Carbon dioxide hysteria (Page 158/170)
82-T/A [At Work] MAR 06, 01:29 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

We are literally comparing 140 years of collected data (which is fraught with inaccuracies... AT best), to 3.5 billion years of uncollected Earth temperature data... and we're expected to believe this is actually usable data? Mathematically, we literally only have 0.00000004% of the data.

There is literally no other situation, either technical or scientific, in which these kinds of numbers could be used to justify literally anything. It's so incredibly outside the margin of error as to be feloniously hilarious.

It would be like if you were doing cyber security, and you were collecting PCAP for only 1 second, and then expected to use that as a security baseline for a 100k host network that had been operating for 100s of years. I just... I can't take it seriously.
rinselberg MAR 06, 01:48 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

We are literally comparing 140 years of collected data (which is fraught with inaccuracies... AT best), to 3.5 billion years of uncollected Earth temperature data... and we're expected to believe this is actually usable data? Mathematically, we literally only have 0.00000004% of the data.

There is literally no other situation, either technical or scientific, in which these kinds of numbers could be used to justify literally anything. It's so incredibly outside the margin of error as to be feloniously hilarious.

It would be like if you were doing cyber security, and you were collecting PCAP for only 1 second, and then expected to use that as a security baseline for a 100k host network that had been operating for 100s of years. I just... I can't take it seriously.


You couldn't be more wrong.

You don't understand the issue.

It's not about what the climate could be like even just 1,000 years from now. That's way behind what humans can plan for.

It's about what the climate could be like just 200 years from now, and even more concerning, what the climate could be like in the years immediately ahead, and forward to year 2100.

That's why most of the Earth's 3.5 billion year history is irrelevant. Because too many other things about the planet were radically different when you go that far back, from the major chemical proportions of the atmosphere, to the way that the continents and oceans were arranged around the globe. And way more than just that. You'd be comparing Apples and Oranges.

I've actually posted to this issue before, and not all that long ago. I may be able to find what I posted.

We have—as you say—about 140 years of systematic record keeping of temperatures, but we also have tree rings, historical accounts of the weather itself and of other events, and archaeologic evidence which is revealing about the climate and about sea levels going back about 10,000 years, and we can go even farther back with the chemical analysis of air bubbles trapped in ice sheets, chemical analysis of marine sediments and fossil evidence... "paleoclimatology."

We have a longer history of the Earth's climate than you seem to realize.

This would be a great read for anyone who is suffering from "82-T/A" syndrome when it comes to understanding climate science:

"Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide"
Rebecca Lindsey for Climate(.gov); May 12, 2023.
https://www.climate.gov/new...heric-carbon-dioxide

If you scroll past the first two data plots and find the third data plot, you see this:

quote
CARBON DIOXIDE OVER 800,000 YEARS


That's about the limit of how much of the Earth's history is relevant to understanding anthropogenic global warming... only the most recent 800,000 years.

Anything more distant than 800,000 years ago is (mostly) "Apples and Oranges."

I found what I had posted not that long ago as part of this same discussion... about the S-Curve or Sigmoid Curve:
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/...ML/128340-2.html#p43

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-07-2024).]

ray b MAR 06, 03:13 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Tell us rinselberg, why does your ilk have such a hard time convincing the logical 93% into believing your dogma ?


Eggzactly.



THE CULT does not like to spend money to reduce pollution

when the EPA first started the car corp had bad ideas that made the power go away
seen a hellcat today no problem with 700 real hp and pass the tests

it can be done
you just are CHEAP AND IMPATIENT
82-T/A [At Work] MAR 06, 04:03 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

THE CULT does not like to spend money to reduce pollution





When I moved to Florida, the Democrats ran the state. It was as solid blue as California is today. The Everglades were a **** -hole... every farm was dumping tons and tons and tons of chemicals into the rivers, Everglades and Lake Okeechobee. It was a disaster. Only after the Republicans came in did we start passing laws to eliminate many (if not most) of the chemical run-off that was allowed during the prior decades of Democrat rule.

The Everglades, and the Florida waterways are now heavily protected, and pristine compared to how they were under Democrats.
olejoedad MAR 06, 05:18 PM
And Conservatives passed the bill that created the EPA.

It was a beneficial organization until the progressive crazies took it over.....and I speak from 35 years experience in dealing with them.
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, NPDES.......
rinselberg MAR 06, 05:33 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
When I moved to Florida, the Democrats ran the state. It was as solid blue as California is today. The Everglades were a **** -hole... every farm was dumping tons and tons and tons of chemicals into the rivers, Everglades and Lake Okeechobee. It was a disaster. Only after the Republicans came in did we start passing laws to eliminate many (if not most) of the chemical run-off that was allowed during the prior decades of Democrat rule.

The Everglades, and the Florida waterways are now heavily protected, and pristine compared to how they were under Democrats.


You can't just look at Florida and disregard what happened in other states, and you can't just sweep away the relevance of time. Was it really a transition from Democrats to Republicans in Florida that brought about the reduction in damage to the Everglades from agricultural runoff? Or was it more the case that this was an issue that slowly gained support from Democrats, Republicans and independents alike, until the apathy and the vested agricultural interests were going to be overcome, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans had the upper hand in Florida government and politics?

Anthropogenic global warming is threatening the Everglades now—not with agricultural runoff—but the Everglades are being adversely impacted by higher air temperatures and the generally warmer climate regime, and very specifically, more saltwater intrusion resulting from higher sea levels, and also Everglades-bashing hurricanes that are being "supercharged" by unprecedented heat energy in ocean waters. These are not "your father's" hurricanes—and human-attributable greenhouse gas emissions are the culprit.

As a matter of fact, there is now interest in creating a new "Category Six" to keep up with the increasing strength of hurricanes.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-07-2024).]

ray b MAR 06, 05:38 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
When I moved to Florida, the Democrats ran the state. It was as solid blue as California is today. The Everglades were a **** -hole... every farm was dumping tons and tons and tons of chemicals into the rivers, Everglades and Lake Okeechobee. It was a disaster. Only after the Republicans came in did we start passing laws to eliminate many (if not most) of the chemical run-off that was allowed during the prior decades of Democrat rule.

The Everglades, and the Florida waterways are now heavily protected, and pristine compared to how they were under Democrats.



BIG SUGAR SUPPORTS RHONDA the Gop and the rump

they sfwmd just did a end of the dry season FLUSH
EVERYBODY IS COMPLAINING IT STINKS chemicals and dead birds
SAME AS IT EVERY WAS WHEN THEY OPEN THE GATES [flood control]
EXCEPT Gop CONNECTED GOT RICH rigging the system
GLADES IS DOOMED BY G W anyway

you ever go out ?
see real life ?
or 100% fox news BS repeated ?
ray b MAR 06, 06:08 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

And Conservatives passed the bill that created the EPA.

It was a beneficial organization until the progressive crazies took it over.....and I speak from 35 years experience in dealing with them.
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, NPDES.......



crazy's yes rayguns boys spent their time chasing mom and pop shops who could not afford to fight them
seldom went near the big boys who could would and did fight back

local boat shop was harassed about oil use on drill bits Gop EPA IN ACTION
never mind the gov airports jet fuel leaks in huge amounts for years was the real source
rinselberg MAR 06, 06:30 PM
It's FACT CHECK time... was it "conservatives" that deserve the lion's share of the credit for creating the EPA?


quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

And Conservatives passed the bill that created the EPA.

It was a beneficial organization until the progressive crazies took it over... and I speak from 35 years experience in dealing with them. Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, NPDES.......


That's only part of the story.



quote
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is a sweeping federal law often called the Magna Carta of the nation's environmental laws. The act was the brainchild of Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson (1912-1983), who conceived of the bill in 1968 and shepherded it through his Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and then through the full Senate in 1969. It was passed without significant opposition in the Senate on December 20, 1969, and the House on December 22, 1969, and was signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994) on January 1, 1970,


"NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act"
Jim Kershner for HistoryLink(.org); August 27, 2011.
https://www.historylink.org/File/9903


How about "Scoop" Jackson?

quote
This year [2012] marks the centennial of the birth of Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson, one of the towering figures of American politics in the latter half of the 20th century and the avatar of neoconservatism. A Democrat representing the state of Washington in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until his sudden death in 1983, he deserves to be recalled not only because he merits honor but also because little of today’s politics would be comprehensible without understanding his 30 years in office.


quote
Scoop was the epitome of the liberalism of his day. The two cardinal programmatic ideas of that philosophy were devotion to the “common man” and the conviction that government had nigh limitless power to make people’s lives better.


"Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson at One Hundred"
Joshua Muravchik for Commentary; July/August 2012.
https://www.commentary.org/...kson-at-one-hundred/


Back to the article from Jim Kershner at HistoryLInk:

quote
When Nixon signed the bill into law...[t]he New York Times headline read, "Nixon Promises an Urgent Fight to End Pollution" (The New York Times). Whether Nixon grasped the true implications of NEPA are unclear, but it was obvious that he used the bill to advertise his own concern for the environment.


So to say without further elaboration that "Conservatives passed the bill that created the EPA" is not very meaningful, in light of the actual history—it was more than just "conservatives."

FACT CHECK result... "Misleading statement about conservatives and the EPA."

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-06-2024).]

williegoat MAR 06, 08:56 PM
OK, now this is getting personal! I am almost out of olive oil and suddenly it has gone up by 40% in just over a month. They are blaming climate change, but I know it's Biden's doin'. Ain't funny no more. Cut it out, guldernit!