Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
LastLast
  1. #121
    Screw freedom of speech and can mods just ban any flat earthers and climate change deniers? Some people have to be stopped from spreading their idiocy.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Gref View Post
    Screw freedom of speech and can mods just ban any flat earthers and climate change deniers? Some people have to be stopped from spreading their idiocy.
    Are you sure you understand what the "climate change deniers" say? If you are, what is it? Describe it.

  3. #123
    @rda
    climate change hoax
    It is up there on the in the first post. It is no hoax. It is changing. Be it natural or accelerated by us. The thing is there are things we can do to slow it or stop it.
    Hoax is the trigger word for me. It is ridiculous. I have been experiencing it first hand. All my childhood I had played in snow till high school second grade. Then we had a terrible disastrous winter in which my city lost all electricity and water for 2 weeks. Heating systems stopped. Bakeries were not even able to make bread and a fucking birthday candle was sold in black market ffs. It took all the electricity to be distributed again to all villages and municipalities a year.
    Then we have never ever seen snow again. Right now it is december and it is hot as a spring day. It is not raining enough.

    Then a fucktard says nothing is changing relax brah it is a hoax. ermmmm...fuck you? You may not have experienced it. That doesn't mean the rest of the world is not experiencing it.

    Spare me the differences of global warming, climate change, regional something something and something. I refuse. All are connected to each other somehow.

    I suffer from it. We suffer from it. You will suffer from it.

    ~I last saw snow in my city 14 years ago.
    Last edited by Gref; 2017-12-19 at 09:07 AM.

  4. #124
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    Are you sure you understand what the "climate change deniers" say? If you are, what is it? Describe it.
    Do you mean when they lie about what the data is? They do that a lot.
    Do you mean when they baselessly slander the entire scientific field for being conspiracists in a grand deceit against the world, all for no possible gains whatsoever? Because that's nutcase territory, and is required if you're disputing the consensus.
    Do you mean when they refuse to acknowledge basic science concepts with reams and reams of confirming testing behind it, like the atmospheric chemistry effects of GHGs?

    They're in exactly the same ballpark as flat-earthers. They've decided evidence doesn't matter, because the facts are a conspiracy against their imagination.


  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Gref View Post
    @rda

    It is up there on the in the first post. It is no hoax. It is changing. Be it natural or accelerated by us. The thing is there are things we can do to slow it or stop it.
    Hoax is the trigger word for me. It is ridiculous. I have been experiencing it first hand. All my childhood I had played in snow till high school second grade. Then we had a terrible disastrous winter in which my city lost all electricity and water for 2 weeks. Heating systems stopped. Bakeries were not even able to make bread and a fucking birthday candle was sold in black market ffs. It took all the electricity to be distributed again to all villages and municipalities a year.
    Then we have never ever seen snow again. Right now it is december and it is hot as a spring day. It is not raining enough.

    Then a fucktard says nothing is changing relax brah it is a hoax. ermmmm...fuck you? You may not have experienced it. That doesn't mean the rest of the world is not experiencing it.

    Spare me the differences of global warming, climate change, regional something something and something. I refuse. All are connected to each other somehow.

    I suffer from it. We suffer from it. You will suffer from it.

    ~I last saw snow in my city 14 years ago.
    I asked you: are you sure you understand what the "climate change deniers" say here? What is it that they are calling a "hoax"?

    Your answer shows that no, you don't understand it. You think that those folks you want to label as "deniers" say that climate change is not happening. They are not saying that. Climate change is happening, yes. Part of it is human-induced, yes. The main point of contest is this: the scale of the change is unclear and it is too early to panic, the "deniers" say this and the other side disagrees vehemently. I am oversimplifying here, there are actually tons of points of contest, big and small (ie, no, it has not been shown at all that climate change is making hurricanes worse, and this is actually right in the IPCC reports, there are a hundred things like that), but this is the gist.

    This is what is being called a "hoax" - this "quick, quick, fast, fast, spend money doing all kinds of BS to 'protect' the humanity, because we have an unthinkable catastrophe coming".

