US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Anthropogenic climate change has been well researched and documented for the past 2 centuries.

Really well I call bs on that one .
People in 1821 were more concerned with recovering from what Canadians did to America than researching a pseudoscience.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually jack both terms are correct for what you and others are pushing because your politicians told you to.

Nope, not even close.

an·thro·po·mor·phic
/ˌanTHrəpəˈmôrfik/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism.
"explanations of animal behavior in anthropomorphic terms"
having human characteristics.
"anthropomorphic bears and monkeys"

an·thro·po·gen·ic
/ˌanTHrəpōˈjenik/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
(chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity.
"anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide"

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Really well I call bs on that one .
People in 1821 were more concerned with recovering from what Canadians did to America than researching a pseudoscience.

Try Joseph Fourier, Eunice Foote, John Tyndall for starters.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Try Joseph Fourier, Eunice Foote, John Tyndall for starters.

Really you should do your research better

John Tyndall. For starters was born in 1820 so I rather doubt he was doing much becide soiling his nappies 200 years ago in 1822.
Eunice Foote. Born 1819
And grettas great grandfather Joseph Fourier. Mathematician well possibly as he died in 1830.
Need I continue facts matter.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Allied39

The whole solar panel deal I find entertaining. The above mentioned silicone. And what about the aluminum to make the frames? Mined in Bolivia, bauxite shipped? trucked? to smelters? Clean fellows those smelters.

And I was told just last week that 275watt solar panels can be bought in Georgia for $60. HUH? Yeah, apparently they replace them every two years?!?

Wha? every two years...that sounds stupid......or does it? Is it in the contract that some company is making millions a year replacing panels that do not need replacing? Gee....do ya think? Real green that is.

Yeah, so I have never thought that solar panels themselves have no carbon footprint, unless simply plucked from between the rear cheeks of some hippy.....and pretty sure thats not the case.

But, of course, i have some solar panels, cause it suits me. I want them on my boat....cause I do.
I have two v8's, one from 68....lol, thatun does not burn clean! The other from 96. And also a 4 cylinder in my 37 Austin 7 from the 60's, tad smokey thatun.
I mention this to the fellow gloating about fuel prices. $4 a gallon? No problem....gets to $10 and I'll be driving the same cars....just pass that cost along.....maybe to you.

And lastly, just to point out how idiotic the average person is, whilst driving my V8 around today I marveled at the big green garbage truck. painting a garbage truck does not make it green......well it does.....but not green in the way in works in the average idiots head. They paint them green to make idiots feel better about the garbage truck.

Its all just too ludicrous. Seriously, its an absolute JOKE!!

You are running the 'impossible expectations' scam - deriding green energy because it doesn't match your bogus standards of perfect. Classic denialism tactic.
No one thinks humans can continue on this planet with zero environmental impact. But we do have to live within the absorptive/adaptive capacity of the planet or bear the consequences. As of now, the evidence is overwhelming that the CO2 dumping is way beyond the absorptive/adaptive capacity of the planet and we need to reduce it. There are ways to do that that are achievable. One of the biggest barriers is corporations, politicians, and deniers (like some people on this thread) lying about the science and these issues to prevent the needed progress.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by newhaul

(junk deleted)
Need I continue facts matter.

Today I award you the "Ironic Post of the Month" trophy!!!
Your posts don't seem to reflect your exhortation.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Really you should do your research better

Joseph Fourier described the "greenhouse effect" in 1824.

How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation? Fourier tried to explain his insight by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box's interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape. This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (As Fourier knew, the main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away. The glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping, but that's less important.) Nevertheless, people took up his analogy and trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called "the greenhouse effect.

https://history.aip.org/climate/simple.htm#L_M085

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Really you should do your research better

John Tyndall. For starters was born in 1820 so I rather doubt he was doing much becide soiling his nappies 200 years ago in 1822.
Eunice Foote. Born 1819
And grettas great grandfather Joseph Fourier. Mathematician well possibly as he died in 1830.

C'mon - really? Jackdale made an assertion of "two centuries". It is childish for you to interpret that as meaning precisely 200 years and do a 'gotcha' because the number you attached to the claim is a few years off?
I guess I should not expect more, but I guess I would be wrong.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

So once you and your like-thinking cronies decide something is "harmful," you should be able to force your solutions on everybody else.

That’s why this is a political problem. Not everybody likes your hare-brained schemes or agrees with you proposed "solutions."

No idea who you're talking to. Of course if you can't be bothered to learn how to quote posts or add links, I have no expectation that you will engage with anything more difficult. (I've done such posts on tablets and even on a 5" smartphone. Not trivial, but not hard either)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by lestersails

C'mon - really? Jackdale made an assertion of "two centuries". It is childish for you to interpret that as meaning precisely 200 years and do a 'gotcha' because the number you attached to the claim is a few years off?
I guess I should not expect more, but I guess I would be wrong.

Yep from a guy who thinks that "anthropogenic" and "anthropomorphic" are synonyms.

[Bycrick]

Hmm. Just a couple of weeks ago, a prolific poster here was complaining about including previous posts for people that were too lazy to actually follow the thread. Maybe I should compromise and include half the previous posts to help your memory. But then you might need to stay on point.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Margaret Thatcher was not even born when Eunice Foote did her research, not when Arrhenius published his findings, nor when Guy Callendar concluded CO2 was resulting in increased warming.

https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents

You bring in names that I had not mentioned. Please stick with the mentioned subjects. The important matter is that in the 1980's era of Thatcher's political climate fraud, she relied on an unqualified advisor. Crispin Tickell was a history major with no scientific credentials. For Thatcher to rely on unqualified advice for major policy is beyond irresponsible. Thatcher's political meddling into climate science shows that climate alarmism is based upon politics, not science. The legacy of skewed science that supports the theory of man caused climate change is so encumbered with politics, that it cannot be trusted as true science. Basing major shifts of industrial, infrastructural, economic, institutional, and general societal practices on a political whim is criminal.


Reading many thousands of studies from the realm of science that are designed to support the politics is not necessary to discern that science was never the basis for this political effort. A rat smells like a rat to both a tradesman and a man of science with a string of degree letters tacked to his name. Climate dynamics are largely imperceptible during normal human lifetime. We can really only observe day to day and year to year weather events and trends.



Climate variation that is barely perceptible to humans is the perfect prop to use for political purposes. Destructive weather events can easily be used in the narrative of alarmism. Such events as large hurricanes, major snow falls, big rain falls, etc. are routinely blamed on climate change without means to justify. Tracing each individual storm to any accumulation of atmospheric CO2 is just not possible. The fact is that such events have occurred before large scale industrialization of hydrocarbons. An oft overlooked problem is that storms can appear as more damaging now because there are more things to damage than in the past. More infrastructure offers a greater potential for sensational news of storm damage.



Scientific studies can be tailored to fit the agenda as was done by the UK’s National Academy of Science when Thatcher asked them to produce "science" that would to emphasize the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Such abuse has destroyed credibility of climate science.



Climate change belongs in the realm of the unprovable such as space aliens who visit the earth, but leave no evidence because their technology is so advanced that it leaves no material evidence. There is always a cop out to justify what cannot be proven.



The matter of cui bono as related to climate alarmism would reveal much. But many volumes could be written. This thread has gone beyond wearisome long ago. It is past time to conclude that members of the false cult of climate change are blinded to truth, and it is a waste of time to appeal to reason. For they have long lost any sense of reason. And they have no conscience. The great injustice though is that their influence makes life expensive and difficult for the rest of us. Large scale abuse of the innocent by a malevolent mob is a form of tyranny.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

You bring in names that I had not mentioned. Please stick with the mentioned subjects.

Repeating GWFP nonsense over and over does not make it credible.

Also you are not the moderator. of this discussion.

Climate science has a history going back 2 centuries. It not start with Margaret Thatcher.

In the US climate science research has been published since the 1950's, including Gilbert Pass. Long before Thatcher.

The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change
GILBERT N. PLASS
First published: May 1956 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2153-3490....06.xCitations:

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by lestersails

You are running the 'impossible expectations' scam - deriding green energy because it doesn't match your bogus standards of perfect. Classic denialism tactic.
No one thinks humans can continue on this planet with zero environmental impact. But we do have to live within the absorptive/adaptive capacity of the planet or bear the consequences. As of now, the evidence is overwhelming that the CO2 dumping is way beyond the absorptive/adaptive capacity of the planet and we need to reduce it. There are ways to do that that are achievable. One of the biggest barriers is corporations, politicians, and deniers (like some people on this thread) lying about the science and these issues to prevent the needed progress.

Ok, I concede. Climate change is real. It gets cold in winter and turns hot in summer. I'll lobby council to paint garbage trucks green. Can't afford to splurge on an EV though that is not designed for the Canadian climate anyway. Will have to settle for painting my gas guzzler green.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

You bring in names that I had not mentioned. Please stick with the mentioned subjects. The important matter is that in the 1980's era of Thatcher's political climate fraud, she relied on an unqualified advisor. Crispin Tickell was a history major with no scientific credentials. For Thatcher to rely on unqualified advice for major policy is beyond irresponsible. Thatcher's political meddling into climate science shows that climate alarmism is based upon politics, not science. The legacy of skewed science that supports the theory of man caused climate change is so encumbered with politics, that it cannot be trusted as true science. Basing major shifts of industrial, infrastructural, economic, institutional, and general societal practices on a political whim is criminal.


Reading many thousands of studies from the realm of science that are designed to support the politics is not necessary to discern that science was never the basis for this political effort. A rat smells like a rat to both a tradesman and a man of science with a string of degree letters tacked to his name. Climate dynamics are largely imperceptible during normal human lifetime. We can really only observe day to day and year to year weather events and trends.



Climate variation that is barely perceptible to humans is the perfect prop to use for political purposes. Destructive weather events can easily be used in the narrative of alarmism. Such events as large hurricanes, major snow falls, big rain falls, etc. are routinely blamed on climate change without means to justify. Tracing each individual storm to any accumulation of atmospheric CO2 is just not possible. The fact is that such events have occurred before large scale industrialization of hydrocarbons. An oft overlooked problem is that storms can appear as more damaging now because there are more things to damage than in the past. More infrastructure offers a greater potential for sensational news of storm damage.



Scientific studies can be tailored to fit the agenda as was done by the UK’s National Academy of Science when Thatcher asked them to produce "science" that would to emphasize the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Such abuse has destroyed credibility of climate science.



Climate change belongs in the realm of the unprovable such as space aliens who visit the earth, but leave no evidence because their technology is so advanced that it leaves no material evidence. There is always a cop out to justify what cannot be proven.



The matter of cui bono as related to climate alarmism would reveal much. But many volumes could be written. This thread has gone beyond wearisome long ago. It is past time to conclude that members of the false cult of climate change are blinded to truth, and it is a waste of time to appeal to reason. For they have long lost any sense of reason. And they have no conscience. The great injustice though is that their influence makes life expensive and difficult for the rest of us. Large scale abuse of the innocent by a malevolent mob is a form of tyranny.

Everything in this post is either outright false, a misrepresentation, made up, not apparently connected to the thread, or a half truth intended to deceive.
Seriously?

Nope - that is unfair "This thread has gone beyond wearisome long ago." if amended to reference your posts - totally spot on.

But more seriously, I do get it. Facts are bothersome things. You seem to be doing your best to avoid them here, but it must be exhausting. Maybe take a rest?