Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 4/16/2016 6:07:12 PM EDT
I am taking a college class on Energy Choices for the 21st Century. Here are 3 "facts" that were presented in class by a guest speaker:

1. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere
2. Concentration is increasing due to human activity
3. Earth is 1 degree warmer over the last century

The professor keeps blaming republicans for all the problems in the world and saying that most of them deny climate change.

So here is the question--is climate change an issue? Why or why not?

According to the speaker, melting ice could displace millions of people (if the ocean rises just 1.5 meters). Increasing temperature would change ecosystem. Higher temperatures are to blame for the rise in pine beetles killing tons of trees in Montana. Etc.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:08:52 PM EDT
And you were expecting what, exactly, when you signed up for this course?

Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:10:37 PM EDT
I don't know, but I can find fossilized shells and shark teeth in my area and we're 90 miles from the coast. I'd say it was warmer a few years before humans got here.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:11:18 PM EDT
Why the hell would you take a shitty class like that?
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:11:20 PM EDT
What is he personally doing to fight global warming.  If it is such a problem he should be biking every day and removing the A/C and furnace from his home.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:11:40 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
And you were expecting what, exactly, when you signed up for this course.

View Quote


To knock out a GenEd requirement. This class seemed to be one of the least painful on the list.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:13:53 PM EDT
Well, they use to call it "global warming". Then they were caught red-handed lying about the data, so they changed it to "climate change".  It may be getting warmer, it may be getting colder.  No matter what though, any change is the fault of the Republicans and the only solution is wealth redistribution.  
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:14:33 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Ask him to explain why temps were much higher in the Jurassic period but yet co2 was lower.  What is he personally doing to fight global warming.  If it is such a problem he should be biking every day and removing the A/C and furnace from his home.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Ask him to explain why temps were much higher in the Jurassic period but yet co2 was lower.  What is he personally doing to fight global warming.  If it is such a problem he should be biking every day and removing the A/C and furnace from his home.


He just bought a Prius. Problem solved!

This is how it was explained: Plants take in CO2 and produce oxygen. All that CO2 was then trapped underground in the form of coal and oil. When we burn it, we release that CO2 back into the environment.



Quoted:
I don't know, but I can find fossilized shells and shark teeth in my area and we're 90 miles from the coast. I'd say it was warmer a few years before humans got here.


Well, if the ocean went back to those levels there would be big problems. If anything, that supports Obama's claim that climate change is the biggest threat to the world.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:15:01 PM EDT
Apparently your guest speaker has no grasp of facts.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:15:32 PM EDT
I don't deny that the climate may well be changing. The climate has and always will change.

I do deny that mankind is solely responsible for it and that we need to act NOWNOWNOWOMGNOW WE ALL GONNA DIEEEEE the way they want us to.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:16:04 PM EDT
CO2 is necessary for life, yet the lefties treat it as if it were poison.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:16:44 PM EDT
Climate is always changing, and has since the earth was formed and will continue to change until the sun goes nova.



Man does not contribute a significant amount of CO2, compared to the earths natural processes.



C02 is a small contributor to the green house effect.



The Green house effect is only one of many climate influencers. If anything it stabilizes temperatures.



Climate is a mixture of different cycles from different causes that sometimes combine or subtract their effects.



Looking at a historical view, we are still working our way out of the last mini ice age, the planet should be warming up a bit.



There has been no warming over the past 20 years or so.



Warming is good. Longer growing seasons, more food.



Historically, the "Dark Ages" was a cooling period marked by long cold dark winters, which reduced the growing cycles in the northern areas (ie. Scandinavia), which is why the Vikings headed south to find food.



The Renaissance marked the end of the cooling period, suddenly there was more food available....





So, Climate Change is real and natural.



Man's influence on Climate is not an issue.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:16:54 PM EDT
The earth is old and dynamic been changing for a long time, always has.

Been warmer been cooler
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:17:08 PM EDT
Let's see...it involves politicians, scientists working on government funded grants, and clean energy Obama contributors.

Yeah...it's bullshit...all of it.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:17:22 PM EDT
Was there a very cold period between 1300 and 1850?

Should we expect the earth to warm up after that period, or is it only a result man?
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:17:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:18:46 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


He just bought a Prius. Problem solved!

This is how it was explained: Plants take in CO2 and produce oxygen. All that CO2 was then trapped underground in the form of coal and oil. When we burn it, we release that CO2 back into the environment.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ask him to explain why temps were much higher in the Jurassic period but yet co2 was lower.  What is he personally doing to fight global warming.  If it is such a problem he should be biking every day and removing the A/C and furnace from his home.


He just bought a Prius. Problem solved!

This is how it was explained: Plants take in CO2 and produce oxygen. All that CO2 was then trapped underground in the form of coal and oil. When we burn it, we release that CO2 back into the environment.


More or less, yes.  Except the coal is a hydrocarbon chain, not CO2.  When it oxidizes they main products are H2O and CO2.  H2O is a condensable, and fairly stable in the atmosphere at current temperatures; CO2 is not, and can accumulate.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:20:04 PM EDT
No. It's junk science fueled by a political agenda. For an example, look up the video of Ted Cruz dismantling the president of the Sierra Club in a Senate hearing. It's fantastic.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:22:24 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Sure.

Is it real?
Probably.

Is it something man caused and/or can mitigate?
Probably not.

Should it shape fiscal policy and inhibit industrial growth?
Hell no.

Did I miss anything?
View Quote


So should we keep burning coal as fast as possible because it's cheaper than solar and wind? Should we even worry about "clean coal" upgrades? Serious question. What about CAFE standards on cars?
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:22:28 PM EDT
A couple of questions I'd ask:

What is the ideal temperature of the earth?
and

The glaciers retreated about 10,000 years ago, Well before the industrial age. What melted them?

I'd recommend the book "unstoppable global warming: every 1500 years", which debunks the "scientific" studies pushed by the alarmists, and looks at the facts over a longer period of time, from the historical, archeological, and geological record.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:22:33 PM EDT
Temperature changes on Earth are heavily influenced by the sun (kind of like how the relationship between the Earth and the sun gives us night and day, summer and winter).



That's why we can detect Venus going through similar temperature changes as Earth.  There are no evil SUVs or factories on Venus.



Pollution is real and habitat, air quality, water quality all matter.  Respect for the environment is valid.



APG is a politically motivated bunch of bullshit.



By the way, receding ice has revealed entire forests worth of tree stumps.  Huh...must have been a forest there once upon a time.  It must have been warmer back then...before SUVs and factories.


Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:22:39 PM EDT
If it's real, I find it funny that none of the "solutions" they advocate stand much of a chance of fixing it. You sure aren't going to reduce global CO2 emissions meaningfully by having a few upper-class westerners buy Priuses that are maybe 30% more efficient than their old car, and of course sell their used cars to other people who will keep driving them.

Assuming that it's all real, IMHO the only solution that stands a chance of really helping is to go all-in on nuclear fission power. I'm talking like get moving on building dozens of new plants like yesterday. There's nothing else that is ready to scale up to hundreds of gigawatts of power production without massively disrupting something else in the environment.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:26:20 PM EDT
The composition of the atmosphere is changing.

The Temperature on earth's surface changes over time.

Some scientists link those two together. However, their models don't ever work.

Some politicians want to use those models to propose policies that give them more control of the economy. Those policies do not, however, make any significant change in what the models (that don't work) predict.

That's basically Global warming in a nutshell.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:26:48 PM EDT
We have about 180 years of temperature data on a planet that is millions of years old.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:27:47 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I don't deny that the climate may well be changing. The climate has and always will change.

I do deny that mankind is solely responsible for it and that we need to act NOWNOWNOWOMGNOW WE ALL GONNA DIEEEEE the way they want us to.
View Quote


I think the big issue, according to "them" is not the next 5-10 years, but 100-300 years. When we talked about what to do with radioactive waste one guest speaker said one big problem is making signs that can still be read and understood in 1,000 years because some waste will last for a really long time (half-life and all that). If civilization collapses, they don't want some Fallout 3 lone survivor stumbling into a disposal site and dying from radiation. Super dumb argument IMO but whatever.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:27:57 PM EDT
Quoted:
The professor keeps blaming republicans for all the problems in the world and saying that most of them deny climate change.
View Quote

All those billions of evil Republicans in China and India, no doubt.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:29:36 PM EDT
The "science" of AGW is driven by pursuit of federal grant $s. The more the recipient crows about AGW, the more federal grant $s he gets.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:31:35 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

So should we keep burning coal as fast as possible because it's cheaper than solar and wind? Should we even worry about "clean coal" upgrades? Serious question. What about CAFE standards on cars?
View Quote


'Clean Coal' is pretty much dead by current regulations; you can't build a new coal plant, and upgrading even the newest old ones is uneconomical. Coal does have other bad emissions that need to be controlled.

CAFE is a complete pile of BS. Cars don't contribute meaningfully to our emissions; you could take every single one off the road and it would barely change the sum-total number. Same with Electric cars.

Ask him about Nuclear power. If he's really worried about atmospheric emissions, he should love Nuclear. Hint: He won't; and he'll tell you all sorts of horror stories about it, which a little research will likely prove false.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:33:31 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I think the big issue, according to "them" is not the next 5-10 years, but 100-300 years. When we talked about what to do with radioactive waste one guest speaker said one big problem is making signs that can still be read and understood in 1,000 years because some waste will last for a really long time (half-life and all that). If civilization collapses, they don't want some Fallout 3 lone survivor stumbling into a disposal site and dying from radiation. Super dumb argument IMO but whatever.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't deny that the climate may well be changing. The climate has and always will change.

I do deny that mankind is solely responsible for it and that we need to act NOWNOWNOWOMGNOW WE ALL GONNA DIEEEEE the way they want us to.


I think the big issue, according to "them" is not the next 5-10 years, but 100-300 years. When we talked about what to do with radioactive waste one guest speaker said one big problem is making signs that can still be read and understood in 1,000 years because some waste will last for a really long time (half-life and all that). If civilization collapses, they don't want some Fallout 3 lone survivor stumbling into a disposal site and dying from radiation. Super dumb argument IMO but whatever.


To mitigate that, you'd bury it deeply underground, preferably in a geologically stable mountain.

But they don't want to do that.

Or you'd recycle the waste, which can be turned into new fuel.

But that's a no-go, also.

Keep in mind... 'solving' this would actually reduce the politicians power. And we can't have that.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:34:01 PM EDT
87% say NO
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:34:24 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Let's see...it involves politicians, scientists working on government funded grants, and clean energy Obama contributors.

Yeah...it's bullshit...all of it.
View Quote




https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:34:54 PM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
'Clean Coal' is pretty much dead by current regulations; you can't build a new coal plant, and upgrading even the newest old ones is uneconomical. Coal does have other bad emissions that need to be controlled.



CAFE is a complete pile of BS. Cars don't contribute meaningfully to our emissions; you could take every single one off the road and it would barely change the sum-total number. Same with Electric cars.



Ask him about Nuclear power. If he's really worried about atmospheric emissions, he should love Nuclear. Hint: He won't; and he'll tell you all sorts of horror stories about it, which a little research will likely prove false.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:



So should we keep burning coal as fast as possible because it's cheaper than solar and wind? Should we even worry about "clean coal" upgrades? Serious question. What about CAFE standards on cars?




'Clean Coal' is pretty much dead by current regulations; you can't build a new coal plant, and upgrading even the newest old ones is uneconomical. Coal does have other bad emissions that need to be controlled.



CAFE is a complete pile of BS. Cars don't contribute meaningfully to our emissions; you could take every single one off the road and it would barely change the sum-total number. Same with Electric cars.



Ask him about Nuclear power. If he's really worried about atmospheric emissions, he should love Nuclear. Hint: He won't; and he'll tell you all sorts of horror stories about it, which a little research will likely prove false.


Peabody Bankruptcy Offers Stark Warning To Oil And Gas Groups Of Risks Of Ignoring Climate Change

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2016/04/14/peabody-bankruptcy-offers-stark-warning-to-oil-and-gas-groups-of-risks-of-ignoring-climate-change/#671fcfa06d50



"The announcement that Peabody, the world’s largest private sector coal
miner, has filed for bankruptcy has sent shockwaves through the fossil
fuel industry and it acts as a warning to oil and gas companies – and
their investors – about how quickly things can change."



"Peabody is the 50th coal company to file for bankruptcy since 2012 and a
startling example of the industry’s failure to anticipate how future
markets might be limited by tighter environmental regulations."...[more]
 
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:35:00 PM EDT
Complete and utter Liberal Bullshit not backed up by verifiable and peer reviewed science.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:35:34 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I think the big issue, according to "them" is not the next 5-10 years, but 100-300 years. When we talked about what to do with radioactive waste one guest speaker said one big problem is making signs that can still be read and understood in 1,000 years because some waste will last for a really long time (half-life and all that). If civilization collapses, they don't want some Fallout 3 lone survivor stumbling into a disposal site and dying from radiation. Super dumb argument IMO but whatever.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't deny that the climate may well be changing. The climate has and always will change.

I do deny that mankind is solely responsible for it and that we need to act NOWNOWNOWOMGNOW WE ALL GONNA DIEEEEE the way they want us to.


I think the big issue, according to "them" is not the next 5-10 years, but 100-300 years. When we talked about what to do with radioactive waste one guest speaker said one big problem is making signs that can still be read and understood in 1,000 years because some waste will last for a really long time (half-life and all that). If civilization collapses, they don't want some Fallout 3 lone survivor stumbling into a disposal site and dying from radiation. Super dumb argument IMO but whatever.

It's an exponential decay.  A 300 year time period allows almost all of the cesium, strontium, etc, to decay to insignificant levels, and those are the most biologically troublesome wastes we have today.  On the 1000 year scale, that's where the plutoniums and lower weight uraniums become problematic, because they have longer half lives, but having longer have lives, they don't have the same activity of the shorter lived cesium, etc.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:35:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:36:00 PM EDT



Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:



Let's see...it involves politicians, scientists working on government funded grants, and clean energy Obama contributors.
Yeah...it's bullshit...all of it.

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/models-observed-human-natural-large.jpg
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html




What happened on Venus during that period?
What caused the ice ages and warm periods between without human effects?






Is that graph based on the falsified data everyone now knows about?


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

"A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented "global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records."
 
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:36:47 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


To knock out a GenEd requirement. This class seemed to be one of the least painful on the list.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
And you were expecting what, exactly, when you signed up for this course.



To knock out a GenEd requirement. This class seemed to be one of the least painful on the list.

Damn.  What happened to history, literature, foreign language  ?  Those should be Gen Ed choices as well
You chose poorly
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:36:57 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


'Clean Coal' is pretty much dead by current regulations; you can't build a new coal plant, and upgrading even the newest old ones is uneconomical. Coal does have other bad emissions that need to be controlled.

CAFE is a complete pile of BS. Cars don't contribute meaningfully to our emissions; you could take every single one off the road and it would barely change the sum-total number. Same with Electric cars.

Ask him about Nuclear power. If he's really worried about atmospheric emissions, he should love Nuclear. Hint: He won't; and he'll tell you all sorts of horror stories about it, which a little research will likely prove false.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

So should we keep burning coal as fast as possible because it's cheaper than solar and wind? Should we even worry about "clean coal" upgrades? Serious question. What about CAFE standards on cars?


'Clean Coal' is pretty much dead by current regulations; you can't build a new coal plant, and upgrading even the newest old ones is uneconomical. Coal does have other bad emissions that need to be controlled.

CAFE is a complete pile of BS. Cars don't contribute meaningfully to our emissions; you could take every single one off the road and it would barely change the sum-total number. Same with Electric cars.

Ask him about Nuclear power. If he's really worried about atmospheric emissions, he should love Nuclear. Hint: He won't; and he'll tell you all sorts of horror stories about it, which a little research will likely prove false.


I agree with you on clean coal. Waste of money.

Disagree on CAFE. I'll try to find the graphs.

Actually, he loves nuclear. He is always mentioning thorium reactors but he is okay with the current ones as well.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:39:15 PM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I agree with you on clean coal. Waste of money.



Disagree on CAFE. I'll try to find the graphs.



Actually, he loves nuclear. He is always mentioning thorium reactors but he is okay with the current ones as well.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:



So should we keep burning coal as fast as possible because it's cheaper than solar and wind? Should we even worry about "clean coal" upgrades? Serious question. What about CAFE standards on cars?




'Clean Coal' is pretty much dead by current regulations; you can't build a new coal plant, and upgrading even the newest old ones is uneconomical. Coal does have other bad emissions that need to be controlled.



CAFE is a complete pile of BS. Cars don't contribute meaningfully to our emissions; you could take every single one off the road and it would barely change the sum-total number. Same with Electric cars.



Ask him about Nuclear power. If he's really worried about atmospheric emissions, he should love Nuclear. Hint: He won't; and he'll tell you all sorts of horror stories about it, which a little research will likely prove false.




I agree with you on clean coal. Waste of money.



Disagree on CAFE. I'll try to find the graphs.



Actually, he loves nuclear. He is always mentioning thorium reactors but he is okay with the current ones as well.


Has he ever worked outside an academic institution? (excluding jobs as a kid to pay his way through school assuming his parents didn't take care of that).
 
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:40:06 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


[url=https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/models-observed-human-natural-large.jpg]https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/models-observed-human-natural-large.jpg[/url]

[url=https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html]https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html[/url]
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see...it involves politicians, scientists working on government funded grants, and clean energy Obama contributors.

Yeah...it's bullshit...all of it.


[url=https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/models-observed-human-natural-large.jpg]https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/models-observed-human-natural-large.jpg[/url]

[url=https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html]https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html[/url]

LoL

Your .GOV links made his case
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:40:28 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
CO2 is necessary for life, yet the lefties treat it as if it were poison.
View Quote

I can't wait until we're all forced to wear CO2 breath filters at all times.  

I'm finally gonna look like the badass I know I am.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:41:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Yes.
Yes.
Third question, little more complicated:
What about them? Should consumers have a say, or not? Should it result in autos the consumers don't want or cannot afford?

I think we should all TRY to live/work/play "clean" because it's a good idea.
Not be forced by our government (and hypocritical others abroad) by penalty of law based on questionable science.

That cannot be questioned.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sure.

Is it real?
Probably.

Is it something man caused and/or can mitigate?
Probably not.

Should it shape fiscal policy and inhibit industrial growth?
Hell no.

Did I miss anything?


So should we keep burning coal as fast as possible because it's cheaper than solar and wind? Should we even worry about "clean coal" upgrades? Serious question. What about CAFE standards on cars?

Yes.
Yes.
Third question, little more complicated:
What about them? Should consumers have a say, or not? Should it result in autos the consumers don't want or cannot afford?

I think we should all TRY to live/work/play "clean" because it's a good idea.
Not be forced by our government (and hypocritical others abroad) by penalty of law based on questionable science.

That cannot be questioned.


That's my view. I do not like the government regulated monopoly (power company) spending huge sums of money to buy politicians and fight solar though.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:43:05 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Damn.  What happened to history, literature, foreign language  ?  Those should be Gen Ed choices as well
You chose poorly
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And you were expecting what, exactly, when you signed up for this course.



To knock out a GenEd requirement. This class seemed to be one of the least painful on the list.

Damn.  What happened to history, literature, foreign language  ?  Those should be Gen Ed choices as well
You chose poorly



Learn American or move back to Mexico. Most of the literature / history classes were about minorities, feminism, or homosexuals. Aaaand climate change it is!
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:43:59 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I don't know, but I can find fossilized shells and shark teeth in my area and we're 90 miles from the coast. I'd say it was warmer a few years before humans got here.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I don't know, but I can find fossilized shells and shark teeth in my area and we're 90 miles from the coast. I'd say it was warmer a few years before humans got here.