    Hold off your horses, please, and stop getting angry at something that isn't happening. Maybe someone thinks that climate change isn't happening, but the debate has never been about that, it's just that framing it that way is useful for one of the sides (this way they can portray themselves as scientists vs unwashed masses, while in reality it is exactly science on the side of the "deniers" vs an overinvested portion of it on the side of the "climate science activists" that are all too willing to bend data for effect and have been caught cooking their books multiple times - thankfully, this all comes to terms over time and the idiotic projections from the latter camp become calmer).
    Last edited by rda; 2017-12-19 at 09:24 AM.

  6. #126
    Bloodsail Admiral Snorkles's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,070
    Seems pretty short sighted. The rest of the world - including the Carbon Footprint boogeyman that is China - are heavily investing in Green Energy and are all actively moving away from reliance on Fossil fuels.

    At some point it'll flip and fossil fuel will become outdated, leaving America isolated and behind.

    Plus is reeks of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Snorkles View Post
    Seems pretty short sighted. The rest of the world - including the Carbon Footprint boogeyman that is China - are heavily investing in Green Energy and are all actively moving away from reliance on Fossil fuels.

    At some point it'll flip and fossil fuel will become outdated, leaving America isolated and behind.

    Plus is reeks of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    This has already happened.

    America is "yay coal!". Companies like GE are struggling because they got caught offguard by the speed and size of the change away from fossil fuels.

    Just about everything America is doing at the moment is myopic.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Deja Thoris View Post
    This has already happened.

    America is "yay coal!". Companies like GE are struggling because they got caught offguard by the speed and size of the change away from fossil fuels.

    Just about everything America is doing at the moment is myopic.
    You mean like intending to bring back nuclear warfare?

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by MICHAELP View Post
    Is it true? And when did it was listed as the national security issue? and why?
    Obama said that climate change presents an "urgent and growing threat to our national security" several years earlier.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Here is what taking climate change off the list of national security threats is about on a practical level:

    "
    What has been happening is that federal agencies, at all levels, have had to waste countless hours producing climate change planning documents. That is to say, not only planning for what the agency is supposed to be doing, but also planning for the 1) additional GHG emissions that might result from the action and 2) the effects of climate change on the action.

    For example, say I am in the dept. of transportation, and the government wishes to build a road. I have to plan – how much is the road going to increase the release of GHGs? There are the GHGs emitted from the machinery used to build it. The GHGs from the concrete, and from the factory, and from the trucks that hauled it to the sight. The road may cause people to drive more, increasing GHG emissions. Or it might shorten the commute time for the drivers, meaning they emit less. The road might cross a wetlands, but with climate change, might those wetlands have disappeared anyway? or perhaps expanded? What about the carbon absorption capacity of the prairie grass being covered? Perhaps the road will increase economic activity in some way, resulting in more GHGs?

    A big fat report filled with arm waving is produced, and we all get to take turns imagining new and ever more fantastic climate repercussions of our decision to build a road. then argue over who’s fantasy is most likely, and which arm waving estimate to use.

    And, at the end of the day, absolutely nothing ever changes, because, heck, we need a bloody road. So we toss the report in a bin and proceed.

    Think I’m joking?

    For climate change true believers, this is an absolute farce. It accomplishes nothing. It wastes money. I’ve often thought just get rid of this silly goat rope, and vow to spend $5 billion on solar panels, donated to charities, and we would be still several billion $ ahead of the game.
    "

    No more of that for the time being and no getting into other idiotic arrangements that pretend to improve the global situation (against the "predicted" disaster, no less) while on scale doing nearly nothing.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by fatherben View Post
    Respect to trump for not buying this this climate change hoax, the weather has been changing for the last thousand of years, this thing only exists so that people accept it and then these elites can force a carbon tax on people.
    So which university did you get your climate science degree at?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellus1986 View Post
    Ok now link me a valid, peer-reviewed study that says we are not responsible for climate change. I’ll wait.
    I hope they do, last time they did that it was fucking hilarious. Had a page where a bunch of climate deniers signed under "I agree that this paper is true", and therefore it was "peer reviewed".
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    Your answer shows that no, you don't understand it. You think that those folks you want to label as "deniers" say that climate change is not happening. They are not saying that. Climate change is happening, yes. Part of it is human-induced, yes. The main point of contest is this: the scale of the change is unclear and it is too early to panic, the "deniers" say this and the other side disagrees vehemently. I am oversimplifying here, there are actually tons of points of contest, big and small (ie, no, it has not been shown at all that climate change is making hurricanes worse, and this is actually right in the IPCC reports, there are a hundred things like that), but this is the gist.

