Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Every time you use Google or Apple products you allow Al Gore to profit from you.

As do millions of other people who are fortunate enough to have Google or Apple stocks in their investment portfolios or retirement accounts. So not sure of your point, except that Gore is hardly just another investor. He owns an estimated 100,000 shares of Apple, probably has a substantial stake in Google, and sits on both of their boards or did so at one time. Or did I misunderstand your references to Apple & Google as simply a reminder to all of us that Gore invented the internet?

But it's not necessarily his stake in these cos. that trouble some, but rather the source of a good chunk of the monies he obtained to finance them. You see some question Mr. Gore's credibility, sincerity, and loyalty to the CC movement after he sold his failing TV network to Al Jazeera for a reported $70M. As I'm sure you know since it has come up in this thread before, Al Jazeera is owned by the govt. of Qatar, one of the most conservative govts. in the Middle East next to Saudi Arabia & Oman. In fact, the same ruling family has been in charge of running things in Qatar since the 19th century, incl. all the censorship and suppression of dissent that insures that its citizens are "protected" from the truth. This is rather problematic for a large news outlet like Al Jazeera which has outlets worldwide, and is the dominant source of news in Arab Muslim countries. But maybe Gore foresaw this but figured it would be an effective way of getting the CC message across without all that pesky opposition?

But the other problem with the govt. of Qatar helping to fund Mr. Gore's shares of Apple stock, Nashville mansion, and luxurious lifestyle is that Qatar has the world's 3rd largest reserves of oil & natural gas, not a heckuva lot else in resources, and so it just might be fair to say that Gore has directly profited from Qatar's sale of fossil fuels. Shall we take the next step and say Gore directly profited from the burning of fossil fuels and emitting of CO2? Nah, that might be too confusing for some.

Btw, did you know that every time you put gas in your car you allow the oil cos. to profit from you?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

No-one here can claim to have read even a small part of the 20,000 or so peer reviewed papers published in the field. (Impressive for a relative young field that needs more research.) The overall results and the conclusions so far are sound, non-biased and based on observational evidence.

That is debatable.

"We found two pairs of surprising statistics. To do this we first searched the entire literature of science for the last ten years, using Google Scholar, looking for modeling. There are roughly 900,000 peer reviewed journal articles that use at least one of the words model, modeled or modeling. This shows that there is indeed a widespread use of models in science. No surprise in this.However, when we filter these results to only include items that also use the term climate change, something strange happens. The number of articles is only reduced to roughly 55% of the total.
In other words it looks like climate change science accounts for fully 55% of the modeling done in all of science. This is a tremendous concentration, because climate change science is just a tiny fraction of the whole of science. In the U.S. Federal research budget climate science is just 4% of the whole and not all climate science is about climate change.
In short it looks like less than 4% of the science, the climate change part, is doing about 55% of the modeling done in the whole of science. Again, this is a tremendous concentration, unlike anything else in science.
We next find that when we search just on the term climate change, there are very few more articles than we found before. In fact the number of climate change articles that include one of the three modeling terms is 97% of those that just include climate change. This is further evidence that modeling completely dominates climate change research.
To summarize, it looks like something like 55% of the modeling done in all of science is done in climate change science, even though it is a tiny fraction of the whole of science. Moreover, within climate change science almost all the research (97%) refers to modeling in some way."


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/...inded-process/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The World’s Largest Solar Plant Just Torched Itself

If you have ever driven by this facility when it is running you would wonder how they ever got a permit to turn it on. The air around the boiler literally glows blue/white hot. Any bird that gets too close would be instantly incinerated.

From your link: "the solar industry is going to have to tread very carefully. Killing or maiming most bird species, whether it's deliberate or inadvertent, is illegal under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act."

Maybe Obama will bestow upon the solar plant one of his famous waivers via executive order?

[Kenomac]

We're any puffins killed?

[Kenomac]

There, I grabbed #5000.

I don't understand how some of these self righteous guys can justify and/or promote the killing of wildlife with their windmills and giant solar cookers, then on the other hand.... somehow believe they're saving the planet when they pick up a piece of trash or place a can in the correct bin.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Were any puffins killed?

