ew! that was sick!he's sick. and no he doesn't have any decency. at all. and he would get pointed in a heartbeat by the mods if he posted that kind of crap anywhere else but this forum.
don't you have any decency not to post that shit? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
Dyson: I am sure there are. But I don’t know who they are.Not quite accurate. Dyson speaks the truth TO YOU. You support Dyson because he supports your POV. That's fine. But for anyone, yourself included, to say he speaks "the truth" is a tad bit unrealistic.
I have a lot of friends who think the same way I do. But I am sorry to say that most of them are old, and most of them are not experts. My views are very widely shared.
Anyway, the ideal protagonist I am still looking for. So the answer
YALE E360 INTERVIEWS
Michael Pollan: What’s Wrong With Environmentalism
Elizabeth Kolbert: The Media and Climate Change
Thomas Friedman: Hope in a Hot, Flat Crowded World
Rajendra Pachauri: The World’s Global Warming Challenge
Julienne Stroeve: Tracking the Fallout Of the Arctic's Vanishing Sea Ice
to your question is, I will do the job if nobody else shows up, but I regard it as a duty rather than as a pleasure.
e360: Because it is important for you that people not take drastic actions about a problem that you are not convinced exists?
Dyson: Yes. And I feel very strongly that China and India getting rich is the most important thing that’s going on in the world at present. That’s a real revolution, that the center of gravity of the whole population of the world would be middle class, and that’s a wonderful thing to happen. It would be a
This make sense to me. The guy speaks the truth. Originally Posted by bambino
France, Germany and Japan make large scale use or Nuclear power. 75% of France's power comes from Nuclear plants. i bet the air over Paris is by far better than Beijing, not like that's hard to beat. Originally Posted by The_Waco_KidThis part with Germany's nukes is not true. They are decommissioning all their nuclear reactors.
Not quite accurate. Dyson speaks the truth TO YOU. You support Dyson because he supports your POV. That's fine. But for anyone, yourself included, to say he speaks "the truth" is a tad bit unrealistic.
A statement from Dyson: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...anted=all&_r=0
When Dyson joins the public conversation about climate change by expressing concern about the “enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories,” these reservations come from a place of experience. Whatever else he is, Dyson is the good scientist; he asks the hard questions. He could also be a lonely prophet. Or, as he acknowledges, he could be dead wrong.
So Dyson believes he could be "dead wrong" on climate change but you say you know he is right.
Dyson agrees with the prevailing view that there are rapidly rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused by human activity.
Source for the following: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...genius/308306/
In the range of his genius, Freeman Dyson is heir to Einstein—a visionary who has reshaped thinking in fields from math to astrophysics to medicine, and who has conceived nuclear-propelled spaceships designed to transport human colonists to distant planets. And yet on the matter of global warming he is, as an outspoken skeptic, dead wrong: wrong on the facts, wrong on the science. How could someone as smart as Dyson be so dumb about the environment? The answer lies in his almost religious faith in the power of man and science to bring nature to heel.
As I said before, Dyson and some other's views on global warming should be taken into account before reaching any conclusions on the subject. I believe he is wrong and agree with scientists from National Geographic, not Al Gore.
I also believe in global warming assessments as published in Scientific American.
Want a modern day affect of global warming?
The sinking threatens to increase flooding in Venice, which already occurs due to high tides about four times per year. And the problems are compounded by rising sea levels resulting from climate change. The Northern Adriatic Sea is rising at about 0.04 inches (1 mm) per year, Teatini said.
And maybe I was too quick to dismiss Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth":
http://boisestatepublicradio.org/pos...l-inconvenient
If nothing is done to curb the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, temperatures will rise, ice caps will melt, ocean levels will rise and weather patterns across the globe will be disrupted. This truth remains unchanged.
So what is "the truth"? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
Not quite accurate. Dyson speaks the truth TO YOU. You support Dyson because he supports your POV. That's fine. But for anyone, yourself included, to say he speaks "the truth" is a tad bit unrealistic.
everyone has a POV on this. you are either a believer or a non-believer .
Dyson isn't saying his view is an absolute truth, he's saying the evidence is not absolute. and it's not.
Dyson does have the background to investigate climate change deeply if he wanted to. Physics is a leading field for this type of research. as are fields like applied mathematics and i would argue mathematics in general. Also certainly a degree in meteorology, perhaps the best degree there is, possibly along with atmospheric science.
if you can find the guy or gal that has degrees in Physics, Math, Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, you have the ultimate expert. i don't of one yet. not saying they aren't out there but i don't know of one that well educated to study this area.
A statement from Dyson: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...anted=all&_r=0
When Dyson joins the public conversation about climate change by expressing concern about the “enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories,” these reservations come from a place of experience. Whatever else he is, Dyson is the good scientist; he asks the hard questions. He could also be a lonely prophet. Or, as he acknowledges, he could be dead wrong.
So Dyson believes he could be "dead wrong" on climate change but you say you know he is right.
This proves that the so-called 97% is a myth yes? do you agree? clearly there is no such overwhelming consensus. Yet Obama and many others like Gore trot it out as fact. it's not even close.
as i showed in this thread, that 97% number was based on at most 200 responses were about 77 claimed to have direct research in the field and felt strongly or somewhat strongly that climate change was actually happening and that it was man induced.
Dyson agrees with the prevailing view that there are rapidly rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused by human activity.
Source for the following: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...genius/308306/
In the range of his genius, Freeman Dyson is heir to Einstein—a visionary who has reshaped thinking in fields from math to astrophysics to medicine, and who has conceived nuclear-propelled spaceships designed to transport human colonists to distant planets. And yet on the matter of global warming he is, as an outspoken skeptic, dead wrong: wrong on the facts, wrong on the science. How could someone as smart as Dyson be so dumb about the environment? The answer lies in his almost religious faith in the power of man and science to bring nature to heel.
while Dyson has had a brilliant and accomplished career, i'm not sure i'd put him shoulder to shoulder with Einstein or Newton for that matter. Brilliant thinker no doubt, but not quite in Einstein's league. but then again, who is? maybe only Newton?
As I said before, Dyson and some other's views on global warming should be taken into account before reaching any conclusions on the subject. I believe he is wrong and agree with scientists from National Geographic, not Al Gore.
I also believe in global warming assessments as published in Scientific American.
Want a modern day affect of global warming?
The sinking threatens to increase flooding in Venice, which already occurs due to high tides about four times per year. And the problems are compounded by rising sea levels resulting from climate change. The Northern Adriatic Sea is rising at about 0.04 inches (1 mm) per year, Teatini said. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
some people seem to have some facts wrong.
I know I'm not gonna change any minds of hardcore ACC/AGW believers. I'm just throwing that out to annoy them.
Green house gas: CO2 is not the number one green house gas. There are other gases that balance out CO2. CO2 by humans are essentially statistical white noise. we don't matter in the scheme of all things run by mother nature.
SOL is the prime mover & shaker of climate change and a certain gas in our atmosphere act as a regulator of climate change. NO, its not CO2!
Earth: Earth is a cooked goose in 4 - 5 billion years. actually that's wrong. Earth is a cooked goose and uninhabitable in an estimated 300 - 500 million years.
Blame Goldilocks for this one. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
some people seem to have some facts wrong.
I know I'm not gonna change any minds of hardcore ACC/AGW believers. I'm just throwing that out to annoy them.
Green house gas: CO2 is not the number one green house gas. There are other gases that balance out CO2. CO2 by humans are essentially statistical white noise. we don't matter in the scheme of all things run by mother nature.
SOL is the prime mover & shaker of climate change and a certain gas in our atmosphere act as a regulator of climate change. NO, its not CO2!
Earth: Earth is a cooked goose in 4 - 5 billion years. actually that's wrong. Earth is a cooked goose and uninhabitable in an estimated 300 - 500 million years.
Blame Goldilocks for this one. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
and how do you get 300 - 500 million years?I gave you hint with Goldilocks.
the 4 to 5 billion years refers to the Sun exhausting all the hydrogen being converted to Helium by the fusion process. our rather ordinary Sun (yellow suns are the most common) doesn't have the mass to go Nova. too small. it will become a Red Giant and expand into the Earth's orbit, after consuming Mercury and Venus first. the Red Giant may or may not engulf Earth, hard to predict. it won't matter. it will still boil off the atmosphere and make Earth uninhabitable even if we don't get consumed. Eventually the Sun will recede into a Brown Dwarf.
we may go extinct way sooner by our own stupidity or some cosmic event but the 4 to 5 billion years is an absolute we can't stop. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
Not quite accurate. Dyson speaks the truth TO YOU. You support Dyson because he supports your POV. That's fine. But for anyone, yourself included, to say he speaks "the truth" is a tad bit unrealistic.It's scientifically never been proven that rising C02 levels are caused by human activity. In fact it can't ever happen because of the constant gas exchange within the various layers of our atmosphere. The atmosphere and it's various layers maintains it's equilibrium to maintain life on this planet. Global Warming really doesn't mean shit. There is no concrete observation that even confirms it.
A statement from Dyson: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...anted=all&_r=0
When Dyson joins the public conversation about climate change by expressing concern about the “enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories,” these reservations come from a place of experience. Whatever else he is, Dyson is the good scientist; he asks the hard questions. He could also be a lonely prophet. Or, as he acknowledges, he could be dead wrong.
So Dyson believes he could be "dead wrong" on climate change but you say you know he is right.
Dyson agrees with the prevailing view that there are rapidly rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused by human activity.
Source for the following: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...genius/308306/
In the range of his genius, Freeman Dyson is heir to Einstein—a visionary who has reshaped thinking in fields from math to astrophysics to medicine, and who has conceived nuclear-propelled spaceships designed to transport human colonists to distant planets. And yet on the matter of global warming he is, as an outspoken skeptic, dead wrong: wrong on the facts, wrong on the science. How could someone as smart as Dyson be so dumb about the environment? The answer lies in his almost religious faith in the power of man and science to bring nature to heel.
As I said before, Dyson and some other's views on global warming should be taken into account before reaching any conclusions on the subject. I believe he is wrong and agree with scientists from National Geographic, not Al Gore.
I also believe in global warming assessments as published in Scientific American.
Want a modern day affect of global warming?
The sinking threatens to increase flooding in Venice, which already occurs due to high tides about four times per year. And the problems are compounded by rising sea levels resulting from climate change. The Northern Adriatic Sea is rising at about 0.04 inches (1 mm) per year, Teatini said.
And maybe I was too quick to dismiss Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth":
http://boisestatepublicradio.org/pos...l-inconvenient
If nothing is done to curb the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, temperatures will rise, ice caps will melt, ocean levels will rise and weather patterns across the globe will be disrupted. This truth remains unchanged.
So what is "the truth"? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
I gave you hint with Goldilocks.irrelevant. we have far less time than that to fix our problems. if humanity still exists in 200-250 millions years the Earth won't even matter anymore.
Earth is in a zone (Earth To Mars - to give you an idea where that zone is) where the temperature is just right for life to thrive. However, the zone it resides in is close to the edge. something like 5 - 7 million km to the edge toward the sun.
As the Sun ages and gets hotter, the zone is going to move from its current position to a position past Earth's orbit within 300 - 500 million years. This is long before it becomes a red giant. At this point, Earth would be cooking like Venus & be uninhabitable.
http://nautil.us/issue/36/aging/how-to-survive-doomsday Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
I gave you hint with Goldilocks.That's a silly article.Try not to believe stupid shit like that.
Earth is in a zone (Earth To Mars - to give you an idea where that zone is) where the temperature is just right for life to thrive. However, the zone it resides in is close to the edge. something like 5 - 7 million km to the edge toward the sun.
As the Sun ages and gets hotter, the zone is going to move from its current position to a position past Earth's orbit within 300 - 500 million years. This is long before it becomes a red giant. At this point, Earth would be cooking like Venus & be uninhabitable.
http://nautil.us/issue/36/aging/how-to-survive-doomsday Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
interesting number, 1mm a year. even if completely true, it's hardly the huge rise in ocean levels the alarmists claim is it. neither is the approximately 1.5 to 2 degrees so-called rise in temperature since the 1970's. the so-called hockey stick graph has been clearly shown to be false. if it were true, then there wouldn't have been a mini-ice age just some 10 thousand years ago would there? and no one denies that there was a mini-ice around that time in history.Yes, I agree that the 97% conclusion reached by incorrect methodology is false.
at best this shows the issue is over-exaggerated even if true.
i'll give you credit speedy, you are already off to a much better start that Ivan has ever shown in this thread. all he does is post links. no critique, no opinion, nothing.
finally, what Dyson says about China and India is not only true, but it shows that any cap and trade G20 nation agreements are useless. how are you going to force China and India to comply? sanctions? lol.
it also reinforces my claim, made by the very people in the UN who are pushing this agenda on the World, that it's real purpose is to destroy the greatest economic model so far ever seen .. Capitalism.
Capitalism lifted the World into new heights of prosperity, and these new world order stooges want to destroy it? right! makes sense from their sick point of view.
Obviously China and India and basically all of South America and Africa want to become rich and prosperous. why wouldn't they? they'll never follow any Kyoto protocol or Paris or whatever. they want their piece of the pie. and they'll do whatever it takes to get it. even if they pay a huge price in terms of pollution to get there. notice i said pollution, not global climate change.
that should be the real focus, pollution. instead of cap and trade, put that money into scrubbers for coal fired plants. coal is not an ideal modern day source, neither is oil. but both are long standing ways to generate power.
until new ways come online, there isn't much easy way to suddenly move away from coal and oil.
i'm a proponent of renewed use of nuclear power. including uses of fuel sources such as Thorium, not plutonium or uranium. Nixon quashed very promising research into Thorium for one reason only .. it has far less waste product. and none that can be used for nuclear weapons. that's why Nixon quashed it. so the Military Industrial Complex could have their supply of
plutonium and uranium for their weapons programs.
can you convince me nuclear power cannot be done safely? i say it can, and it is being done safely elsewhere, in Japan, France and Germany to name a few. China is pouring billions into it. why isn't the USA? we should renew our nuclear program.
there isn't enough large waterways to simply dam them up and generate all the power needed. and dams have their own ecological impact, even if the power they create is clean. Look at China's controversial major dam projects.
even given the advances in solar power, could you put enough of them around the US to completely replace coal fired plants? No.
for now, we are stuck with coal as a primary source of electrical energy. it can be replaced over time. right now, it's emissions can be mitigated.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
interesting number, 1mm a year....Is LittleSpeedo all choked up about "rising water"?
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