    This is what is being called a "hoax" - this "quick, quick, fast, fast, spend money doing all kinds of BS to 'protect' the humanity, because we have an unthinkable catastrophe coming".

    Hold off your horses, please, and stop getting angry at something that isn't happening. Maybe someone thinks that climate change isn't happening, but the debate has never been about that, it's just that framing it that way is useful for one of the sides (this way they can portray themselves as scientists vs unwashed masses, while in reality it is exactly science on the side of the "deniers" vs an overinvested portion of it on the side of the "climate science activists" that are all too willing to bend data for effect and have been caught cooking their books multiple times - thankfully, this all comes to terms over time and the idiotic projections from the latter camp become calmer).
    You realize that your angle here is even more absurd than just denying climate change?

    Do you understand the speed at which things happen at the global environment level? Do you think humans evolved from apes in about a week? And before you say "that proves my point, climate change is super slow", well guess what? Addressing it is going to take time too because we're trying to fix the same exact system.

    I'm sorry that climate change isn't your summer blockbuster disaster movie, but to assume "we've got time" is incredibly naive.

    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    Obama said that climate change presents an "urgent and growing threat to our national security" several years earlier.
    See further how folks in the national security community advised that climate change was a threat to nat sec. Here's a paper from 2009 - https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/upl...ate-change.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    Here is what taking climate change off the list of national security threats is about on a practical level:

    "
    What has been happening is that federal agencies, at all levels, have had to waste countless hours producing climate change planning documents. That is to say, not only planning for what the agency is supposed to be doing, but also planning for the 1) additional GHG emissions that might result from the action and 2) the effects of climate change on the action.

    For example, say I am in the dept. of transportation, and the government wishes to build a road. I have to plan – how much is the road going to increase the release of GHGs? There are the GHGs emitted from the machinery used to build it. The GHGs from the concrete, and from the factory, and from the trucks that hauled it to the sight. The road may cause people to drive more, increasing GHG emissions. Or it might shorten the commute time for the drivers, meaning they emit less. The road might cross a wetlands, but with climate change, might those wetlands have disappeared anyway? or perhaps expanded? What about the carbon absorption capacity of the prairie grass being covered? Perhaps the road will increase economic activity in some way, resulting in more GHGs?

    A big fat report filled with arm waving is produced, and we all get to take turns imagining new and ever more fantastic climate repercussions of our decision to build a road. then argue over who’s fantasy is most likely, and which arm waving estimate to use.

    And, at the end of the day, absolutely nothing ever changes, because, heck, we need a bloody road. So we toss the report in a bin and proceed.

    Think I’m joking?

    For climate change true believers, this is an absolute farce. It accomplishes nothing. It wastes money. I’ve often thought just get rid of this silly goat rope, and vow to spend $5 billion on solar panels, donated to charities, and we would be still several billion $ ahead of the game.
    "

    No more of that for the time being and no getting into other idiotic arrangements that pretend to improve the global situation (against the "predicted" disaster, no less) while on scale doing nearly nothing.
    Its a waste of time not because climate change isn't an issue but because we waste time on small stuff. We need to address the big problems but too much of the messaging around climate change has revolved around each individual doing their part when its the large companies that need to clean up their act. But then that's the way here in 'Murica, we let the corporations run roughshod while we gobble up all their bullshit and waste our time pointing fingers at each other instead of them.

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    And those codes will not save them if a 8.5 + earthquake hits there in a highly populated area.

    I would not build a home in Oklahoma or Kansas, without having a basement.

    Yet people still are building and living there in the same danger zone, knowing all we know now about volcanoes. :P

    Funny how they can predict how powerful hurricanes where hundreds or thousands of years ago. They do not know for certain. And no, some top meteorologist disagree hurricanes are more frequent or more powerful now than they have been in the past. I saw one ( from the US National Meteorology Service ) explaining they are caused primary by the phenomenon El Nino of the Pacific Ocean warm sections. And the conditions this year were perfect for them to form.

    In the span of Humankind, the study of hurricanes is a very recent study. We are of course much better at predicting them and the signs of them forming. But still a long ways from accuracy as we saw in 2016 when many were predicted, but fell far short of what they thought was going to happen.
    This is from an engineer who has performed fault rupture and site specific seismic response studies for hospitals, police station, bridges, schools and airports, and worked in CA, WA, CO, TX, IL, FL and TN. California building code standard and enforcement are head and shoulder above these other states. Florida is probably a close second. Texas and the others are not even close.

    That being said, an 8.5 magnitude seismic event directly under a major metropolitan area will be devastating anywhere. For that matter a 6.5 directly under a metropolitan area will be devastating. With a few exceptions (namely hospital, school and police station), as engineers, we do not do “No Failure” design for a seismic event occurring directly underneath our structures. We usually design for “No Catastrophic Failure”. We want the structure and its service facilities to survive long enough for people to evacuate. We don’t even do “No Failure” for an airport.

    By the way, there are no known faults capable of 8.5 magnitude event in CA. The big one off San Andreas is estimated at 8.1. Magnitudes 7.0 to 7.5 are probably more realistic.

    A major seismic event on the New Madrid (10% chance of 7.5 - 8.0 magnitude in the next 50 years per USGS) is potentially more damaging than San Andreas. Numerous major metropolitan areas, including St. Louis, Knoxville, Witchita, are located right on top of the fault zone. Most of them do not have building code standard and enforcement remotely comparable to CA. Not to mention all those brick buildings.

    Furthermore, the unique geology in the Midwest increases the shaking intensity of earthquakes because seismic energy moves through the dense bedrock at very high speeds, then becomes trapped in soft sediments filling river channels and valleys which dominate the Midwest geology. For example, data indicates ground shaking would be magnified about 600 percent within the flood plain of the Missouri River, a development that would cause most of Missouri’s existing long-span bridges to collapse. You don't even need a really big earthquake to do significant damage in Missouri.

  13. #133
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    All I know is we are fucked in WA... any minute now... we are over due for the big one and have volcanos...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    All I know is we are fucked in WA... any minute now... we are over due for the big one and have volcanos...
    Seven great earthquakes, or earthquake series, probably ruptured the southern Washington part of the Cascadia subduction zone in the past 3,500 years. Each earthquake was probably of magnitude 8 or larger. The earthquakes define six recurrence intervals that average about 500 years. The longest interval, about 700-1300 years, was followed by two of the shortest, which together lasted less than 800 years. Another long interval, 600-1000 years, ended with an earthquake 300 years ago.

    Yeah. WA is hosed.

  15. #135
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Seven great earthquakes, or earthquake series, probably ruptured the southern Washington part of the Cascadia subduction zone in the past 3,500 years. Each earthquake was probably of magnitude 8 or larger. The earthquakes define six recurrence intervals that average about 500 years. The longest interval, about 700-1300 years, was followed by two of the shortest, which together lasted less than 800 years. Another long interval, 600-1000 years, ended with an earthquake 300 years ago.

    Yeah. WA is hosed.
    Yeah, we tried to get earthquake insurance on the house. You will not get it, unless you pretty much pay a second mortgage, at least until your house is “tied down”.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  16. #136
    Banned want my Slimjim's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sweden by blood, Confederate by soul.
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by tyrlaan View Post
    Trump is, wait for it, an idiot.

    There are literally members of the military who have advised and/or spoken out about the national security risks of climate change. Coastal bases, for example, have a serious problem looming on their doorsteps. But hey, let's just say it's not a problem. After all, I'm pretty sure the "close your eyes" method is a sound strategy.



