Why worry about global warming? (2)

[dad]

YES: YOU! and all the other pro rapture freakos who want the end of the world to come as soon as possible so that they can go to heaven!

Insanity. Just because Jesus promised to return for us, and take us up to be with Him does not mean we get there by some crazy hyper polluting. Makes no sense.

Like I said. You people don't care because you wish to hasten the rapture. Well you may as well forget it because we will not allow such people to destroy the environment. You can of course take kool aid

Misconception. God will return in God's time, not because some eco freako bylaw breakers prod Him into some new time table.

 

[Chalnoth]

So did you not accuse me of not wanting to do some things? You forgot to mention exactly what and how we are supposed to conform to eco freako commandments?

You don't want, for example, to stop subsidizing oil companies. You don't want to support renewable energy. You don't want to regulate companies so that they don't pollute.

In other words, you are just a shill for the rich who would destroy the world to make a buck.

 

[dad]

You don't want, for example, to stop subsidizing oil companies.

?? I never said that did I? Right after I stop funding the eco freako clubs and university classes and a few things, I would look at the oil thing.

But let's face it, they are there because people demand them to be, and consume oil. If all the ecos froze all winter, and ate rice only, and didn't drive to school or work, or the Sierra club, or take vacations, or shop, ..etc...that would solve maybe half the problem?

How much driving is really needed....?

You don't want to support renewable energy. You don't want to regulate companies so that they don't pollute.

I don't want to starve people with some hypocritical lame scam that steals the corn and makes in into eco gas, no. Neither do I want to chase windmills.

In other words, you are just a shill for the rich who would destroy the world to make a buck.

Insane. You presume stuff, then render a railing guilty judgment.

It is my feeling that tweaking energy use really is just a part of the problem. A balance is probably needed. For example end the wars, and look to God, and we might save a lot of things. The sin that runs unchecked and rampant is what the problem is. The symptoms you want to choose to focus on could never heal the problem.

 

[RickG]

I dismiss nothing that is reasonable or solidly evidenced. You provide nothing that is reasonable or solidly evidenced!! What poetic justice, and irony.

So published peer review climate science which is overwhelmingly supported by the world's scientific community, is not reasonable or supported? Is that what I am to understand you are saying?

 

[Chalnoth]

?? I never said that did I? Right after I stop funding the eco freako clubs and university classes and a few things, I would look at the oil thing.

So, let me get this straight. You want to shave off a few million dollars off of the government budget just to kill education you don't agree with, while leaving the billions of dollars that go to the oil and coal industries in place? Nice priorities...

But let's face it, they are there because people demand them to be, and consume oil. If all the ecos froze all winter, and ate rice only, and didn't drive to school or work, or the Sierra club, or take vacations, or shop, ..etc...that would solve maybe half the problem?

You do realize that many people that actually care about the environment actually do these things? I haven't turned my heater on yet. I don't have a car. I mostly eat rice and pasta. And there is a reasonably-large "sustainable living" movement.

But the fact of the matter is that this just isn't enough. It is impossible for people to get off of fossil fuels without sacrificing modern life entirely. And sacrificing modern life shouldn't at all be necessary to do so. We have the technology to get off of fossil fuels, and we should damned well do it.

I don't want to starve people with some hypocritical lame scam that steals the corn and makes in into eco gas, no. Neither do I want to chase windmills.

a) Wind power is extremely effective.
b) Nobody in their right mind supports corn ethanol. It's just a horrible investment.

It is my feeling that tweaking energy use really is just a part of the problem. A balance is probably needed. For example end the wars, and look to God, and we might save a lot of things. The sin that runs unchecked and rampant is what the problem is. The symptoms you want to choose to focus on could never heal the problem.

Tweaking? Moving off of fossil fuels isn't about sin, and it isn't about "tweaking energy use". It requires a massive investment in clean energy.

 

[mzungu]

So published peer review climate science which is overwhelmingly supported by the world's scientific community, is not reasonable or supported? Is that what I am to understand you are saying?

You obviously do not know DAD! He does entertain us in these trying times and on occasion makes us laugh! I would not worry too much about his posts!

 

[Greatcloud]

Rick G Chalnoth and mzungu you guys are just stuck on your selves get over it you will feel much better. Look at me I'm humble if I do say so myself.

 

[dad]

So published peer review climate science which is overwhelmingly supported by the world's scientific community, is not reasonable or supported? Is that what I am to understand you are saying?

Well I would suspect it is supported by some and something quite opposite supported by other men of science. But, as I mentioned, the stuff from the last several decades doesn't mater much in the creation debate, and the stuff in the far past cannot be linked. You are hooped either way.

 

[dad]

So, let me get this straight. You want to shave off a few million dollars off of the government budget just to kill education you don't agree with, while leaving the billions of dollars that go to the oil and coal industries in place? Nice priorities...

No. But every bit helps...and even if it didn't I would do it for fun anyhow!

As for oil, if I were a big unscrupulous oil honcho, I might hire the ecos just to drive the price up! After all, why get a lot of people working and getting paid to produce a lot of oil for a good price, when one could have fewer working to get less oil for a much higher price!? ' Hey ecos, see if you can get laws enacted to punish those evil consumers of oil, and get the price prohibitively high'

You do realize that many people that actually care about the environment actually do these things? I haven't turned my heater on yet. I don't have a car. I mostly eat rice and pasta. And there is a reasonably-large "sustainable living" movement.

So you are an eco zealot! Thanks for fessing up here. It explains a lot. Heck, go ahead and put soy sauce on the next bowl of rice!

But the fact of the matter is that this just isn't enough. It is impossible for people to get off of fossil fuels without sacrificing modern life entirely. And sacrificing modern life shouldn't at all be necessary to do so. We have the technology to get off of fossil fuels, and we should damned well do it.

We do? So would this cost Joe sixpack commuter supporting a family a lot to get to work? Would he need a Gore sized budget to get by?

a) Wind power is extremely effective.
b) Nobody in their right mind supports corn ethanol. It's just a horrible investment.

Ah, so you get to decide which pet eco projects are cool? If windmills killed tens of thousands of songbirds, would that be OK?

Tweaking? Moving off of fossil fuels isn't about sin, and it isn't about "tweaking energy use". It requires a massive investment in clean energy.

Why not invest your own money? I would find leading by example better than trying to tax and punish non believers to death

 

[Chalnoth]

Rick G Chalnoth and mzungu you guys are just stuck on your selves get over it you will feel much better. Look at me I'm humble if I do say so myself.

Hahaha, you're humble? You're the one that's claiming that you know better than almost all scientists!

 

[mzungu]

Why not invest your own money? I would find leading by example better than trying to tax and punish non believers to death

I have invested on a 100 KW solar farm! It cost me an arm and a leg and it is not a financial panacea but I feel good about it.

 

[dad]

I have invested on a 100 KW solar farm! It cost me an arm and a leg and it is not a financial panacea but I feel good about it.

OK, so hopefully taxpayers didn't subsidize it in any way.. But I am not sure if some poor family that has to miss meals because corn is so expensive now, would be impressed by some American buying a smart car, or solar panel system for his house

Greenies might think for example plugging traffic by grabbing main roads in a city for bike lanes was some holy cause...(as they break the law going through lights at will, etc)..but if they saw maybe the traffic back up forty miles long crawling and polluting the world something fierce, they might feel less smug.

In any area I have ever see, I see very little honest selfless effort, and a lot of hypocritical, self righteous religion.

Yeah, we're all doin what we can...

 

[dad]

The use of the two atom bombs on Japan saved 10 times more lives than they took. Look up operation Coronet and Olympic and the projected causalities.

I disagree. The use of civilian killing womd saved no one. It killed people. Your little would have should have game of conjecture is meaningless and cruel.

In the big picture, I think it is safe to say that many millions will likely be killed by nukes over time, while man's day is still here. No? So, not knowing the total of deaths we can't do the math. I suspect that one could speculate that with a population of about 7 billion, a limited nuclear war or two might kill a third of the population of earth. That would be something like 2 plus billion dead. Now add in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and maybe some pre nuclear limited war nuclear bunker buster deaths, and we see that the scale is one sided. One must add in all the death that nukes would cause, not just one battle in Japan!
So, rather than saving lives, we have perhaps hundreds of times more death than you claim it would have saved.

I cannot accept that nuclear weapons or other WOMD are anything God approves of or condoned. Guess who that leaves?

 

[mzungu]

OK, so hopefully taxpayers didn't subsidize it in any way.. But I am not sure if some poor family that has to miss meals because corn is so expensive now, would be impressed by some American buying a smart car, or solar panel system for his house

You are referring to commercial greed and not science. Science is a tool. Your comparison is flawed in the same way that a comparison such as the following is flawed:

Wood and nails are evil because they were used to crucify Jesus!

Also not all subsidies are bad! You have to be more specific when judging lest you end up burning the green grass along the dry!

 

[RickG]

I disagree. The use of civilian killing womd saved no one. It killed people. Your little would have should have game of conjecture is meaningless and cruel.

In the big picture, I think it is safe to say that many millions will likely be killed by nukes over time, while man's day is still here. No? So, not knowing the total of deaths we can't do the math. I suspect that one could speculate that with a population of about 7 billion, a limited nuclear war or two might kill a third of the population of earth. That would be something like 2 plus billion dead. Now add in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and maybe some pre nuclear limited war nuclear bunker buster deaths, and we see that the scale is one sided. One must add in all the death that nukes would cause, not just one battle in Japan!
So, rather than saving lives, we have perhaps hundreds of times more death than you claim it would have saved.

I cannot accept that nuclear weapons or other WOMD are anything God approves of or condoned. Guess who that leaves?

You can disagree all you want, but facts do not change. Look at the last two major campaigns in the pacific, Iwo Jima had 22,060 Japanese soldiers. Of that 21,844 were killed. They do not surrender under conventional battle conditions. The U.S. suffered 90,000 causalities, of that 19,000 killed, 23,000 missing. That is horrendous.

Now look at Okinawa. There were over 62,000 U.S. causalities there with 12,000 killed or missing. On the Japanese side there were over 95,000 combatants killed. But even more shocking is what happened to the civilian population. Sure there were causalities there, but many were forced into combatant situations and even used as human shields by the Japanese soldiers. Even worse, the Japanese soldiers convinced many of the civilians to commit mass suicide telling them that the American soldiers would do terrible things to them. Their mentality was no surrender in a conventional war, not even for civilians.

Now, as I previously asked of you, look at the already planned and staged invasion of the southern most main Japanese island, operations Coronet and Olympic. Those estimated causalities make Iwo Jima and Okinawa look like a walk in the park in comparison.

 

[mzungu]

You can disagree all you want, but facts do not change. Look at the last two major campaigns in the pacific, Iwo Jima had 22,060 Japanese soldiers. Of that 21,844 were killed. They do not surrender under conventional battle conditions. The U.S. suffered 90,000 causalities, of that 19,000 killed, 23,000 missing. That is horrendous.

Now look at Okinawa. There were over 62,000 U.S. causalities there with 12,000 killed or missing. On the Japanese side there were over 95,000 combatants killed. But even more shocking is what happened to the civilian population. Sure there were causalities there, but many were forced into combatant situations and even used as human shields by the Japanese soldiers. Even worse, the Japanese soldiers convinced many of the civilians to commit mass suicide telling them that the American soldiers would do terrible things to them. Their mentality was no surrender in a conventional war, not even for civilians.

Now, as I previously asked of you, look at the already planned and staged invasion of the southern most main Japanese island, operations Coronet and Olympic. Those estimated causalities make Iwo Jima and Okinawa look like a walk in the park in comparison.

The sad thing is that wars happen and they are the mark of failed or immature societies. Only when greed and wars are eventually banished will we truly be able to call ourselves civilised.

How much suffering must we endure before we can offer our children a truly civilised future?

 

[dad]

You can disagree all you want, but facts do not change. Look at the last two major campaigns in the pacific, Iwo Jima had 22,060 Japanese soldiers. Of that 21,844 were killed. They do not surrender under conventional battle conditions. The U.S. suffered 90,000 causalities, of that 19,000 killed, 23,000 missing. That is horrendous.

