What Do We Think About Climate Change

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by Pericles, Feb 19, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    Brent just committed the unforgivable for the radical left. He told the truth. I respect him for it. I think he should be confined in a padded room with restraints, but I respect him for telling the truth about his convictions and the real agenda behind AGW. Without societal devolution, the GHG levels cannot decrease to the 1850's levels. It will be impossible to meet the C02 levels that are not necessary or desirable, but impossible non the less without radical and disruptive changes in the lifestyles of the developed nations. Of course these changes will be accomplished in a piece meal and incremental manner. Sort of like anethesitized decapitation. Then when the GHG goals are not met, new constraints will be proposed, then of course imposed on a population drugged into capitulation by the daily indoctrination of self hate by the elitist glitteratti of academia, government, and the media.

    Of course the free flow of information will have to be restricted, as is now being proposed by liberals in congress in a supposed quest to regulate the internet, and re-impose the illnamed "Fairness Doctrine" on the media, particularly, AM Talk Radio.

    Chip, chip, chip, one little freedom at a time, and voila, in probalbly just 3 generations or so you will have a submissive population, heeding the directives of the elite, and living in misery much to the delight of the social engineers,and saying "please, may I" to go about even the simplest of chores or activities.





    WHO IS JOHN GALT?
     
  2. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,804
    Likes: 369, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Brent must remain free so that he, one of the few honest "progressives" can reveal what they are all really thinking, and what their plans for the rest of us really are. Social justice my ***!
     
  3. masrapido
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 263
    Likes: 35, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 330
    Location: Chile

    masrapido Junior forever

    I really enjoy reading posts from people who take high "moral" and/or "intellectual" stands and allow themselves a high level of self-perceived "importance", only to then go on to talk absolute stupidity and garbage.

    Many seem to repeat the mantras how DDT was "banned". Forbidden!!!! Evil capitalist governments (that I do agree with), busilly promoting "democracy" only to erode it wherever they can, bla, bla, bla...

    DDT was NEVER "banned" because it was "poisonous". That is so typical capitalist propaganda embedded in too many otherwise empty and ignorant heads.

    All those who recognise themselves in this description, feel free to be angry.

    DDT was ABANDONED because:

    "DDT enjoyed great success until the development of chemically-induced resistance by mosquitoes. Resistance developed in insect populations because all of the insects exposed to DDT were not killed by the chemical. A few resistant individuals remained, they bred, and their offspring proved more resistant to the effects of DDT—this is evolution at work. In following applications, more DDT was sprayed. Eventually, the insects became so resistant that it became impractical to try to control them with DDT. This necessitated substitutions with other chemicals, to which the insects eventually became resistant. Pesticide—and antibiotic—resistance remains a serious problem. "


    There are still countries that use it, but with limited success because mosquitoes are just about immune to it nowadays.

    But there are always vigilant conservatives ready to ******** about "governmental control" over their miserable existencies, especially when there is no such thing, and even those evil capitalist governments are just doing some of the job they are supposed to do.

    In behaving like that these reactionary conserves, I mean conservatives, are no better than those capitalist scumbags pretending to be lefties but spreading the panic about everything, be it economy, climate, politics, or levels of stupidity among the general population. Typical conservative divide et impera behaviour, they then throw at lefties and accuse them of everything. ******** eaters, those conserves.

    I mean conservatives...

    http://www.eoearth.org/article/DDT
     
  4. spearaddict
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 4
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: St. Pete/Palm Beach, FL

    spearaddict New Member

    DDT was banned because it caused infertility among many of the bird species that came into contact with it. Read Silent Spring. You may learn something.
     
  5. spearaddict
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 4
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: St. Pete/Palm Beach, FL

    spearaddict New Member

    Please explain these graphs with your higher knowledge of how CO2 works:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Geez, this next one makes it look like Temperature and CO2 are closely related:
    [​IMG]
     
  6. masrapido
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 263
    Likes: 35, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 330
    Location: Chile

    masrapido Junior forever

    No thanks. I only read science, no fiction.

    I even left the link at the bottom. Read it. You WILL learn something.
     
  7. spearaddict
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 4
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: St. Pete/Palm Beach, FL

    spearaddict New Member

    Well guess what, i read your little article and I found this:
    Read the whole article next time :p
     
  8. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,804
    Likes: 369, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Mi basura es su tesoro.= My garbage is your treasure.
     
  9. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    3-5C pr/kw/hr

    Im not buying it

    Nuclear has always enjoyed the highest cost pr KW/HR and the worst environmental record (other than maybe coal) of the lot. Nuclear is debatably the most expensive form of power and given that the utilities in this country at least are paid base on there expenses it stands to reason that they push the most expensive form of energy

    another interesting article

    so maybe if you could at least attempt to justify what you are suggesting about the cost of nuclear fuel and include a break down of

    cost of construction
    cost of fuel including the public subsidies provided by the government
    cost of insurance including the public subsidies provided by the government
    cost of operation and maintenance
    cost of disposal of spent fuel including cost of transportation and cost of maintenance
    cost of health liabilities
    cost of decommissioning
    cost of clean up and reuse of site
    benefit in jobs
    life span budget in pollution

    I'd be interested to see how and where you are getting those figures as well so we can check them

    basically Ive yet to hear a good solid debate between the two sides of this issue

    one side seems to focus on the environmental cost
    the other seems to be downplaying the actual monetary cost

    maybe you could clarify that claim of 3-5C
     
  10. Hisflyingtune
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 8
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    Hisflyingtune Hisflyingtunesmith

    Co2

    Yeah! Right! Let's get those CO2 levels down. You know...all of that pollution.

    First, we can kill a few billion people. That will lower the temperature a few thousandths of a degree. Then, we can start killing most of the remaining mammals. That will help. Next, let's start killing trees and lots of flora because, you know, they exhale CO2 after the sun goes down. We could kill so much of the microbial life which also exhales CO2. I mean, all life is carbon based so if we kill all carbon based life forms, we can halt the production of CO2 which is such a wicked, deadly greenhouse gas, right?

    We could actually do this with neutron nuclear bombs and the radioactive half-life would be virtually undetectable within 6 months. ...and if we use nukes, they are the cheapest and most efficient way to kill all of these polluting forms of carbon based life.

    Oh, and one other thing: Who gets the money from the carbon credits? The same bankers who got 4 trillion from both Bush and Obama? Of course!

    In sum: check out www.bilderbergers.com

    Global warming is the biggest chicken little scam in the history of mankind. So, I go back to my original premise when it comes to science: Tell me truthfully what you don't know.
     
  11. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Thats why the deniers are unable to provide a single counter theory to the scientific evidence in support of the theory or Rapid Global Climate Change?

    or even suggest a hypothesis that will pass muster

    I often wonder if the people who disagree with climate change science also hold other unsupported beliefs
    I know there is at least one climate denier who thinks cigarette smoking is not bad for you
    and by extension must be good for you if so many people derive such pleasure from it
    and another that is also a holocaust denier
    there is at least one famous denier that questions evolution
    beliefs clearly not supported by the facts

    could be indicative of a mind set of people refusing basic realities
     
  12. Hisflyingtune
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 8
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    Hisflyingtune Hisflyingtunesmith

    Denying?

    Please answer this question: "Yes" or "No." It doesn't need to be qualified.

    Is it possible that those who believe in global warming or in climate change could be wrong?

    I'm not trying to win an argument here. I'm not on either side. All that I want for both sides to admit to is what they DO NOT KNOW.

    Rhetorically speaking, is this a reasonable question? From my perspective, it DOES seem that the global alarmists are shrill. What is see from that camp is dogma in that most refuse to believe anything other than the party line. I simply do not trust government anywhere. All government has financial motive underpinning itself.

    Again, please have the intellectual integrity to consider the writing of Francis Shaffer: "How Should We Then Live?"

    Again, this is reasonable. To quote a wise ancient Middle Eastern King:

    "The simple (gullible) believes every word. The prudent try (test) them."

    Fair enough?!
     
  13. spearaddict
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 4
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: St. Pete/Palm Beach, FL

    spearaddict New Member

    Yes, it IS possible AGW could be wrong. Anything in science COULD be wrong. Thats the whole premise of science. Once again, a theory is something that is able to be proven wrong--> i.e. the speed of light is NOT a constant, as we have been taught for many years, it speeds up and slows down according to gravity.
    What we are simply asking for is the proof that it is in fact wrong. If the denier camp can supply concrete physical evidence (data, observations, etc. NOT opinion articles) that AGW is wrong, then we would need to rethink the causes of GW. But as of yet, not a single piece of evidence supports the deniers camp.
    If you want to be prudent, then test out the effects of CO2 for yourself.
    Build a glass box, or find a greenhouse. Measure the temperature inside, where the CO2 has built up, and measure the temperature directly outside of the greenhouse. Which has the higher temperature? Clearly the greenhouse. Which is the variable that has changed between the two? same amount of light is hitting both test spots, but CO2 is being held in the greenhouse, while outside it can escape. So, logically, temperature is driven by CO2. Same principle applies globally.
    Yes, CO2 is essential for life on earth, everything needs it. But too much of anything has adverse effects on a living organism.
    Example: Water is essential to life on earth. Place an animal cell in distilled water and what happens? It bursts. O2 is essential, what happens when you have too much O2--> it effects your brains functions.
    People who support AGW are not asking for the deaths of billions of people, claiming we are is just plain wrong and unfortunately is the only strategy deniers have left.
    We have presented ample evidence that indicates human activities have drastically effected the Earths climate. We are waiting on evidence to the contrary. (Showing the Fairbanks graph is not only misleading and wrong, but it is also a single point on the Earth, while the G in AGW stands for GLOBAL. AGW theory states that some regions will see warmer temperatures and some will see cooler temperatures, but the net temperature change will be positive.)
    So if you would like to continue this conversation by calling people names and throwing out crazy conspiracy theories, than you are only hurting your cause. You can counter science with science, not with personal beliefs.
    "Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts"
     
  14. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    yes or no

    is it possible that the neptune is made of cheese

    is it possible that nothing exists outside of our own unassisted immediate field of observation

    is it possible that the theory of Rapid Global Climate Change is correct and that by ignoring it and proceeding business as usual will sufficiently destroy the planets climate that it precludes the possibility of human existence

    is it possible that the absolutes defined in yes and no questions are not applicable to theories that are measured by % of confidence

    by the way
    the theory of Rapid Global Climate Change has according to the scientific process which defines level of confidence, a 90% to 97% confidence level and rising

    I think that is the highest of any scientific theory although relativity and magnetism are both pretty high as well
    I'd have to check but Ive heard that mentioned in numerous lectures on the subject

    reasonable is taking precautions against self destruction and not being conned by the few who profit from those self destructive habits
     

  15. spearaddict
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 4
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: St. Pete/Palm Beach, FL

    spearaddict New Member

    You clearly have chosen a side after saying this:
    Be honest, have you chosen a side? ^^
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. rasorinc
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    2,450
  2. El_Guero
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,193
  3. troy2000
    Replies:
    168
    Views:
    12,155
  4. gonzo
    Replies:
    675
    Views:
    44,785
  5. gonzo
    Replies:
    587
    Views:
    47,654
  6. Grant Nelson
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    3,397
  7. Boston
    Replies:
    162
    Views:
    12,678
  8. Boston
    Replies:
    4,617
    Views:
    318,713
  9. hmattos
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,504
  10. brian eiland
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,410
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.