Forums

Climate change: There is 3 types of people

Climate change: There is 3 types of people

1) People who change their habits
2) People who say they care
3) People who deny climate changes
Planet doesn’t see any difference between type 2 and type 3.

Lately, I have been arguing too much on Twitter and Instagram against type 3, I need an Instabrake.

RedShift | 18 novembre 2019

Because we aren’t betting men like you. But you’ve turned a chicken little!

MitchP85D | 18 novembre 2019

Hey 60cc SamO, see if you can answer Dr. Richard Lindzen when he asks a stunned, dumbfound audience when he asks "what happens when f = 1?

Go to 1:01:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60

Note the silence in the audience. This is why you Green New Dealer types cower in fear when forced to debate this guy. So, instead of debating him, you slander him. That's much easier.

SamO | 18 novembre 2019

Why is Exxon in the bag for big climate and how many zeros will be in the judgement against them.

I’ll bet you that the verdict is bigger than this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement#Fina...

$206 billion

Any takers?

Lol.

Ross1 | 19 novembre 2019

@SCCR and others:

One of my pet subjects: how is 6000 years (Bible) compatible with science's 13.6 billion years?
For many it is a faith breaker; for others , they wear two hats.

What we need to look at is , as an accountant would say looking at the columns of facts: from whose perspective?

Who tells the Genesis story (of 6000 year creation)?
As Einstein proves in his Time Dilation formula, a one liner, as velocity becomes c (speed of light), time has to reduce to zero.

So from the perspective of the Creator who told the story, the time was very short (6 days), but from our perspective, very slow (13.6 billion years). It was the Creator told the story. "Let us..."

So what we observe in the fossil record etc, like the geology of the Grand Canyon, took a long TIME to happen, but for God, that whole sequence of time was faster because of the speed of creation emanating at c or near c (because c is only c in a total vacuum, and as Creation happened, matter appeared, (from energy, the Word, ask me), so it wasnt isnt a total vacout there, so a 6 day creation is just SO feasible.

As this is the quick summary of a "life study", it is just the bare bones. Feel free to discuss with me.If you want.
As Einstein also said, if you can't describe your idea in a sentence then you dont know your subject, I expanded a little because I want you to understand me. Sometimes I am just too concise and therefore misunderstood, here and elsewhere.

RedShift | 19 novembre 2019

Solar breakthrough by a Bill Gates backed startup in achieving high temperature:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates...

1000 C (not F) is good enough to get you processing a few of the industrial grade products.

teslu3 | 19 novembre 2019

'a stunned, dumbfound audience when he asks "what happens when f = 1?"'
Divide by 0: His answer is infinite at 1:02:10
Is it infinite? Or negative infinite? Well, there are many kinds of inifinity...
No, the answer is undefined.
Perhaps the audience was not stunned nor dumbfounded, but irritated at his condescension.

RedShift | 19 novembre 2019

In Mitch’s mind, everyday is a great day when someone doesn’t post something exposing his false prophets!

Tesla-David | 19 novembre 2019

Go back to your own thread Mitch, stop ruining other threads. Flagged!

MitchP85D | 20 novembre 2019

tesloo the 3rd, you did not watch enough of the debate. The audience did not have a clue! Lindzen was pointing out why global warming temperature projections are exaggerated by the computer models. And it is because of that equation. When positive feedback is overestimated by the alarmists, the temperature blows up to unrealistic high values.

ginafg | 20 novembre 2019

the topic is rather controversial, but interesting

brrik | 20 novembre 2019

Each of us perceives climate change in our own way. For example, we have recently gotten colder and I personally do not like it. By the way, we recently moved to a suburb, bought our own house, and now I have a major headache - which propane generator is the best? Which one should I buy?

SamO | 20 novembre 2019

Bernie Sanders will bring these fossil fuel companies to heel. They are the true super-predators.

RedShift | 20 novembre 2019

Lindzen was corrected by many of his MIT colleagues:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scient...

Mitch’s false prophets keep getting exposed:

Lindzen was paid to talk against AGW.

“ Fossil Fuel Funding

As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties. [94]

In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015. [98]”

https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

Make it too easy Mitch. :-)

SamO | 20 novembre 2019

As Isaac Asimov said, anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political + cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’

teslu3 | 20 novembre 2019

Why engage in RS Lindzen's Gish Gallop? If he has something that seriously challenges the work of the publishing climate scientists, he would be publishing himself and properly convincing the true sceptics - other climate scientists.
Instead he aligns himself with non-experts.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/02/27/climate-denier-richard-lindzen-300...

SamO | 20 novembre 2019

If it can't make it through peer review, then it is voodoo.

Maxxer | 20 novembre 2019

Pseudopoliticalclimate science

ginafg | 21 novembre 2019

In order to less pollute the air, I bought a propane generator. If you still do not know during the combustion process, propane emits less harmful substances than gasoline. When propane is burned, 80% less solid particles are emitted into the atmosphere and 20-40% less carbon monoxide compared to diesel and gasoline! If you also want to buy such a generator, then first I advise you to browse the best propane generators https://bestgenset.org/best-propane-generators/ to make the right choice.

MitchP85D | 21 novembre 2019

Watch Richard Lindzen tell Lawrence Krauss right to his face that he would flunk a freshman student for doing what climate alarmists do.

Go to 35:20 and watch Krauss give his speech, then watch Lindzen's reply.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZsnAdGaxkY&t=3744s

Maxxer | 21 novembre 2019

Have you watched a YouTube video of Musk talking about externality cost of burning fossil fuels?

jimglas | 21 novembre 2019

who cares what Richard lindzen says. He is a fossil fuel troll

MitchP85D | 21 novembre 2019

Wrong jimmy. All of Lindzen's research was government funded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBghnZNJA24

jimglas | 21 novembre 2019

before he went over to the dark side

andy.connor.e | 21 novembre 2019

Ya government funded. Wonder who owns the politicians.

MitchP85D | 21 novembre 2019

Hey RedShift, those are just "breathtaking" sums of money Lindzen "took" from the fossil fuel industry. LOL!

MitchP85D | 21 novembre 2019

Hey 60cc SamO, you made a little pep squeak remark about peer review?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

This is why climate alarmists cower in fear when forced to debate this guy!

MitchP85D | 21 novembre 2019

I met Lindzen back in January 2010 after he had his debate with Dr. Gerald North from Texas A&M University. I told him that I worked in Alaska, forecasting weather and sea states for tug boats and barges transiting the Bering Strait and the Barrow Passage in the summer of 2007. And that I noticed the Polar Easterlies were exceptionally strong that season. Lindzen confirmed that and that he studied the Arctic that year. He said that the wind effectively pushed the Arctic ice back towards the North Pole, and the climate alarmists all had a field day, making outrageous claims the Arctic ice was melting away, and would soon all be gone within a few summers.

Lindzen and I knew that was nonsense then, and after 12 years, the climate alarmists' nonsense has been confirmed!

jimglas | 21 novembre 2019

nonsense

MitchP85D | 21 novembre 2019

Qualifier - Climate alarmism nonsense

jimglas | 21 novembre 2019

facts are not nonsense, the crap you post is nonsense.
The facts you ignore

Maxxer | 21 novembre 2019

Is Mitch a member of the Flat Earth Society?

I feel held having that kind of debate

SCCRENDO | 21 novembre 2019

@maxxer. I have asked him and he has never answered

andy.connor.e | 21 novembre 2019

Most of the questions you ask Mitch, you get a half witted response or no response at all.

RedShift | 21 novembre 2019


MitchP85D | November 21, 2019
Hey RedShift, those are just "breathtaking" sums of money Lindzen "took" from the fossil fuel industry. LOL!”

It’s great that you are so easily self-entertained. When facing serious mental health, it’s better for one to stay happy.

MitchP85D | 21 novembre 2019

Does John Stossel strike fear in you global warming alarmists?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=b8JZo6PzpCU&feature=emb_...

SCCRENDO | 21 novembre 2019

Stupid fraudulent people do not strike fear. Why would one fear them. I guess the best description would be irritation

MitchP85D | 21 novembre 2019

Because your favorite scientists run away from debate. Watch Gavin Schmidt run away from Roy Spencer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw

MitchP85D | 21 novembre 2019

Stupid fraudulent people are easy to defeat in a debate. The real climate scientists are not stupid, fraudulent people. Therefore, your favorite climate alarmists will not debate Lindzen, Michaels, Soon, Spencer, Christy, Curry, Legates.

teslu3 | 21 novembre 2019

Debates are done in the scientific literature. Debating on Fox Business? -- might as well try debating a creationist or flat earther - too hard to keep up with the Gish Gallop.

MitchP85D | 21 novembre 2019

They won't debate in other venues either tesloo the 3rd. Just in rare circumstances. This should be debated at least monthly in the mainstream news media.

MitchP85D | 21 novembre 2019

Common folks don't read the literature. But they will watch televised debates.

SCCRENDO | 21 novembre 2019

Are they running away or just not wasting time talking to frauds?

RedShift | 21 novembre 2019

Common folk. Cleverer than uncommon folk.

Maxxer | 21 novembre 2019

Mitch, you member of Flat Earth Society?

irum.lailoo | 21 novembre 2019

why do oil companies receive subsidies?
There are 3 levels to determining your type:
1) Those who accept the climate is changing
2) Those who accept that humans are accelerating it
3) Understanding and being conscientious about your responsibility on this planet
why do oil companies receive subsidies?
https://www.gridhosting.co.uk

blue adept | 22 novembre 2019

@Varricks

The two(2) main take-a-ways of my previous reply to you are (1), that there were no Humans present during those cataclysmic climate altering events and (2), that it took literally MILLIONS of years before the world's environment was able to replenish itself and the climate was able to right itself from the sort of climatological extremes we're seeing today...Millions, without any Human intervention whatsoever.

Moving on...

>>> "If my 12-ounces of R-12 is going to rend the ozone, why can't I get ants to stay out of the kitchen?"

Likely because someone either keeps dropping food on the floor or someone's doing a poor job of cleaning and/or mopping the floor.

As for the R-12, it's liken to that of the parable of 'the straw that broke the camel's back' as one(1) air conditioner emitting ozone depleting R-12 is of no consequence in the grand scheme of things inasmuch as their are enough natural cleansers (plants, trees, waterways, etc.) in the Earth's ecology to filter out the R-12 before it poses a problem.

Much the same is the case with ICE's as one(1) car emitting pollution is not a problem to anyone but those driving it (and whomever that might happen to inhale its fumes) as the world's ecology possesses enough natural resources to offset and cleanse the air of its exhaust emissions.

However, you get hundreds of thousands of A/C's and automobiles with each emitting their brand of toxicity and the cumulative affect can overwhelm the Earth's natural filtration, especially when some have taken to poisoning the waterways (wastewater runoff) that act as carbon traps and cutting down the trees and foliage (deforestation) that act as scrubbers that rid the air of pollutant particles by trapping them and/or converting them to oxygen.

MitchP85D | 22 novembre 2019

SCCRENDODO, the common folks of America do not see human-caused global warming as a threat, precisely due to the fact the global warming alarmists scientists WON'T debate the climate realist scientists in public. Common folks like to see the evidence. They don't like being preached to by a New Age Cult. As Lindzen states, the Green New Dealers are dogmatic.

Climate realists have nothing to fear because we know the facts are on our side. That is why we are so willing to debate in public. Just look at what goes on here as an example. I present data. You present slander!

MitchP85D | 22 novembre 2019

"All religions have dogmas, and make assertions that can't be challenged."

Dr. Lindzen has accurately assessed the status of human-caused global warming.

"When a person says the science is settled, you know that person has stepped out of the science."

SCCRENDO | 22 novembre 2019

If they want to see evidence they wouldn't listen to Lindzen

Maxxer | 22 novembre 2019

Mitch, you member of Flat Earth Society?

Pages