It is very hard for a puffin to fly into a solar farm while a scientist has a finger up its ass (or cloaca if we want to be scientifically correct).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

We're any puffins killed?

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I hope not.

In the Mojave desert? If so then you weren't kidding about them being pissed off by the ear tabs. Hopefully they didn't fly that far in their heroic efforts to adapt.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Just about sums it up.



Of course, it should read climate denialist.

Actually, it should read "SailOar."

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

In the Mojave desert? If so then you weren't kidding about them being pissed off by the ear tabs. Hopefully they didn't fly that far in their heroic efforts to adapt.

The ear tabs werethe gay emperor penguins puffin are smart they leave when humans show up.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Who should fund climate science?

In other words, you are in favor of censoring, centralizing, and having govt. have exclusive control over that one too?

Again I ask . . . if you believe the science has such certainty, believe in the validity of the 97% consensus, assert that the contrarians make up a tiny, inconsequential percentage as your cartoon portrays, and that skeptics & deniers are ignorant/conservative/religious/corrupt/duped/etc., then why are you so afraid of a few scientists funded by the oil cos., or a couple more who go to church??? I mean if they are really so out to lunch on the science, then wouldn't letting them speak their loony-tune opinions do nothing but bolster the pro-AGW case? But I suppose if their opinions were really that off-base you'd have a much easier time responding to them. Never mind . . . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The ear tabs werethe gay emperor penguins puffin are smart they leave when humans show up.

Good to know -- in case I ever sail down that way -- NOT!! Too cold for me, and I hear the ice is expanding -- all on account of global warming, global cooling, and of course weather.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by StuM

That is debatable.

You are right, that was not worded well. I should have made a distinction between results and modeled predictions. My fault, I thought the word "results" made that clear, but on second thoughts ... Sorry for that.

The methods used by the authors of the article you quoted are flawed and would not withstand the scrutiny of the peer review process.

You are aware that most peer reviewed papers are behind paywalls and not fully accessible for Google Scholar and that Google Scholar also looks into non-peer-reviewed journals and magazines when you do a search? Also it is not uncommon to have a paper published in more than one journal.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Who should fund climate science?

If there are funds left direct them to the astrophysics department. We promise we will find a nice new planet for humanity in a solar system far far away

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Just about sums it up.



Of course, it should read climate denialist.

Your funny cartoon reminds me of some history on Galileo, you know... The gravity guy:


"By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition by Father Niccolo Lorini, who claimed that Galileo and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible, which was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously like Protestantism.[66] Lorini specifically cited Galileo's letter to Castelli.[67] Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and his Copernican and biblical ideas. At the start of 1616, Monsignor Francesco Ingoli initiated a debate with Galileo, sending him an essay disputing the Copernican system. Galileo later stated that he believed this essay to have been instrumental in the action against Copernicanism that followed.[68] According to Maurice Finocchiaro, Ingoli had probably been commissioned by the Inquisition to write an expert opinion on the controversy, and the essay provided the "chief direct basis" for the Inquisition's actions.[69] The essay focused on eighteen physical and mathematical arguments against heliocentrism. It borrowed primarily from the arguments of Tycho Brahe, and it notedly mentioned Brahe's argument that heliocentrism required the stars to be much larger than the Sun. Ingoli wrote that the great distance to the stars in the heliocentric theory "clearly proves ... the fixed stars to be of such size, as they may surpass or equal the size of the orbit circle of the Earth itself."[70] The essay also included four theological arguments, but Ingoli suggested Galileo focus on the physical and mathematical arguments, and he did not mention Galileo's biblical ideas.[71] In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith".[72] (The original document from the Inquisitorial commission was made widely available in 2014.[73])

Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the opinion that heliocentrism was physically true. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered:

... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.[74]"


Religion getting in the way of science... just like your climate religion wants to shut down debate. I guess this is nothing new.

[Kenomac]

"Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the opinion that heliocentrism was physically true. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered:

... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing."


And this sounds a lot like the education system in Canada and the USA responding to the prevailing Climate religion.

Repent! Reuse! Recycle! Lest ye lose ye job! Praise the Globe!