Tom Kirkman

We're freezing! Isn't it great? The carbon tax must be working!

Recommended Posts

@Jan van Eck is a massive Bush "monarchy" supporter. 

How many weapons of mass destruction were found? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

You are henceforth a non-person. 

 

 

 

 

Peek-a-boo!

Most people understand object permanence at a young age.

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

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2020 at 10:20 PM, Boat said:

While chump change political rivals bicker, nobody addresses or even talks about population. Kinda the root cause of consumption/pollution/ global warming/climate change/resource depletion/sea rise in temp and height. 

I brought the issue of population growth being the root cause of all ‘green evils’ several times months ago and was ‘shouted down’. It is heartening to see someone else is seeing this.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

@Jan van Eck is a massive Bush "monarchy" supporter. 

How many weapons of mass destruction were found? :)

How many were in the documented convoys headed to Syria before hostilities began?

If you consider poison gas as a WMD, then perhaps you should talk to the Kurds regarding Saddam and WMD’s.

As one Marine said during the war, ‘We are not on an Easter Egg hunt, we’re a little preoccupied’. That said, there is alot of desert in Iraq and they did discover fully assembled Migs buried in the sand. Wonder what else is out there...🤔

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Just thought I'd chuck this link in for your perusal.

There is a lot of data so bear with it but, there are some interesting comparison charts further down.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

@Douglas Buckland Thought you might like this

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/46/12338

Well, the second link appears to realize that population growth will drive any climate issue, but instead of tackling the root cause they more interested in mitigating the effects of climate change on the growing population instead of even attempting to address the root cause - which is the exploding global population.

Furthermore, I keep seeing terms such as ‘post Industrial Revolution’ as if the Industrial Revolution, in and of itself, is responsible for any perceived climate issue, WITHOUT making the link to the industrial revolution coinciding with the rapid growth in population.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Well, the second link appears to realize that population growth will drive any climate issue, but instead of tackling the root cause they more interested in mitigating the effects of climate change on the growing population instead of even attempting to address the root cause - which is the exploding global population.

Furthermore, I keep seeing terms such as ‘post Industrial Revolution’ as if the Industrial Revolution, in and of itself, is responsible for any perceived climate issue, WITHOUT making the link to the industrial revolution coinciding with the rapid growth in population.

I think what they are alluding to is that the Industrial Revolution took people out of subsistence farming into industry and eventually that industry created wealth. The wealth led to better sanitation, better housing, more access to medicine and medical advancement, and less starvation, all of which caused the population to grow significantly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with reducing a country's population ultimately leads to an ageing population. This puts far more strain on the declining population of working age to maintain economic parity or better.

It is a major problem that will face China in years to come.

This of course doesn't help climate change if you believe population has a direct link to it.

IMO only technological breakthroughs can solve the problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way you can look at the climate change issue, blame it on human interference and NOT take into account the astronomical growth in human population since 1800. To do so is to ignore a root cause of the problem.

While aging populations in many developed countries will force the populations in those countries to find an equilibrium (and force a dependence on technology to replace the lost workforce), the populations of Asia, Latin America and Africa will continue to increase rapidly.

At some point it will get interesting as the developing world will eventually run out of developed nations to blame for their ills.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

There is no way you can look at the climate change issue, blame it on human interference and NOT take into account the astronomical growth in human population since 1800. To do so is to ignore a root cause of the problem.

While aging populations in many developed countries will force the populations in those countries to find an equilibrium (and force a dependence on technology to replace the lost workforce), the populations of Asia, Latin America and Africa will continue to increase rapidly.

At some point it will get interesting as the developing world will eventually run out of developed nations to blame for their ills.

81d75c55e3b213e467d66e80831614e819f62decbdb9e1a95a05c198f5b53e7b.thumb.png.98bb44f70c2afdf3e9e390706f172a96.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Sure is.  Plus, you have to pay somebody to tanker the stuff to you!

Plus you have to worry that Iran will attack the tanker, or seize it, or some other stupid move that will get another swift deadly response from the US....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Peek-a-boo!

Most people understand object permanence at a young age.

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

I mostly have object permanence, but I seem to have a problem with boobs. Just want to see them, even if I just saw them I want to see them again!!

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I brought the issue of population growth being the root cause of all ‘green evils’ several times months ago and was ‘shouted down’. It is heartening to see someone else is seeing this.

It’s a several decade old issue since I read the Population Bomb as a kid.

Just for you because we disagree so much. Am no Dem. Immigration is bad policy because it supports population growth. FF doesn’t bother me to the point it’s good to produce what the US consumes. I support government help in all energy related products if it’s for new tech or energy efficiency. 
I don’t mind 10’s of billions spent getting rid of pollution but no massive expenditure as that tech developed slowely. Wast heat used in CHP  is way underutilized and perfect for nat gas. Electric cars are great and I would like to see the subsidy go to say $15,000 per car. Knowing that it will take decades to get to scale. Same with nat gas and semis. $50,000 subsidy for a decade to promote cleaner air. 
I support active involvement in international conflict. No ground troops or occupation. Drones and missiles. No need for aircraft carriers, tanks or most of the navy. Our military should have the finest state of the art hypersonic missiles. No need for bases around the world. Drop health care costs by one third by giving every human in the US $1,500 per year. That’s it. 
No transplants for seniors, no more hips and knees unless they buy a rider. 
That’s a quick base of ideas that focuses on practical budget concepts and why I could never be a Republican or Democrat. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SERWIN said:

I mostly have object permanence, but I seem to have a problem with boobs. Just want to see them, even if I just saw them I want to see them again!!

Some experiments need to be repeated, for verification purposes you know.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Some experiments need to be repeated, for verification purposes you know.

It's an experiment I rerun over and over with the same results.... I think requesting a control would probably be a bad idea though. I haven't asked...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is the classic reason why  the terminology shifted from Global Warming to Climate Change. 

People looking out the window lacking any appreciation between the differences of climate and weather  and going blimey its a bit colder than usual, global warming - b******s

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NickW said:

This thread is the classic reason why  the terminology shifted from Global Warming to Climate Change. 

People looking out the window lacking any appreciation between the differences of climate and weather  and going blimey its a bit colder than usual, global warming - b******s

 

Now if only the other side didn't say, "blimey, it's a big hotter than usual Global warming!"

As in, oh I don't know Australia? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad came to visit me in Fort McMurray about a week ago to "see how cold it really is" and he was not let down. He happened to come on one of the biggest cold snaps in a while. Ironically after he left a radio station in town started talking about "cold tourists" who come here to experience the coldest weather on earth. Well not the #1  coldest but pretty close. I thought oh geez, I guess the word got out that someone came here for a vacation and that is news worthy around these parts. Cold tourism.....yeah you go put that up on travelocity and see if anyone other then my dad signs up.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 1/21/2020 at 9:48 AM, Boat said:

No need for aircraft carriers, tanks or most of the navy.

Username "Boat" and your anti-navy? Surely there's been a mistake.

In all seriousness though, I'd argue the Navy is the most effective deterrent the U.S. has.

 

I can get behind some of what you're saying though.

Edited by PE Scott
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2020 at 6:15 AM, Boat said:

Trumps own government department called NASA claims the world is warming. Because of the inability to google by our far right friends......drum roll...... the NASA web site.

 

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp

Ah yes, the same NASA assholes who claim Iceland is warming up.... until non lazy right wing assholes like me and others actually look up Icelands weather temperatures from the stations in question and GASP!  Find out that NASA has been fraudulently changing the temperatures for their "models".... hrmm.  It was so bad and blatant even Icelands government had to tell NASA to stop their fraud.  Hey, I know NASA/NCDC, lets change the "homogenization" between temp stations from 1000km(absurd) to 2000km(beyond absurd).... gee I wonder why the arctic is warming so much and the models are so drastically wrong all the time..... Lets take lower lattitude warmer data and extend it to the north pole!  Yea!  Brilliant!  All "we" need is an equation we get to manipulate anytime we wish to skew the data ... I mean "fill in" this "missiing" data.  Science checking?  Hell no! 

Or admit that the Arctic was even warmer with less ice in the late 1800's through the 1930's and 40's???? Oh Hell no.  It must be all this horrid man made CO2 which made the arctic colder and the glaciers up there to stop melting so fast!

Or hey, how about admitting cities emit/hold heat and any temp station withing a mile or more of a city needs to have all of its data thrown out?  What a thought...

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PE Scott said:

Username "Boat" and your anti-navy? Surely there's been a mistake.

In all seriousness though, I'd argue the Navy is the most effective deterrent the U.S. has.

 

I can get behind some of what you're saying though.

Just an opinion, lets start with that. Iran had like the 2nd or 3rd military machine and it took missiles and the air force about 2 weeks to whipe it out. Captain obvious and I decided conventional warfare was basically dead. The Navy except for submarines are sitting coffins just like tanks, artillery and of course all the personal it takes work them. Hypersonic missiles, are indefensible much like nuclear weapons. So, why waste hundreds of billions on obsolete  weapon systems. At some point even the Air Force will not be able to evade advancing tech. 
All the bases around the world do work if your attacking a weak country and give some quicker reaction time. But is that cost effective in a world that could send thousands of missiles and hit within hours. 
So the solution? Build hundreds of thousands of hypersonic missiles, keep a nuclear deterrent but basically wind down the conventional force we have now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

21 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Now if only the other side didn't say, "blimey, it's a big hotter than usual Global warming!"

As in, oh I don't know Australia? 

Well the other side tend to refer to hotter years / series of years as measures of climate change rather than focus on individual weather events😉

Edited by NickW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2020 at 9:46 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

image_dde63ef8-42a2-4c32-ad3e-1c228144478020200118_154436.jpg.4ac49331629bcd0d7ce19523396b02d1.jpg

Which proves he is one of a very few real patriots in Canada.

Canada is actively destroying its environment, for the sake of oil hunger of its Big Brother from the South.

Canadian oil output 255 million tons, consumption 110 million tons, the rest exported to the United States.

Canada is losing a lot of money (if you take under consideration externalities) by extracting their heavy oil with huge ecological footprint and selling it at high 30s in USD at best. It is a pity Canadians are so st*pid, but on the other hand they have 10 millon km2 of land to destroy, for only 40 million citizens, so can be ecological barbarians for a looong time.

What is also important to notice the expensive light oil is imported to Canadian East Coast, about 70 million tons yearly, and nearly all very cheap heavy oil from dirty operations is exported to United States.

Restricting output to the level of domestic consumption would decrease Canadian GDP by maximum 15 billion USD that is 1% of GDP but keep land and oil for future generations  (or at least until it could be sold at fair global market prices, without 40% Big Brother discount).

US vs Canada relations are so similar to Soviet Union vs communist satellite states or European colonial empires vs African&Latin American colonies.

Russia is a sort of Chinese and European Canada, but at least Russia is paid in real dollars without steep discounts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

15 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

 

Or hey, how about admitting cities emit/hold heat and any temp station withing a mile or more of a city needs to have all of its data thrown out?  What a thought...

 

That is well known.

Food for thought, if you accept that cities emit and hold heat, and there are a lot of cities, wouldn't that mean the world is warming? 

Or are you suggesting the countryside magically cools itself down such that the average temperature is not increasing?  Or are cities not part of the earth? 

"The earth isn't warming, just the cities." 

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.