Was Global Warming responsible for the many deaths in freezing-snow packed Buffalo?

Global warming scientists predicted more extreme weather. It is not just making the globe hotter, but it makes the weather more extreme. That it is happening and should even be obvious to deniers by now.
 
Diesel said:
I never said that, dumbass.
Click to expand...

Good. That’s what some extremists have said.
So what’s your timetable for the elimination of petroleum based energy before we all die?
Should all petro based nrg be eliminated?
If not, what percent?
Assuming you answer honestly, from where do you get this data and what will the effect on the weather after implementation?

All I hear is either very vague requirements or extreme positions for the elimination of all petroleum nrg within x number of years.
 
Nordberg said:
Global warming scientists predicted more extreme weather. It is not just making the globe hotter, but it makes the weather more extreme. That it is happening and should even be obvious to deniers by now.
Click to expand...

It's a very basic concept - and anyone who has read even the most basic overview of what climate change entails knows this.
 
Diesel said:
The problem is global warming, but you idiots don't know the difference between climate and weather and even brought snow into the US Capitol to show that it was cold somewhere. Science doesn't care about your opinions. Your astounding ignorance doesn't make a difference either.
Click to expand...

So you have or you see no problem with global freezing as being a problem? The people in Buffalo N.Y. may have a bit of a difference with your assertion that its global warming being the problem. Tell me Diesel, do you think global warming will be the death knell for Diesel Fuel, or would it be this push by lefties to eliminate fossil fuels all together that will kill or make your decision to use the word Diesel as your Moniker something being quite ironic if not just plain stupid?
 
anonymoose said:
Good. That’s what some extremists have said.
So what’s your timetable for the elimination of petroleum based energy before we all die?
Should all petro based nrg be eliminated?
If not, what percent?
Assuming you answer honestly, from where do you get this data and what will the effect on the weather after implementation?

All I hear is either very vague requirements or extreme positions for the elimination of all petroleum nrg within x number of years.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the timeframe is. There is obviously debate.

What is mind numbingly stupid is what the right wants to do: Take no steps to reduce consumption of a non-renewable resource that pollutes the environment. Not only that, but we should use it faster and pollute more. It is a galactic intellectual failing of a particular type of person.
 
Libhater said:
So you have or you see no problem with global freezing as being a problem? The people in Buffalo N.Y. may have a bit of a difference with your assertion that its global warming being the problem. Tell me Diesel, do you think global warming will be the death knell for Diesel Fuel, or would it be this push by lefties to eliminate fossil fuels all together that will kill or make your decision to use the word Diesel as your Moniker something being quite ironic if not just plain stupid?
Click to expand...

Diesel is a clothing brand.

The globe is not freezing. What just happened in most of the country, including Buffalo, is a result of climate change exacerbated by human activity. That is not disputable, but maybe you can tell us that COVID doesn't exist and windmills cause cancer.
 
Diesel said:
I don't know what the timeframe is. There is obviously debate.

What is mind numbingly stupid is what the right wants to do: Take no steps to reduce consumption of a non-renewable resource that pollutes the environment. Not only that, but we should use it faster and pollute more. It is a galactic intellectual failing of a particular type of person.
Click to expand...
So basically it’s somewhere between the extremes, both of which are mind numbing stupid. Well duh.
 
Diesel
Diesel-2.jpg
Diesel is a clothing brand.
Click to expand...

In your case it's a pollutant, kapo.
 
anonymoose said:
Nobody. It doesn't. The misnomered Greenhouse Gas Effect most certainly does. That is the entire basis of the unproven, or more correctly disproven hypothesis of AGW.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
Just did it. Your turn.
PhD's in physical chemistry do.
Heat cannot move itself from a cooler body into a warmer one.
A heat transfer from a cooler body into a warmer one cannot happen without compensation.
A fictitious heat engine which works in this way is called a perpetuum mobile of the
second kind.
Click to expand...

No. The GT paper is not a scientific paper. Their article is a propaganda exercise pretending to be a scientific paper. This is indicated by their extensive efforts to explain basic undergraduate physics. No real scientific paper explains basic undergraduate physics, because scientific papers are targeted at an audience of professional scientists. Professional scientists already know this information in far greater depth and detail than undergraduates.

The audience for their article is the slightly technical public that infests climate denier blogs.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner are simply two individuals who have no understanding of atmospheric physics or the greenhouse effect. They are attempting to gain the attention and respect of climate deniers who also do not understand the greenhouse effect.

It’s a classic case of “the blind leading the blind”. That's where you come in!

Try again Poindexter! :laugh:
 
Diesel said:
Ultimately, yes. Let's suppose that we can use up every last fossil fuel on the planet before the pollution kills us. What's your plan then?
Click to expand...

Go back to living in caves. Adapt in other words.
But I have no problem w/ govt. funding research for renewable energy, in fact I encourage it. I encourage a reasonable transition to renewable energy.
Besides the market will win out in the foreseeable future anyway. The IPCC, Paris accords, Al Gore, Greta, etc. can make all the pie in the sky goals , complaints, whining how their lives ruined and childhoods have been lost, and doomsday predictions they want. The market will win in the end.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
No. The GT paper is not a scientific paper. Their article is a propaganda exercise pretending to be a scientific paper. This is indicated by their extensive efforts to explain basic undergraduate physics. No real scientific paper explains basic undergraduate physics, because scientific papers are targeted at an audience of professional scientists. Professional scientists already know this information in far greater depth and detail than undergraduates.

The audience for their article is the slightly technical public that infests climate denier blogs.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner are simply two individuals who have no understanding of atmospheric physics or the greenhouse effect. They are attempting to gain the attention and respect of climate deniers who also do not understand the greenhouse effect.

It’s a classic case of “the blind leading the blind”. That's where you come in!

Try again Poindexter! :laugh:
Click to expand...

Yet you provide nothing other than an article in Forbes.
What in G & T don't you agree with? It was, after all, published in a peer reviewed scientific journal with a conclusion. At least it sparked debate in the scientific community with replies, counter replies, counter-counter replies, and so on.
The chicken little community does not allow scientific debate which is basically a contradiction of science. Consensus is a political term, not scientific.
 
anonymoose said:
Go back to living in caves. Adapt in other words.
But I have no problem w/ govt. funding research for renewable energy, in fact I encourage it. I encourage a reasonable transition to renewable energy.
Besides the market will win out in the foreseeable future anyway. The IPCC, Paris accords, Al Gore, Greta, etc. can make all the pie in the sky goals , complaints, whining how their lives ruined and childhoods have been lost, and doomsday predictions they want. The market will win in the end.
Click to expand...

The market is the reason we don't use renewable energy. Literally everything would still run on oil and gas if governments and the climate change lobby didn't make all of the progress we have made so far.
 
anonymoose said:
Go back to living in caves. Adapt in other words.
But I have no problem w/ govt. funding research for renewable energy, in fact I encourage it. I encourage a reasonable transition to renewable energy.
Besides the market will win out in the foreseeable future anyway. The IPCC, Paris accords, Al Gore, Greta, etc. can make all the pie in the sky goals , complaints, whining how their lives ruined and childhoods have been lost, and doomsday predictions they want. The market will win in the end.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't necessarily understand the urgency of the situation and how market forces, while often quite effective at solving problems, don't work on short time scales like this. That's why we needed gov't mandates and funding to build that atomic bomb, electrify much of the Rural US, Montreal Protocols and acid-raid issues. All of those things were fixed through government mandates and funding and did NOT rely solely on the free market to fix the problem.

We are running out of time now mainly because so many denialists spent so many decades keeping us from dealing with the actual science. Now we are without a lot of additional time and we have run out the clock on the "free market fixes".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top