    This is a highly unfortunately reason to take issue with climate change. The actions of the individual, such as reducing your carbon footprint, recycling, and all those "you can be part of the solution" steps that are drilled into our heads have such a minuscule impact on the environment when measured against the impact of companies. Comparing individual responsibility for a carbon footprint to handling a refugee crisis is basically a false equivalence.

    If people want to get serious about fighting climate change, corporations need to change. Stop dancing around the death of the coal industry (and for god's sake, actually help coal miners find a new role in the workplace or something), break the stranglehold on oil and gas in the auto industry, get serious about stopping factory pollution, etc.




    Hey mr. state's rights, aren't conspiracy theories against forum rules? I mean seriously, you have to work really damn hard to think climate change is fake.
    That isn't a conspiracy, it is a fact they make up something that doesn't even exist like claiming Chinese medicine doesnt work.
    Last edited by want my Slimjim; 2017-12-20 at 04:27 AM.

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Yeah, we tried to get earthquake insurance on the house. You will not get it, unless you pretty much pay a second mortgage, at least until your house is “tied down”.
    This is an interesting study on the Cascadia Subduction Zone.

    https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1661f/

    The publication is the culmination of 13 years of research at Oregon State University. The study indicates that over the past 10,000 years, there have been 19 earthquakes that extended along most of the coastal margin, stretching from southern Vancouver Island to the Oregon-California border. These would typically be of a magnitude from about 8.7 to 9.2 – really huge earthquakes.

    The study also determined that there have been 22 additional earthquakes that involved just the southern end of the fault zone. The authors assumed that these are slightly smaller – more like 8.0 – but not necessarily. They were still very large earthquakes that if they happened today could have a devastating impact.

    How scientists document the earthquake history of the Cascadia Subduction Zone is fascinating. When a major offshore earthquake occurs, the disturbance causes mud and sand to begin streaming down the continental margins and into the undersea canyons. Coarse sediments called turbidites ran out onto the abyssal plain; these sediments stand out distinctly from the fine particulate matter that accumulates on a regular basis between major tectonic events. By dating the fine particles through carbon-14 analysis and other methods, the authors were able to estimate with a great deal of accuracy when major earthquakes have occurred over the past 10,000 years.

    The good news for you is that the study suggests that the southern Oregon coast may be most likely location of the next event based on the recurrence frequency. Although, I am sure the people of Oregon does not look at it the same way.

    BTW, I am sure to all the global warming deniers, these are all fake news. The Cascadian Fault Zone does not even exist. Probably just part of rumors started by the Chinese.

  18. #138
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by want my Slimjim View Post
    That isn't a conspiracy, it is a fact they make up something that doesn't even exist like claiming Chinese medicine doesnt work.
    If you're claiming anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, then you're proposing that there's a global conspiracy among tens of thousands of scientists (just for starters), who've all perpetrated some grand deceit on the entire world, from just about every country in the world, with no identifiable gains or objective on their behalf, and without being able to produce a shred of evidence of any such collusion or dishonesty.

    It's a conspiracy theory precisely as insane and meritless as those claiming that the Earth is flat, or that we're secretly ruled by lizardfolk from Inner Earth. It's abject lunatic nonsense, and it's isn't even entertaining nonsense; it's just lazy.


  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If you're claiming anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, then you're proposing that there's a global conspiracy among tens of thousands of scientists (just for starters), who've all perpetrated some grand deceit on the entire world, from just about every country in the world, with no identifiable gains or objective on their behalf, and without being able to produce a shred of evidence of any such collusion or dishonesty.

    It's a conspiracy theory precisely as insane and meritless as those claiming that the Earth is flat, or that we're secretly ruled by lizardfolk from Inner Earth. It's abject lunatic nonsense, and it's isn't even entertaining nonsense; it's just lazy.
    It is hard for non-scientists to understand that in the earth science disciplines, we don't talk in absolute term. Everything is probability based.

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    It is hard for non-scientists to understand that in the earth science disciplines, we don't talk in absolute term. Everything is probability based.
    Until it's 100%, then it moves from probability to absolute fact. Like with the existence of global warming.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •