Author

Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 148. (Read 636443 times)

legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

Well, their coal consumption has been increasing by 10%/year and certainly is showing no signs of stopping, quite the contrary. They have plenty of coal and are busy importing coal. As for the smog I guess that moves around in the atmosphere and isn´t only China´s business. At least this global warming thing is supposed to be a global issue. Strange how real pollution isn´t. But of course it isn´t politically and financially correct and convenient.

The thing you have to consider is that nuclear energy is a million times more energetic than chemical energy. The only reason it isnt profitable now is because we (the species) haven't figured out how to capture it very efficiently. But that will change and there is simply no way that chemical energy can compete in the long term against an fuel source that is a million times as energetic. So yea the trend is up, but it will reverse at some point, you can bet the farm on it.

You're making the assumption that there's competition involved here.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

Well, their coal consumption has been increasing by 10%/year and certainly is showing no signs of stopping, quite the contrary. They have plenty of coal and are busy importing coal. As for the smog I guess that moves around in the atmosphere and isn´t only China´s business. At least this global warming thing is supposed to be a global issue. Strange how real pollution isn´t. But of course it isn´t politically and financially correct and convenient.

The thing you have to consider is that nuclear energy is a million times more energetic than chemical energy. The only reason it isnt profitable now is because we (the species) haven't figured out how to capture it very efficiently. But that will change and there is simply no way that chemical energy can compete in the long term against an fuel source that is a million times as energetic. So yea the trend is up, but it will reverse at some point, you can bet the farm on it.

*edit* Oh also i should say that i totally agree with the sentiment you are getting at here. Details aside, the whole global warming industry is subverting real resources and real time and real energy away from real environmental problems. Some of my pet causes are deforestation of rainforests, overfishing, the use of depleted uranium in war, and the government subsided nuclear energy that isn't ready for mainstream production that has caused situations like the catastrophe in japan.
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
Back to those inconvenient exponential functions. Increase of 10%/year = doubling every seven years or so (1,2,4,8,16,32 etc). 14% = doubling every five years or so. Yeah, I guess it´ll be an insurmountable catastrophe sooner rather than later and not just for the Chinese.



Quote
BEIJING (Reuters) - Pollution from China travels in large quantities across the Pacific Ocean to the United States, a new study has found, making environmental and health problems unexpected side effects of U.S. demand for cheap China-manufactured goods.

On some days, acid rain-inducing sulphate from burning of fossil fuels in China can account for as much as a quarter of sulphate pollution in the western United States, a team of Chinese and American researchers said in the report published by

the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, a non-profit society of scholars.

Cities like Los Angeles received at least an extra day of smog a year from nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide from China's export-dependent factories, it said.

"We've outsourced our manufacturing and much of our pollution, but some of it is blowing back across the Pacific to haunt us," co-author Steve Davis, a scientist at University of California Irvine, said.

Between 17 and 36 percent of various air pollutants in China in 2006 were related to the production of goods for export, according to the report, and a fifth of that specifically tied to U.S.-China trade.

China pollution wafting across Pacific to blanket U.S. : study
Reuters
January 21, 2014 11:27 AM
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276

In the relatively recent time's I've been trying to study this issue it does seem to me that there is a pick-up in the coverage of 'geoengineering'.  Smells like a trial balloon to me.

My strongest hypothesis about this whole global climate warming/cooling/changing thing is that it is mostly a tool for those who have other interests.  Seems that the 'social justice' and 'environmental' people have the upper hand at the moment.  They have other interests besides money, but money is still a big one.

There are many other people who like money.  People with a large fleet of aircraft for instance, or any number of specialized skills and contacts within the government.  They are not stupid and will certainly see the opportunity to make hay off the years of hard work of the eco-fundies.  I'm entirely unsurprised to see dynmaics like this forming:

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/11/national-academy-of-science-demands-equal-access-to-the-climate-trough-for-geoengineering/

Now, I'm not very much more worried about geoengineering turning into some insurmountable catastrophe as I am about burning coal doing so.  That said, we are at a historic peak in the current ice-age cycle, so I find it a little bit more than simply just amusing the comment:

  'What could go wrong?"



hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

Well, their coal consumption has been increasing by 10%/year and certainly is showing no signs of stopping, quite the contrary. They have plenty of coal and are busy importing coal. As for the smog I guess that moves around in the atmosphere and isn´t only China´s business. At least this global warming thing is supposed to be a global issue. Strange how real pollution isn´t. But of course it isn´t politically and financially correct and convenient.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
No Spendulus, I referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.
Oh, yeah.  The real pollution, conveniently forgotten because of the smoke screen.

I'd forgotten about THAT.
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1004
buy silver!

Reporters told to stop interviewing 'irrelevant' climate change critics
By Paul Bedard

A new study of how environmental reporters cover global warming and climate change reveals that they see the issue as one America has endorsed and, as a result, no longer include critics in their reports because they are “generally irrelevant.”

And the orders are coming from editors....http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560039
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
No Spendulus, I was referring to much nastier stuff. Real pollution from that runaway coal consumption. Like i said; this global warming hullabaloo is a useful diversion from that very real catastrophe in the making.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
Wow, think I saw somewhere that China´s coal consumption is ballooning by 10%/year. That´s a doubling time of just seven years. A decade ago the doubling time was like ten years. Now they´re even about to import coal from Donbass, formerly in the Ukraine. Imagine the staggering pollution. It has been exponential growth. And it´s some really nasty stuff. Which naturally has led to exponential growth in desperate measures to divert attention from this catastrophe, this global warming thing being among the most prominent. After all debt is about the most important product in the west and most other production has gone to Asia. So there you are. That boat better not be rocked too much.  Grin

from 100 after
7   years - 200 or so
14 years - 400
21 years - 800
28 years - 1600

And if the growth is 14%/year

5   years - 200
10 years  - 400 and so on

Someone said that one of modern man´s major shortcomings is a lack of understanding of exponential functions.
I´m sure it has been ignored in the education system so as not to disturb the debt production too much.
Assuming you are referring to co2 parts per million, co2 has an exponentially DECREASING effect with each added amount.  So basically, it's becoming irrelevant, the more of it that's added.


hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
Wow, think I saw somewhere that China´s coal consumption is ballooning by 10%/year. That´s a doubling time of just seven years. A decade ago the doubling time was like ten years. Now they´re even about to import coal from Donbass, formerly in the Ukraine. Imagine the staggering pollution. It has been exponential growth. And it´s some really nasty stuff. Which naturally has led to exponential growth in desperate measures to divert attention from this catastrophe, this global warming thing being among the most prominent. After all debt is about the most important product in the west and most other production has gone to Asia. So there you are. That boat better not be rocked too much.  Grin

from 100 after
7   years - 200 or so
14 years - 400
21 years - 800
28 years - 1600

And if the growth is 14%/year

5   years - 200
10 years  - 400 and so on

Someone said that one of modern man´s major shortcomings is a lack of understanding of exponential functions.
I´m sure it has been ignored in the education system so as not to disturb the debt production too much.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
Probably a good idea to ban deniers of evidence from any forum aimed at scientific discussion of evidence.



Even after the evidence of a fraud? Not too scientific, more like cultistic


legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
After all flights were grounded the temperature in the US increased by 2° in the 3 days following 9/11.

After I turned off the air conditioning last night the temperature outside dropped over 7 degrees in the following 3 hours.

What's your point!?

My point is that people are denying man-made climate change. I offer proof that they're wrong.

What's your problem?

My problem is that I don't see how your single line about two events (airplanes grounded and temperature increase) proofs man made climate change. So maybe you could / should elaborate if you're actually trying to convince anyone.

Globalwarming is clearly bullshit however, that doesn't stop "them" from spraying a layer of aluminum among other things to reflect incoming sunlight and perform other functions.
Who is them? Where are they spraying aluminium (I need it to produce hats!)? Sources?

"they" are the 1%.

As for elaborating on geoengineering, the current method of spraying aerosols from aircraft was conceived by Edward Teller to simulate the effects of nuclear winter.

hero member
Activity: 764
Merit: 500
I'm a cynic, I'm a quaint
After all flights were grounded the temperature in the US increased by 2° in the 3 days following 9/11.

After I turned off the air conditioning last night the temperature outside dropped over 7 degrees in the following 3 hours.

What's your point!?

My point is that people are denying man-made climate change. I offer proof that they're wrong.

What's your problem?

My problem is that I don't see how your single line about two events (airplanes grounded and temperature increase) proofs man made climate change. So maybe you could / should elaborate if you're actually trying to convince anyone.

Globalwarming is clearly bullshit however, that doesn't stop "them" from spraying a layer of aluminum among other things to reflect incoming sunlight and perform other functions.
Who is them? Where are they spraying aluminium (I need it to produce hats!)? Sources?
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
Globalwarming is clearly bullshit however, that doesn't stop "them" from spraying a layer of aluminum among other things to reflect incoming sunlight and perform other functions.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
After all flights were grounded the temperature in the US increased by 2° in the 3 days following 9/11.



After I turned off the air conditioning last night the temperature outside dropped over 7 degrees in the following 3 hours.


What's your point!?

My point is that people are denying man-made climate change. I offer proof that they're wrong.

What's your problem?



hero member
Activity: 764
Merit: 500
I'm a cynic, I'm a quaint
After all flights were grounded the temperature in the US increased by 2° in the 3 days following 9/11.



After I turned off the air conditioning last night the temperature outside dropped over 7 degrees in the following 3 hours.


What's your point!?
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
After all flights were grounded the temperature in the US increased by 2° in the 3 days following 9/11.

Jump to: