us don't say this - although I agree most do and they're mostly wrong.

Although the cost of nuclear is currently way above renewables.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #2186  
Old 26.10.2017, 14:18
PaddyG's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pensier, Fribourg
Posts: 9,243
Groaned at 118 Times in 102 Posts
Thanked 16,857 Times in 5,912 Posts
PaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Because you're not on the bandwagon.

Tom
Never have been .
Reply With Quote
  #2187  
Old 26.10.2017, 15:33
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,380
Groaned at 282 Times in 153 Posts
Thanked 1,115 Times in 636 Posts
Capo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthy
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
Perfectly true. Of course it completely ignores the fact that it is not the heat produced by all those that is the issue but the CO2 and methane byproducts that traps in a higher proportion of solar energy and therefore the point is totally and utterly irrelevant.
In which global warming discussion the greenhouse effect is not already underline considered??

Quote:
Possibly economically true then specifically for solar until you factor in the true cost of global warming. In any event it is no longer true even on a direct comparasion. Even with the gas and coal price where they are (oil is less relevant) the current electricity price mix has often tipped in favour of renewables.
If global warming is a natural phenomenon, why there is even a discussion about its "cost"?

It's difficult to assess the real economic advantage/disadvantage of renewables if public subsides are pumped in somewhere in the chain. That being said, treating "renewables" as whole is misleading since a "heavy weight" in these is hydropower, not solar or wind

Quote:
Science is something that is almost totally missing from the deniers side of the argument so how can there be a scientific debate?
How come? Politicians, artists, journalists, SJWs, etc., are the majority in the man-made global warming bandwagon and a minority in the "deniers" group. The biggest promoter of this idea is Al Gore, a politician who is far from being a scientist.

Last edited by Capo; 26.10.2017 at 15:44.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at Capo for this post:
  #2188  
Old 26.10.2017, 15:43
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,380
Groaned at 282 Times in 153 Posts
Thanked 1,115 Times in 636 Posts
Capo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthy
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I used to be a fervent denialist before I became interested in science advocacy. At which point I had to ask myself: "If I agree with the scientific consensus on vaccines, GMOs, water fluoridation, evolution etc, then why do I reject the consensus on climate change?". At least I have a working or passing knowledge for the aforementioned subjects, so I am better informed, whereas I am not a physicist or climatologist. Therefore I have to concede that I will rely on the experts to inform me and when 99% of the consensus is that anthropogenic climate warming is real, I will hold my hands up and admit I was wrong. By the way, "consensus" is not a group of scientists just simply agreeing with each other, it is a vast body of independent research and data that point to the same conclusion. A single publication or article refuting that is not evidence otherwise, unless it can be independently verified. That is cherry-picking and is the equivalent of an anti-vaxxers citing the single paper linking autism to vaccines, whilst ignoring the hundreds or thousands of papers to the contrary.
I do still have unanswered questions such as the predicted effect or increase and whether, as Loz says, it really bothers me or not, but for the time being I'll rely on the experts and specialists for my information.
By the way, I'm not an environmental freak and don't understand how anyone can say the future is in renewable energy, without considering and advocating for nuclear power at the same time.
Fair point. I don't want to be pedantic or say that these videos from Dennis Prager are the utterly sacred truth, but at least they cast a discussion on the so-called " 99% consensus":

Reply With Quote
  #2189  
Old 26.10.2017, 16:37
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Fair point. I don't want to be pedantic or say that these videos from Dennis Prager are the utterly sacred truth, but at least they cast a discussion on the so-called " 99% consensus" ]
On Dennis Prager (wikipedia) "He went on to attend Brooklyn College and graduated with a double major in history and Middle Eastern Studies. Between 1970 and 1972, he attended the Middle East and Russian Institutes (now Harriman Institute) at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs. Prager also studied international history, comparative religion, and Arabic at the University of Leeds.[1]"

I don't see a lot of Atmospheric Physics in there.
Reply With Quote
  #2190  
Old 26.10.2017, 16:46
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
In which global warming discussion the greenhouse effect is not already underline considered?
Go back and read what you wrote.

Quote:
View Post
If global warming is a natural phenomenon, why there is even a discussion about its "cost"?
The cost of dealing with the consequences. Have you had a look at what is happening to Kiribati for example? Have you considered the cost of repeated droughts in Spain? Just two examples

Quote:
View Post
How come? Politicians, artists, journalists, SJWs, etc., are the majority in the man-made global warming bandwagon and a minority in the "deniers" group. The biggest promoter of this idea is Al Gore, a politician who is far from being a scientist.
Plus the climate scientists and atmospheric physisists who are the only ones I listen to and where I can find almost none that do not realise that the climate is warming as a direct result of human activity. I've actually met and talked to a couple from the ETH. Have you?
Reply With Quote
  #2191  
Old 27.10.2017, 10:45
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,380
Groaned at 282 Times in 153 Posts
Thanked 1,115 Times in 636 Posts
Capo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthy
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
On Dennis Prager (wikipedia) "He went on to attend Brooklyn College and graduated with a double major in history and Middle Eastern Studies. Between 1970 and 1972, he attended the Middle East and Russian Institutes (now Harriman Institute) at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs. Prager also studied international history, comparative religion, and Arabic at the University of Leeds.[1]"

I don't see a lot of Atmospheric Physics in there.