Quoted:
We have about 180 years of temperature data on a planet that is millions of years old.

These.  It was those eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil SUV-driving Republicans that were to blame 100,000 years ago too, weren't they?
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:44:21 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Has he ever worked outside an academic institution? (excluding jobs as a kid to pay his way through school assuming his parents didn't take care of that).


 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

So should we keep burning coal as fast as possible because it's cheaper than solar and wind? Should we even worry about "clean coal" upgrades? Serious question. What about CAFE standards on cars?


'Clean Coal' is pretty much dead by current regulations; you can't build a new coal plant, and upgrading even the newest old ones is uneconomical. Coal does have other bad emissions that need to be controlled.

CAFE is a complete pile of BS. Cars don't contribute meaningfully to our emissions; you could take every single one off the road and it would barely change the sum-total number. Same with Electric cars.

Ask him about Nuclear power. If he's really worried about atmospheric emissions, he should love Nuclear. Hint: He won't; and he'll tell you all sorts of horror stories about it, which a little research will likely prove false.


I agree with you on clean coal. Waste of money.

Disagree on CAFE. I'll try to find the graphs.

Actually, he loves nuclear. He is always mentioning thorium reactors but he is okay with the current ones as well.

Has he ever worked outside an academic institution? (excluding jobs as a kid to pay his way through school assuming his parents didn't take care of that).


 


He started out as a petroleum engineer or something like that in the 80's. I think he currently does real estate and teaches on the side.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:46:25 PM EDT
Enviromental Science major chiming in. Also worked in the field and ran a consulting business for years. Went to school in the mid 80's. Never once, do I remember a lecture, paper or anything on "climate change". Not once mentioned in any of my textbooks either.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:46:30 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Learn American or move back to Mexico. Most of the literature / history classes were about minorities, feminism, or homosexuals. Aaaand climate change it is!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And you were expecting what, exactly, when you signed up for this course.



To knock out a GenEd requirement. This class seemed to be one of the least painful on the list.

Damn.  What happened to history, literature, foreign language  ?  Those should be Gen Ed choices as well
You chose poorly



Learn American or move back to Mexico. Most of the literature / history classes were about minorities, feminism, or homosexuals. Aaaand climate change it is!

Really ?  I think you chose the easiest thing you could find.  Or you go to a shitty college.
I took extra British lit   extra chemistry and extra history ( American and Alabama and history research) and a bunch more outside of my major
What's your major ?
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:46:37 PM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I don't know, but I can find fossilized shells and shark teeth in my area and we're 90 miles from the coast. I'd say it was warmer a few years before humans got here.
View Quote


There are seashells in Colorado.  Earth changes.





 
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:47:27 PM EDT
400ppm equals 1/2500th of the atmosphere.  Think about that.






Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:49:38 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

LoL

Your .GOV links made his case
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see...it involves politicians, scientists working on government funded grants, and clean energy Obama contributors.

Yeah...it's bullshit...all of it.


https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/models-observed-human-natural-large.jpg

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

LoL

Your .GOV links made his case


Oops. Let me find an ARFCOMMER who funded his own research to present the real, unbiased data. And I guess you missed the citations on the EPA site I linked... Just because the EPA posted the graph doesn't mean they did all the research.
Link Posted: 4/16/2016 6:51:45 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Oops. Let me find an ARFCOMMER who funded his own research to present the real, unbiased data. And I guess you missed the citations on the EPA site I linked... Just because the EPA posted the graph doesn't mean they did all the research.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see...it involves politicians, scientists working on government funded grants, and clean energy Obama contributors.

Yeah...it's bullshit...all of it.


https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/models-observed-human-natural-large.jpg

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

LoL

Your .GOV links made his case


Oops. Let me find an ARFCOMMER who funded his own research to present the real, unbiased data. And I guess you missed the citations on the EPA site I linked... Just because the EPA posted the graph doesn't mean they did all the research.

You mean this linhttps://www3.epa.<span style='color: red;'>gov</span>/climatechange/basics/facts.htmlk? "about:blank"
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. Please contact the system administrator.

If you are the system administrator please click here to find out more about this error.