First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply ‘Propaganda’: Top MIT Climate Scientist Trashes ‘97% Consensus’ Claim
48260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/24/17
Dr. Richard Lindzen, the man who claimed (and still does as far as I know) that cigarettes are not harmful to ones health. Well known that he was on the payroll of big tobacco and oil companies. Anyway, here you are.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

"As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

The MIT staff addressed specific inaccuracies in Lindzen's letter, including his assertion that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."


Please read this annotated version of lidzens letter to the president, I'd post it here but Im too lazy to resize. http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/annotated-lindzen-letter.jpg

24 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/23/17
Just in case no one's posted this so far: https://xkcd.com/1732/

Not sure how there can be anything more incriminating.
21363 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/24/17

PresidentTrain wrote:

Just in case no one's posted this so far: https://xkcd.com/1732/

Not sure how there can be anything more incriminating.


Our temperature monitoring stations haven't moved but the world around them has. Many are giving off readings in areas where the heat effect or nearby structures are affecting the temps. Infact those get the most focus and weight. Looking at the better classes vs the encroached classes give you a different picture of temperature change.



10201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 6/23/17

SchlomoShekelberg wrote:

Most of the Earth's climate change is from greenhouse gasses like Methane, which is 30 times more powerful than CO2 and N2O, which is 300x more powerful than CO2.

To compare, the emissions of just the methane is equivalent to 7 times the CO2 emitted annually, and for N2O it would be 27x the amount of CO2 emitted. It definitely makes a huge difference in the weather. The Earth isn't "getting warmer" it's that in the summer the climate is hotter and in the winter is colder.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

These sources primarily come from Agriculture and farming, and can simply be eliminated if fat americans just stop eating and are some healthy foods instead.


I suggest you drop this conversation with him. I have had it before. MS in Geology and whatnot and I must be wrong as well as all my professors.

Some people cant change their mind. Drop it and move on. Why do you think I don't bother responding to him?
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/24/17

octorockandroll wrote:

Another day another thread where Rujikin misrepresents simple information to fit his agenda.


1157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/23/17
Climate change a sham, you say? Well, you heard em, Clyde. Fire up the excavator, 'cuz we're back in business






10201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 6/23/17

ad_arbitrium wrote:

Climate change a sham, you say? Well, you heard em, Clyde. Fire up the excavator, 'cuz we're back in business




Ahh, the good ol' days when you got lung cancer from your daily walk through the park!
21363 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/24/17 , edited 6/24/17


Ok cool. Pictures of mines and China's massive smog problem. I hope you know that CO2 is not visible to humans and smog is not CO2 so your pictures were pointless besides showing how shitty China is, which I totally agree with.

P.S. I've also learned that former mines get terraformed into giant lakes in areas with decent rain. They then sell it as lake front property :P

Some mines even mine in a way that draw patterns into the earth so they can sell their former mine for top dollar.
3704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/24/17 , edited 6/24/17
i think we should move away from the polls and numbers... especially when they don't disclose upfront how they got the data

like these notorious poll numbers




if you also play games, i'm sure you heard the fanboys claming that "everybody have a _console name here___"

really? everybody? there are those who don't have have electricy or food let along a game console

If you are making claims with some numbers.. better back it up with credible data



51606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/24/17 , edited 6/24/17

Rujikin wrote:



Ok cool. Pictures of mines and China's massive smog problem. I hope you know that CO2 is not visible to humans and smog is not CO2 so your pictures were pointless besides showing how shitty China is, which I totally agree with.

P.S. I've also learned that former mines get terraformed into giant lakes in areas with decent rain. They then sell it as lake front property :P

Some mines even mine in a way that draw patterns into the earth so they can sell their former mine for top dollar.


"Lakefront property" with no value due to the distinct lack of any scenery, oh and also completely unsafe to drink/swim in.
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/problems/mining.html
Oh and most coal mining is currently done via MTR or Mountain Top Removal. No gaping holes to fill with water, and the downhill streams pretty much destroyed from the waste product that is now allowed to be just dumped straight down the mountainside.
1157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 6/24/17
Since when has a complete lack of practical knowledge in something prevented anyone from having an opinion? Never. I am no exception; this is why we have experts.

The point I am making is, regardless of whether or not you buy the climate change hype, there remains and undeniable equivalency between 'climate change is not real' and 'defund environmental research' and 'stop subsidizing alternative energies'. Why, given the utter economic ruin which in recent years seems to lurk around every corner, what possible rationale could you offer in favor of threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Americans who are at this moment employed by companies specializing in alternative energies and their peripherals? Because that is, in essence, what you propose. What exactly do we stand to gain?

At any rate, let's not kid ourselves. Nobody on this forum actually knows jack shit about atmospheric chemistry.

88 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 6/24/17

Not sure if you know what your talking about, but as I said, the hydrological cycle puts that water back into the system. However due to the increased emissions of human made greenhouse gasses the rising temperatures break the stability of this cycle.

Permafrost dethawing would be a result of the human emissions. You know when humans emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere it's like yelling near an avalanche. One little thing leads to another big thing. Normally that permafrost would have been frozen, but a little bit of it melts due to humans, and then it raises the temperature even more and then more of it melts and so on and so on. It's the same with the water temperatures rising and then it becomes a runaway effect that humans can't control anymore, however can slow down.
21764 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 6/24/17

Hate to break this to you but the theory you are using was debunked by the guy that proposed it about ten years ago. So yeah it just doesn't work that way and he proved it using Koch brother money.
21363 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/24/17

SchlomoShekelberg wrote:

Not sure if you know what your talking about, but as I said, the hydrological cycle puts that water back into the system. However due to the increased emissions of human made greenhouse gasses the rising temperatures break the stability of this cycle.

Permafrost dethawing would be a result of the human emissions. You know when humans emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere it's like yelling near an avalanche. One little thing leads to another big thing. Normally that permafrost would have been frozen, but a little bit of it melts due to humans, and then it raises the temperature even more and then more of it melts and so on and so on. It's the same with the water temperatures rising and then it becomes a runaway effect that humans can't control anymore, however can slow down.


Stability? The Earth rarely has stability and right now is an unusual period of extreme stability.



My house used to be under a glacier then permafrost now its a forest. Did human emissions cause the dethawing of the ice and permafrost 10,000 years ago? No? Well I wonder if it could be a part of Earth's natural cycle! The Earth has been warmer and its been cooler than it is now.

14720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/24/17

gvblackmoon wrote:
Hate to break this to you but the theory you are using was debunked by the guy that proposed it about ten years ago. So yeah it just doesn't work that way and he proved it using Koch brother money.


Do you have a link by any chance? I'm always interested in reading these debunkings.
21363 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/24/17

MadBovine wrote:


Rujikin wrote:



Ok cool. Pictures of mines and China's massive smog problem. I hope you know that CO2 is not visible to humans and smog is not CO2 so your pictures were pointless besides showing how shitty China is, which I totally agree with.

P.S. I've also learned that former mines get terraformed into giant lakes in areas with decent rain. They then sell it as lake front property :P

Some mines even mine in a way that draw patterns into the earth so they can sell their former mine for top dollar.


"Lakefront property" with no value due to the distinct lack of any scenery, oh and also completely unsafe to drink/swim in.
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/problems/mining.html
Oh and most coal mining is currently done via MTR or Mountain Top Removal. No gaping holes to fill with water, and the downhill streams pretty much destroyed from the waste product that is now allowed to be just dumped straight down the mountainside.


They do that around where I live. Create giant mines in patterns then when they are done mining they let it fill up with water, respread the clay and soil, then build housing over it and sell it as lake/river front property.

We could prevent them from dumping that waste down the mountain side for environmental reasons. Why don't you help actual environmentalists accomplish something of value instead of wasting your time with CO2?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.