This is the guy who appears on one of the videos:

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
Reply With Quote
  #2192  
Old 27.10.2017, 10:59
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,380
Groaned at 282 Times in 153 Posts
Thanked 1,115 Times in 636 Posts
Capo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthy
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
Go back and read what you wrote.


The cost of dealing with the consequences. Have you had a look at what is happening to Kiribati for example? Have you considered the cost of repeated droughts in Spain? Just two examples


Plus the climate scientists and atmospheric physisists who are the only ones I listen to and where I can find almost none that do not realise that the climate is warming as a direct result of human activity. I've actually met and talked to a couple from the ETH. Have you?
"The only ones I listen to..."

I don't need to meet anyone in person. I have listened and read both sides of the story, from respected specialists. With a sciences background, although not climatology, I think I have an average knowledge to at least confront both sides and critically arrive at the conclusion that the affirmation that global warming is man-made lacks scientific evidence. On the contrary, there are enough climate history to conclude that the earth is in a cycle, one that is difficult to model or predict what's next.

Tell me how do you debunk the two explanations below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc
Reply With Quote
  #2193  
Old 27.10.2017, 11:30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
"The only ones I listen to..."
Yes, those who actually study and research the subject. i.e. I don't listen to those who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Quote:
View Post
I don't need to meet anyone in person. I have listened and read both sides of the story, from respected specialists. With a sciences background, although not climatology,
Well (1) perhaps you should meet a few in person before you decide to rubbish their findings and (2) perhaps you could explain why you need to dismiss the work of people who actually study the subject and only listen to those who do not.
Reply With Quote
  #2194  
Old 27.10.2017, 16:18
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,380
Groaned at 282 Times in 153 Posts
Thanked 1,115 Times in 636 Posts
Capo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthy
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
Yes, those who actually study and research the subject. i.e. I don't listen to those who don't have a clue what they are talking about.


Well (1) perhaps you should meet a few in person before you decide to rubbish their findings and (2) perhaps you could explain why you need to dismiss the work of people who actually study the subject and only listen to those who do not.
Ok pal, this guy doesn't know what he is talking about, but you certainly do.

Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause, and provided accepted explanations for atmospheric tides and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the tropical stratosphere. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying what determines the pole to equator temperature difference, the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere and in generating upper level cirrus clouds. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, the AGU's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Council of the AMS. He has also been a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)
Reply With Quote
  #2195  
Old 27.10.2017, 16:47
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Ok pal, this guy doesn't know what he is talking about, but you certainly do.

Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
Actually you wrote:
Quote:
View Post
"...from respected specialists. With a sciences background, although not climatology
But as you have come up with an atmospheric Physicist lets have a look. From the New York TImes, 30 April 2012:


Quote:
Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.
But for more than a decade, Dr. Lindzen has said that when surface temperature increases, the columns of moist air rising in the tropics will rain out more of their moisture, leaving less available to be thrown off as ice, which forms the thin, high clouds known as cirrus. Just like greenhouse gases, these cirrus clouds act to reduce the cooling of the earth, and a decrease of them would counteract the increase of greenhouse gases.
Dr. Lindzen calls his mechanism the iris effect, after the iris of the eye, which opens at night to let in more light. In this case, the earth’s “iris” of high clouds would be opening to let more heat escape.

When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.
Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.
Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”
Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal.

Last edited by baboon; 27.10.2017 at 17:22.
Reply With Quote
  #2196  
Old 27.10.2017, 21:50
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,380
Groaned at 282 Times in 153 Posts
Thanked 1,115 Times in 636 Posts
Capo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthy
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
Actually you wrote:

But as you have come up with an atmospheric Physicist lets have a look. From the New York TImes, 30 April 2012:
So, a professor emeritus of the MIT comes up and humbly assumes he made a mistake in a past research. What's the problem? How it disqualifies him?
Reply With Quote
  #2197  
Old 27.10.2017, 22:08
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
So, a professor emeritus of the MIT comes up and humbly assumes he made a mistake in a past research. What's the problem? How it disqualifies him?
Ummm...because it destroys the whole basis of his previous argument?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #2198  
Old 28.10.2017, 08:25
TobiasM's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Zürich
Posts: 1,262
Groaned at 183 Times in 131 Posts
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,281 Posts
TobiasM has a reputation beyond reputeTobiasM has a reputation beyond reputeTobiasM has a reputation beyond reputeTobiasM has a reputation beyond reputeTobiasM has a reputation beyond reputeTobiasM has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
Ummm...because it destroys the whole basis of his previous argument?
Hmm well not completely, because it was based on inaccuracies in satellite measurements.

