Originally posted by dratts: Just received an email with a few facts that I was unaware of. Clean energy economy is increasing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. Clean energy creates three times as many jobs as fossil fuel.
Fuels like solar and wind also require zero fuel to transport it. Think about the fuel used in mining, refining, and transporting coal and oil.
quote
Originally posted by dratts: If you have a heart condition and 95 out of 100 doctors recommend a certain treatment are you going to go with the 5 doctors who have a different view? I know that we can't make an instant conversion to clean energy, but the more we delay, the worse it will get. I prefer clean energy to dirty energy. What a nut huh?
Ocean acidification amplifies global warming Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M), Dr. Katharina Six, Dr. Silvia Kloster, Dr. Tatiana Ilyina, the late Dr. Ernst Maier-Reimer and two co-authors from the US, demonstrate that ocean acidification may amplify global warming through the biogenic production of the marine sulfur component dimethylsulphide (DMS).
More lies, distortions and alarmism from flyinfieros.
New paper shows ocean ‘acidification’ was naturally about the same during the last interglacial period as today – Published in Quaternary Science Reviews http://www.climatedepot.com...ary-science-reviews/
Fuels like solar and wind also require zero fuel to transport it. Think about the fuel used in mining, refining, and transporting coal and oil.
...oh really? And what about the fuel used to build the solar cells and wind turbines or the fuel used to also transport these items to their destination?
Originally posted by fierobear: More lies, distortions and alarmism from flyinfieros.
Actually none of this is coming from "me" - this is coming from qualified individuals in the sicentific community. Unlike yours who are obviously politically biased.
Tim Ball is a speaker for the Heartland Institute, a radical lobbyist organization.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: New paper shows ocean ‘acidification’ was naturally about the same during the last interglacial period as today – Published in Quaternary Science Reviews ]http://www.climatedepot.co...nce-reviews/
Climate Depot has already been discredited. The guy who owns the website has a political science degree and clearly has an agenda.
Furthermore, Climate Depot grossly takes the studies conclusions out of context. From the actual study: "Results also demonstrate that oceanic pH levels that were less acidic and changing less rapidly than those predicted for the 21st Century, negatively affected pteropods during the Late Pleistocene."
Further proof Climate Depot is not a reliable source. You only use them out of desperation.
Where's the actual study? Climate Depot has been completely discredited. There's no way you can just take their word for it.
Study published in Nature clearly states ocean acidification will impact ecosystems there: The variety of responses within and between taxa, together with observations in mesocosms and palaeo-analogues, suggest that ocean acidification is a driver for substantial change in ocean ecosystems this century, potentially leading to long-term shifts in species composition.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...oh really? And what about the fuel used to build the solar cells and wind turbines or the fuel used to also transport these items to their destination?
Obviously it has to be setup and running. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-08-2013).]
New paper shows ocean ‘acidification’ was naturally about the same during the last interglacial period as today – Published in Quaternary Science Reviews http://www.climatedepot.com...ary-science-reviews/
From the last line of the paper's abstract:
"This study confirms the findings of laboratory studies, showing enhanced shell dissolution and reduced calcification in living pteropods when surface ocean carbonate concentrations were lower. Results also demonstrate that oceanic pH levels that were less acidic and changing less rapidly than those predicted for the 21st Century, negatively affected pteropods during the Late Pleistocene.
Translation: We know that the lower pH levels of the ocean found in the Late Pleistocene harmed pteropods, and the ocean pH levels today are both more acidic and more rapidly changing.
Am I interpreting that correctly? It seems to conclude the opposite that you say it does.
EDIT: FlyinFieros beat me to it.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 11-08-2013).]
Yawn..? It's hard to figure out what point you are trying to get across.
No one said that the various climates and ecologies that together comprise the biosphere are not ever going to change significantly from the conditions that modern humans have become accustomed to.
MMGW is making the changes far more imminent--and far more rapid--than it otherwise would have happened.
There are implications of MMGW for people that are already alive--and their immediate descendants and their grandchildren.
I don't claim that I (personally) am doing anything much about it, but I try to respect the most accurate science and "diss" the misleading science.
"This study confirms the findings of laboratory studies, showing enhanced shell dissolution and reduced calcification in living pteropods when surface ocean carbonate concentrations were lower. Results also demonstrate that oceanic pH levels that were less acidic and changing less rapidly than those predicted for the 21st Century, negatively affected pteropods during the Late Pleistocene.
Translation: We know that the lower pH levels of the ocean found in the Late Pleistocene harmed pteropods, and the ocean pH levels today are both more acidic and more rapidly changing.
Am I interpreting that correctly? It seems to conclude the opposite that you say it does.
EDIT: FlyinFieros beat me to it.
the bear seldom reads or understands the junk he posts much like agravateadoor he throws up crap and hopes nobody reads or understands it
I wonder why nobody in the NOWARMING camp will answer my question the sun is low output do to less sunspots NOW the NOWARMINGERS site THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOT GETTING HOTTER but none of them understand why we are not cooling NOW
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
It's the rate of warming that's alarming. If life cannot adapt to the rate of change it will die. We are already seeing this in coral reef systems where warm waters and CO2 making the oceans acidic is threatening entire ecosystems there. As a marine aquarium hobbyist you surely know the consequences of your tanks getting too hot and too acidic.
Compared to historical data, it would appear that we're in better shape than past periods. It also appears that the Earth actually prefers it warm to the low temps we have now. I dunno, you can argue semantics and technical jargon all day. But in the end, millions of years of history speaks for itself. I seriously doubt the workings of the universe are going to change just because we're suddenly inhabiting the planet and we don't like it too hot. Pretty sure the universe and the planet in general don't really think we're all that important. The planet is in a (comparatively) cold state right now, and it's gonna get hotter. And no amount of arguing or blame is about to change that. You can't stop it, period.
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 11-08-2013).]
And I'd rather be known as an 'arrogant prick' by [fierobear] than someone scared of debate by the entire forum.
That's just fierobear being his usual crude self. Bluster, insult, and intimidation are his favorite tactics when he paints himself into a corner or is confronted with evidence he can't reasonably refute. Me? I wear his insults as a badge of honor.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-08-2013).]
Obviously it has to be setup and running. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
'cherry picking'?? If you are going to consider something, consider the whole process since you were talking about mining/etc which is the start of the process, but I know it's so easy to over look the bad...
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Yawn..? It's hard to figure out what point you are trying to get across.
No one said that the various climates and ecologies that together comprise the biosphere are not ever going to change significantly from the conditions that modern humans have become accustomed to.
MMGW is making the changes far more imminent--and far more rapid--than it otherwise would have happened.
There are implications of MMGW for people that are already alive--and their immediate descendants and their grandchildren.
I don't claim that I (personally) am doing anything much about it, but I try to respect the most accurate science and "diss" the misleading science.
No one can stop you from yawning, though.
...the planet has been ice free in the past and much of the "land" was covered with water - point being nothing new...
...and I am sure there is proof (not speculation) that shows the heating of the planet of the earth's total past history has NOT increased at the "current rate" and is truly "unprecedented"?
I have posted before (and there is a chart posted above) that shows the earth's temperature far above what it is currently along with one showing CO2 levels far exceeding those that are now around. How/why did these higher temperature and CO2 rates exist before man if man is completely to blame?
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 11-08-2013).]
Originally posted by Taijiguy: Pretty sure the universe and the planet in general don't really think we're all that important.
But the planet is important to us. It's important to all life here. On a universal scale, life in the universe appears to be extremely rare. I cannot simply forgo the miracle that is our existence as insignificant simply because people do not wish to accept the reality that is anthropogenic global warming. It's incredibly short sighted to end his wonderful experiment we call life on Earth in as little as 500 years because people cannot put their selfish feelings aside.
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy: The planet is in a (comparatively) cold state right now, and it's gonna get hotter. And no amount of arguing or blame is about to change that. You can't stop it, period.
If the human race and the majority of life on the planet could progress for another 10,000, 20,000, 50,000 or 100,000 years- is that not something to hold on to? Imagine for a second what we've accomplished in the last 300 years. We've gone from cutting people open for them to 'bleed out the bad stuff' to heart transplants. We put men on the moon. We put a car sized robot on Mars. Imagine what existence will be like in 1,000 years.
I'm sorry but I cannot understand to your incredibly short sighted pessimistic views. This planet is a miracle. It deserves our protection.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: 'cherry picking'?? If you are going to consider something, consider the whole process since you were talking about mining/etc which is the start of the process, but I know it's so easy to over look the bad...
Try understanding what I actually said. Watch the video on top of page 75.
National Geographic has an interesting interactive map out - "If all the ice melted"
Of course your point is once again junk science. The exercise you quote has to do with estimating if all the ice on all the land melted, as well as Antarctica and the Arctic. No one is arguing this point
When summer comes to the Arctic or Antarctica and some of the ice melts, the oceans do not rise in response. This happens every year.
Your point is beside the issue once again. CO2 is natural, used by plants and plankton alike and is beneficial. It is not harmful in it's present concentration of 0.039 percent CO2 is not generating warming. The sun does that. And no, we cannot change the weather of the earth.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 11-08-2013).]
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Try understanding what I actually said. Watch the video on top of page 75.
no, what you are saying is that it is ok to rape the planet so as long as the end result is a product that is environmentally friendly? Not that long ago Germany came under fire for destroying a forest so they could set up a solar farm, how is this constructive?
While on the topic of Germany, they are known as the leaders in solar/wind, yet the industry has come at a cost. Over 1.5 billion Euro's has been written off, and the electricity rate to the end consumer has jumped as the consumer is on the hook for paying for it since Germany has cut back subsidies as the cost is far exceeding the output.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...the planet has been ice free in the past and much of the "land" was covered with water - point being nothing new...
...and I am sure there is proof (not speculation) that shows the heating of the planet of the earth's total past history has NOT increased at the "current rate" and is truly "unprecedented"?
I have posted before (and there is a chart posted above) that shows the earth's temperature far above what it is currently along with one showing CO2 levels far exceeding those that are now around. How/why did these higher temperature and CO2 rates exist before man if man is completely to blame?
Faulty reasoning--on your part.
Man made greenhouse gas emissions are only one of the various conditions that would cause a global warming or sustain a much warmer planet than the one that modern humans have been accustomed to.
The science of MMGW is to verify that there is an ongoing global warming, and that man made greenhouse emissions are far and away the most significant reason for it, and that not one of the probable explanations for any prehistoric warming episodes and/or warmer epochs in prehistoric times is currently in play.
I think that the science of MMGW as it stands today is convincing--that of course, is Just My Opinion.
Originally posted by avengador1: I wonder how much you would thank him if you found out he was a previously banned member.
If you have an issue with a certain member's access to the forum, wouldn't it make more sense to pursue it by communicating privately with that member, or with a PM to Mr. Cliff Pennock..? And if you already did that, then, regardless of the outcome, I don't see why you would want to drag it out into the open--or skirt around the edges of it with us--as you just did.
I'm just trying to share my thinking about what would be optimal, going forward, in terms of reader quality perception of the longstanding avengador1 brand..
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-09-2013).]
Flyinfieros is the problem here, not the member who started the thread. Flyinfieros came on the forum in October last year specifically to argue with fierobear and you will find he has not provided any evidence he even owns a Fiero. He doesn't take part in technical discussions. (search him in Technical Discussions, General Fiero Chat, Events, etc) He routinely claims to have debunked legitimate scientific information posted and continually attacks anyone who challenges his posts. He is just a troll. Fierobear is a long time member (2000) as am I (2003). This thread started in 2008.
The purpose of the thread is not to discuss whether there is general warming of the earth since the last ice age, but is a thread to discuss the fact that CO2 and mankind's use of fossle fuel is not the cause of the long term warming trend. In fact when the science community finally acknowledged that there has been no net global warming in 15 years, Flyinfieros immediately attacked it. He posts red herring issues like "National Geographic has an interesting interactive map out - "If all the ice melted" " which talks about an extreme theory, not proven science, or he posts information that is clearly not pertinent to the discussion. He also seeks to discredit lettered scientists who are quoted as being in opposition to his theories and to discredit members like Tajiguy who posted a legitimate paleolithic chart.
In short he is just a PITA and a troll, not a legitimate Fiero enthusiast
Per Cliff, the forum is a community and owning a Fiero is secondary ... unless you want to be judge and jury now. I don't see FF as any different than someone that owns a Fiero and contributes zero technically to the Fiero.
So why are you three calling for his immediate ban?
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 11-09-2013).]
Per Cliff, the forum is a community and owning a Fiero secondary ... unless you want to be judge and jury now.
Exactly, unfortunately there are those that can't seem to handle another disagreeing with them without getting their feelings hurt then acting out like a child or a douche.
Oh no! Someone disagrees with my opinion on a topic, they must be a troll. Gimme a break!
The issue is not developing a competitive community to Twitter and Facebook, it is about Fiero enthusiasts and what they have in common
Trolls don't care about the Fiero Community, they only care about their own agenda which, in this case, is making an arguement with Fierobear's premise that Anthropologically induced Global Warming is not a legitimate issue. Flyinfieros an anonymous troll. He is a deliberate trouble maker and not part of the Fiero community
Using that logic, a lot of people would need to leave and that is exactly the opposite of what Cliff has clearly stated he wants. But I think the two are well matched.
The issue is not developing a competitive community to Twitter and Facebook, it is about Fiero enthusiasts and what they have in common
Trolls don't care about the Fiero Community, they only care about their own agenda which, in this case, is making an arguement with Fierobear's premise that Anthropologically induced Global Warming is not a legitimate issue. Flyinfieros an anonymous troll. He is a deliberate trouble maker and not part of the Fiero community
Arn
I don't post much on the other parts of the forum much because my main Fiero has so few parts left on it that are still Fiero. Totally off topic is the part that I like. None of my Fieros are stock, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect those who keep theirs stock. The Fiero is an absolutely remarkable car. I have opinions though and as a bonafide tree hugger who does care about what my species does to our planet I will continue to post on off topic. I know that our planet is not in a static condidtion and is continually changing regardless of human beings. No other species has the ability to affect the planet though. As previously said, find it hard to hang my hat with the 5% of the scientists who are not sure, and tend to be influenced by the 95%ers. I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion when confronted by new facts. For right now I mostly want to hear of positive steps that might possibly counteract the negative affects we have on the planet. We absolutely do have an affect! I'm sure that government can provide ways to deal with our situation, but there is so much corruption in our government that I firmly support looking closely at any government solutions offered. That doesn't mean that I reject out out if hand any solutions offered by our government. I would like to consider myself an open minded individual and I am always willing to hear a counter argument to my views. I do have the impression that there are some here on this topic who just automatically reject anything that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions. Sometimes in a very disrespectful way.
Who said anything about a ban, besides you? Please point this out.
Should we review your most recent "contributions " to this thread?
You may not have specifically asked for him to be banned but you did suggest he be rated accordingly when someone else said he was "A PITA and a troll, not a legitimate Fiero enthusiast."
This suggests you agree that he is these things and should be negatively rated.
I would suggest that ARN (and others) think FlyingFieros is a PITA because he disagrees with their opinion on Climate Change. Is disagreeing on this message forum against it's rules? Then Arn says FlyingFiero's is a troll. As before it seems people do not know what a troll is, I would LOVE to see your evidence. Then he says he's NOT a legitimate Fiero enthusiast. Huh? How is this possible to know?
So why not specifically tell us what you meant by saying he should be rated accordingly and how you personally feel about FlyingFieros?
I characterize Flyinfieros as a troll, not because he disagrees, but because he has offered no indication he is a Fiero owner or involved with restoring, modifying, or enjoying our favorite car, treats members with contempt, posts errant information routinely, belittles people who post legitimate points, like Tajiguy on this page, bates members who post, and when shown to be wrong attacks members' characters. In short he is a troll and logged onto this forum for the specific purpose of opposing Fierobear's position on Antropologic Global Warming
I characterize Flyinfieros as a troll, not because he disagrees, but because he has offered no indication he is a Fiero owner or involved with restoring, modifying, or enjoying our favorite car, treats members with contempt, posts errant information routinely, belittles people who post legitimate points, like Tajiguy on this page, bates members who post, and when shown to be wrong attacks members' characters. In short he is a troll and logged onto this forum for the specific purpose of opposing Fierobear's position on Antropologic Global Warming
"The purpose of the thread is not to discuss whether there is general warming of the earth since the last ice age, but is a thread to discuss the fact that CO2 and mankind's use of fossil fuels is not the cause of the long term warming trend."
FlyinFieros has certainly been on topic. He's said a boatload about CO2 and fossil fuels in relation to global warming. He might be right or wrong, but he's certainly been on topic.
"In fact when the science community finally acknowledged that there has been no net global warming in 15 years, Flyinfieros immediately attacked it."
Scientific consensus that there has been no net global warming for the last 15 years? That's certainly open for discussion.. depending on how one defines"global warming". Ocean temperatures? Is it legitimate to average all the various datasets down to just one single number of Global Mean Temperature? FlyinFieros has been mostly on topic when he discusses this question. As mostly on topic as any of the rest of us.
"In short he is just a PITA and a troll, not a legitimate Fiero enthusiast."
I've been wondering where his fookin' Fiero is, myself..
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-09-2013).]
Well we can all relax. From the weather stories coming in from the Philipines it looks like climate change is now over. We can now move on. Nothing to see here. Flying Fieros was wrong all along. Thank God we have listened to the deniers. Obviously the MMGWers have been feeding us a boatload. Haiyan was just a tiny wind storm. Nothing to worry about.
Well we can all relax. From the weather stories coming in from the Philipines it looks like climate change is now over. We can now move on. Nothing to see here. Flying Fieros was wrong all along. Thank God we have listened to the deniers. Obviously the MMGWers have been feeding us a boatload. Haiyan was just a tiny wind storm. Nothing to worry about.
One storm, out of all the years they have been saying to prepare for multiple storms like this, is not proof. Now if we had seen multiple storms of the century, in one year, it would have been a different story. Also, posting the same graphs time after time does not make one right, especially if they are wrong. That just makes one a progressive nut.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 11-10-2013).]