War is horrendous. Did God ask them to do all that? No one asked me for strategy. I do not support the strategy that was used.

Japanese were just people as they are now.

Now look at Okinawa. There were over 62,000 U.S. causalities there with 12,000 killed or missing. On the Japanese side there were over 95,000 combatants killed. But even more shocking is what happened to the civilian population. Sure there were causalities there, but many were forced into combatant situations and even used as human shields by the Japanese soldiers. Even worse, the Japanese soldiers convinced many of the civilians to commit mass suicide telling them that the American soldiers would do terrible things to them. Their mentality was no surrender in a conventional war, not even for civilians.

Guess they were right. The US did do horrible things to Japan, and civilians. They still do. Drones...needless wars, etc. Let's face it, the numbers are weighed against the use of WOMD as saving lives..blah blah, as I said.


"I disagree. The use of civilian killing womd saved no one. It killed people. Your little would have should have game of conjecture is meaningless and cruel.

In the big picture, I think it is safe to say that many millions will likely be killed by nukes over time, while man's day is still here. No? So, not knowing the total of deaths we can't do the math. I suspect that one could speculate that with a population of about 7 billion, a limited nuclear war or two might kill a third of the population of earth. That would be something like 2 plus billion dead. Now add in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and maybe some pre nuclear limited war nuclear bunker buster deaths, and we see that the scale is one sided. One must add in all the death that nukes would cause, not just one battle in Japan!
So, rather than saving lives, we have perhaps hundreds of times more death than you claim it would have saved.

I cannot accept that nuclear weapons or other WOMD are anything God approves of or condoned. Guess who that leaves? "

Now, as I previously asked of you, look at the already planned and staged invasion of the southern most main Japanese island, operations Coronet and Olympic. Those estimated causalities make Iwo Jima and Okinawa look like a walk in the park in comparison.

I disagree. Plans change. With Germany getting clobbered, maybe the Japanese would come to realize that they were in a hopeless position. Who knows? If one condones the burning of children and women and civilians en mass, then as far as I am concerned, you are not the good guys. Period.

 

[dad]

The sad thing is that wars happen and they are the mark of failed or immature societies. Only when greed and wars are eventually banished will we truly be able to call ourselves civilised.

How much suffering must we endure before we can offer our children a truly civilised future?

Sadly, war comes with the territory of sin, and will always be here as long as sin is. That is the problem, war is a symptom. Man cannot save himself.

 

[Greatcloud]

Hahaha, you're humble? You're the one that's claiming that you know better than almost all scientists!

I never claimed to know anything, all I do is quote the skeptic scientists so I am always humble because I always quote someone else.

For instance :
Forests stay put, defy alarmists

Posted on October 31, 2011 by Steve Milloy| 5 Comments
It’s fall, but the trees aren’t leaving. Maybe that’s because the treehuggers are holding too tight?
From a Duke University media release:

DURHAM, N.C. — More than half of eastern U.S. tree species examined in a massive new Duke University-led study aren’t adapting to climate change as quickly or consistently as predicted.
“Many models have suggested that trees will migrate rapidly to higher latitudes and elevations in response to warming temperatures, but evidence for a consistent, climate-driven northward migration is essentially absent in this large analysis,” says James S. Clark, H.L. Blomquist Professor of Environment at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment.
Nearly 59 percent of the species examined by Clark and his colleagues showed signs that their geographic ranges are contracting from both the north and south.
Fewer species — only about 21 percent — appeared to be shifting northward as predicted. About 16 percent seemed to be advancing southward, and around 4 percent appeared to be expanding in both directions.
The scientists analyzed data on 92 species in more than 43,000 forest plots in 31 states. They published their findings this month in the journal Global Change Biology.
The study found no consistent evidence that population spread is greatest in areas where climate has changed the most; nor do the species’ response patterns appear to be related to seed size or dispersal characteristics.
“Warm zones have shifted northward by up to 100 kilometers in some parts of the eastern United States, but our results do not inspire confidence that tree populations are tracking those changes,” says Clark, who also holds appointments at Duke as a professor of biology and statistics. “This increases the risk of serious lags in tree migrations.”
The concept of climate-driven migration is based on the assumption that as temperatures warm, the southern edge of some tree species’ ranges could begin to erode as adult trees die and the seeds they leave behind in the soil can no longer sprout. At the same time, the species could spread to higher latitudes as seedlings dispersed on their northern boundaries are able to take root in newly favorable climates there.
To test whether this predicted response was occurring in real life, Clark and his colleagues pored through decades of data compiled by the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. They compared the relative distributions of seedlings, saplings and adult trees of 92 widely distributed eastern U.S. species at 43,334 plots in 30 different longitudinal bands, and factored in things like seed characteristics, and changes in climate and precipitation.
“The patterns of tree responses we were able to document using this seedling-versus-tree analysis are more consistent with range contraction than with northward migration, although there are signs some species are shifting to higher elevations,” Clark says.
The fact that the majority of the northernmost latitudes documented for seedlings was lower than those for adult trees of the same species indicates “a lack of evidence for climate-mediated migration, and should increase concern for the risks posed by climate change,” he says.
###
​

 

[Chalnoth]

I never claimed to know anything, all I do is quote the skeptic scientists so I am always humble because I always quote someone else.

Really now? And how many times have you said that the world isn't warming? That the Sun was causing the warming? That we were entering a global cooling phase?

For instance :
Forests stay put, defy alarmists

Posted on October 31, 2011 by Steve Milloy| 5 Comments
It’s fall, but the trees aren’t leaving. Maybe that’s because the treehuggers are holding too tight?
From a Duke University media release:

DURHAM, N.C. — More than half of eastern U.S. tree species examined in a massive new Duke University-led study aren’t adapting to climate change as quickly or consistently as predicted.
“Many models have suggested that trees will migrate rapidly to higher latitudes and elevations in response to warming temperatures, but evidence for a consistent, climate-driven northward migration is essentially absent in this large analysis,” says James S. Clark, H.L. Blomquist Professor of Environment at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment.
Nearly 59 percent of the species examined by Clark and his colleagues showed signs that their geographic ranges are contracting from both the north and south.
Fewer species — only about 21 percent — appeared to be shifting northward as predicted. About 16 percent seemed to be advancing southward, and around 4 percent appeared to be expanding in both directions.
The scientists analyzed data on 92 species in more than 43,000 forest plots in 31 states. They published their findings this month in the journal Global Change Biology.
The study found no consistent evidence that population spread is greatest in areas where climate has changed the most; nor do the species’ response patterns appear to be related to seed size or dispersal characteristics.
“Warm zones have shifted northward by up to 100 kilometers in some parts of the eastern United States, but our results do not inspire confidence that tree populations are tracking those changes,” says Clark, who also holds appointments at Duke as a professor of biology and statistics. “This increases the risk of serious lags in tree migrations.”
The concept of climate-driven migration is based on the assumption that as temperatures warm, the southern edge of some tree species’ ranges could begin to erode as adult trees die and the seeds they leave behind in the soil can no longer sprout. At the same time, the species could spread to higher latitudes as seedlings dispersed on their northern boundaries are able to take root in newly favorable climates there.
To test whether this predicted response was occurring in real life, Clark and his colleagues pored through decades of data compiled by the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. They compared the relative distributions of seedlings, saplings and adult trees of 92 widely distributed eastern U.S. species at 43,334 plots in 30 different longitudinal bands, and factored in things like seed characteristics, and changes in climate and precipitation.
“The patterns of tree responses we were able to document using this seedling-versus-tree analysis are more consistent with range contraction than with northward migration, although there are signs some species are shifting to higher elevations,” Clark says.
The fact that the majority of the northernmost latitudes documented for seedlings was lower than those for adult trees of the same species indicates “a lack of evidence for climate-mediated migration, and should increase concern for the risks posed by climate change,” he says.
###
​

It amuses me that you would quote this. Because what this research means is that forests are dying rather than migrating. Just read the last paragraph.