I studied GIS have my Remote Sensing handbook for for Tropical Coastal Management right next to me. While I studied this around the time the paper you are referring to was written the technology and optical resolutions and data collection capabilities of current satellite technology is now even better.

Nothing is infallible nor 100% accurate, and scientists have always had their theories challenged by their peers for many reasons, including through political and financial motivation and professional jealousy. Remember many scientists in the US at the time were in the pockets of fossil fuel lobby their research funding was dictated by their institutions and the financial backers.

If you want to be depressed for the day you can read this little article
Reply With Quote
  #2199  
Old 30.10.2017, 01:09
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,604
Groaned at 284 Times in 232 Posts
Thanked 24,745 Times in 10,458 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I used to be a fervent denialist before I became interested in science advocacy. At which point I had to ask myself: "If I agree with the scientific consensus on vaccines, GMOs, water fluoridation, evolution etc, then why do I reject the consensus on climate change?". At least I have a working or passing knowledge for the aforementioned subjects, so I am better informed, whereas I am not a physicist or climatologist. Therefore I have to concede that I will rely on the experts to inform me and when 99% of the consensus is that anthropogenic climate warming is real, I will hold my hands up and admit I was wrong.
I've never been a denialist but I have never been part of the consensus either. I am something between a skeptic and someone who likes to rock the boat by playing the devil's advocate.

I admit that through my training I understand quite a lot more about the energy market than I do about GMOs and things.

To me there is still a considerable leap in faith between saying we have absolute scientific proof that the stuff in vaccines doesn't cause autism, and saying that therefore we need to roll out a vaccination programme exactly as the pharma industry says, and it has to start tomorrow, and that we have no alternative to this. Science can verify measurable facts. Science can only advise on the right course of action or policy but cannot for the most part prove that any policy is right at that level, at least not for the scientific rigidity that a proof must fulfil. This is because what is right and what is wrong is not a scientific measure but one of opinion. Science is not about good and bad. Science explains but doesn't judge. Science might say that if we drop the vaccination rate by c percent, child mortality is up by y percent. It doesn't say that is good or bad or prove that it is scientifically necessary to send out the police to arrest thoise who don't participate. That's where society comes in. When a scientists says some research is good, he's not making a moral judgement but he is saying the logic and the calculation and the quality of the experiments was good. When a politician says the policy is good, he is saying we must go and do this. So the word has two meanings that shouldn't be confused.

Having said that, from my point of view, a lot of the stuff in GMOs and vaccines is based on statistics, and a statistsic is not a rigid proof in the way something you can calculate with a formula is a proof. Very little outside of mathematics and maybe some of the more theoretical and hardcore reaches of physics has any formal proof. I think scientists who are closer to that are more careful in throwing the word proof around that those who are maybe not. Sometimes I find when we look at things like GMOs that the word proof is used far too liberally. But this is another matter.

So moving on to climate change. There are scientific models that say, the temperature will do this and this, and the climate will do this if CO2 emissions rise to this level. I haven't actually understood those models. This doesn't make them right and it doesn't make them wrong. I haven't understood them because I haven't been sufficiently interested in them to sit down and work through all the details. I am sure that many of those who defend these models tooth and nail haven't understood them either. But there' s a lot of crowdthink going on there. Crowdthink is fine. Belief in authority is fine. Trusting boffins in labcoats. Without it we wouldn't have democracy and a lot of other things besides. But please let's not confuse crowdthink or trust or authority with anything that is science. Opinion or authority are not operators that you can use in constructing a proof. But let's for the purpose of this argument assume that the models are right and form as close to a formal body of proof as the circumstances allow. OK. But that doesn't yet translate into any policy or prove that say we need to tax diesel cars while artificially leveraging electric cars using electricity from dirty coal. As I said, science can advise policies but one shouldn't confuse policies with science.



Quote:
View Post

By the way, I'm not an environmental freak and don't understand how anyone can say the future is in renewable energy, without considering and advocating for nuclear power at the same time.
I agree.

This is just one example of how the green lobby has hijacked the debate to do stuff they wanted to do anyway and are blind to the solutions that they don't like, but that could work just as well.

Sometimes bad policies can use good science to hide behind.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #2200  
Old 30.12.2017, 12:56
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Trolling like a boss

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 15:40.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0