Leftfield

As a number of people have already said, it's impossible parody the Republican Party any more.

34 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You definitely are a sad little man.  I’ve been gainfully employed until 9 years ago when I retired.  There is no insult about being retired, or at least I didn’t take it that way.  Are you working just so you can work some more?  Or is goal to retire some day?

Never suggested you weren't once gainfully employed. I knew otherwise. Johnny said "You are here like other retired folk much more often than the rest of us gainfully employed folk." Why say gainfully employed if not to disparage? If you didn't take it that way, fine. My whole point was that retirees shouldn't be disparaged, because they'd put in their time.

42 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I would have been more insulted if some one thought I was retired because I was on here all day.  Does that shoe fit?

Doesn't suck to be in a position where I can do my work and point out where you're wrong.

23 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

I have not gone back to look. At some point I may. 

Not gonna hold my breath on that.

24 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Your politics blind your rationale. You have shown no proof of CO2 or methane emissions driving the climatic changes. You BELIEVE it does. That much is clear. You want others to BELIEVE, then call them names like DENIERS when they do not follow the narrative. 

Considering the level of understanding you've shown toward the technical aspects of this discussion, it makes sense that you don't think ACC has been proven, yet simply stating it over and over is not an effective argument...

28 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

You'd like everyone to self flagellate, worship at the altar and pay their carbon tithes so that the climate church can wash away their sins and provide salvation.  

Most who do not follow blindly into the cult actually want humanity to continue to thrive. This madness of Net Zero, future climate lockdowns, 15 minute cities, digital ID, will likely lead to the opposite effect. Now, if you are also one of those crazy people who wish to depopulate the planet to save humanity...by all means volunteer to lead the way and go first. 

...and since you can't argue the merits, you post a bunch of garbage in the hopes to discredit my intentions. I_M does the same, and it's kind of funny that he keeps upvoting your posts and apparently can't see he was one of the people you were insulting when you tried to disparage me as being a retiree that just posts on this forum all day and isn't "gainfully employed." 

33 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Instead, let's reallocate those trillions of $$ into mitigation methods to help keep humanity safe from whatever natural variability brings our way, whether it be extreme heat or cold, or anywhere in between, including providing those aforementioned energy sources (and resources like food, water, agriculture, sanitation) everywhere on the planet where they are currently scarce or unavailable. 

You still don't understand. I suggest you read about the difficulties we would face with the underlined if we don't find a way to limit temperature increases. Once again, the ability for life, and the planet, to adapt to a rapidly changing climate is the issue. We can adapt more easily than plants and animals, but if they don't adapt, then we're screwed, anyway. 

2 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Weak

Really? Ever go back to see the article that I_M posted about enthalpy, like you said you would do? Still support it? If so, why? If not, why not?

You claim to be technically trained, yet show no awareness of time scale or rate of change. You tout fossil fuels, but dismiss the possibility that something that has done so much good could also do harm. All of your counterarguments amount to basically sticking your fingers in your ears, because you can't intelligently address the subject matter.

11 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

It's not human caused, or human prevented.

Says the engineer who doesn't know the difference between convection and radiation.

3 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

The earth was fine before humans and will be fine afterwards. Who has ever said humanity would last forever? Good Lord man.

So why not bring needless suffering if humanity is doomed anyway, right? Especially since you get to live your life in comfort?

True motivations emerge.

8 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is priceless.  You and your fellow environmental cultist are more worried about the future earth without humans than you are the earth itself.  You guys are willing to go into $trillions into debt so a future generation can survive if it is inevitable humans will become extent. 

Future generations, as always, will have to deal with issues that we haven’t.  You know people are not replenishing itself with children to sustain earth’s population, so, yeah it seems the future generations are dealing with it as we speak.

Its just like you to try to change the narrative to me being selfish.  You are a sad little human.

Whatever you just pulled out of your rear, it had nothing to do with what I said.

My point about Carlin was that if humans go extinct then the world would spin on. I never said it was inevitable.

God, you're dumb.

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, it is you stance that you don’t care about the earth, its the future generations that are in danger of becoming extinct is your issue?  

As the Carlin clip you posted stated, the Earth would be just fine without us. It will spin on, and eventually go back to its own patterns. 

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Wouldn’t that be evolution, you know the natural order of things.

So you don't care what suffering future generations have to go through? As long as you can live your life how you want, it doesn't matter what happens to all of them? 

25 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Solid analysis. Does posting something for 20 pages make it true?

You mean, the fact we've been telling you over and over that the issue isn't that the climate is changing, but how fast it's changing? And you keep ignoring it?

Yea, that's true.

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The guy has it right and funny too:

 

 

Lol....all the deniers who think they're clever posting this completely ignore the very end, when he says the Earth will be fine and we'll be the ones gone. Which is, of course, the whole point.

Carlin is awesome, and skewers all sides of any issue, but you and everyone else posting this to "own the libs" can't even see he makes you look stupid.

4 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Nothing really. Climate changes all the time whether we fret about it or not. Is that what you want? No change? No change in climate would be completely irrational. Like most of your posts.

 

Ya know....it's kind of inconceivable that three college graduates can read for 20 pages and learn absolutely nothing.

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-launches-show-russian-state-tv-russia-24-1903045?#Echobox=1716300203

And Steven Seagal wasn't the first guest?

Seems like a missed opportunity 

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

 

What odds was she getting?

57 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Rudy's fall in esteem since 9/11 has been Shakespearean.

Trump has the equivalent of the "Midas" touch in that respect.

47 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Girl.. baby girl! 

Is there a "cringe" emoji?

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Let's play a game.....closest to guessing the gallons of Botox in this picture gets a can of Aqua Net signed by Matt Gaetz.

2 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Respectfully, what is green energy at scale?ie EVs simply move the carbon footprint from the car to the power plant - and unless theyre nuclear or hydro….  Do you advocate doing the French approach of promotion nuclear fission plants? Solar (which in many areas is problematic)?  

I haven’t read the current thinking on the “how’s”, but even after you get past the denialists, worrying about China and coal, ect - just us - what technology do we utilize. Obviously when and if fusion becomes a reality, I get it, but until then what is the current thinking on how to actually achieve this?

I don't have a problem with nuclear, aside from the waste disposal issue. Moving forward, I think we will have a combination of nuclear, wind, solar, and hydrogen, but I'm realistic enough to see that fossil fuels, failing a large leap in technology in other fields, will almost certainly be a part of the mix for quite some time.

Solar cells have reached pretty impressive levels of efficiency, enough that solar fields are being installed even here in Wisconsin. The local utilities also ran a test last year mixing hydrogen in different ratios (5-25%) into a natural gas generator, apparently with very good results. Not sure exactly when, but the plan was to run another test with higher hydrogen ratios. Regardless, even reducing natural gas consumption by a quarter would be a significant step.

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

The oil and gas companies are vested in both directions. 

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Sounds very similar to big pharma doesn't it?

Oil and gas are trying to toe the line. The only reason they're finally somewhat vested in green energy is because public opinion has reached a point where it was advantageous for them to do so. Big oil was balls-to-the-wall against climate science at the start. Most of the misinformation that's still circulated today came from those industries paying PhDs to denounce climate scientists. Exxon's own scientists knew for years what was coming, but execs suppressed it.

Sounds very similar to big tobacco, doesn't it?

The ironic thing is, if those companies had simply begun investing early in green energy R&D themselves, they could be reaping the benefits now. 

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

The vast majority of scientists and engineers of which I follow, or added do not work for the oil and gas industry. Most are however experts in their respective fields.  One common denominator is the negative impact on humanity by trying to move to net zero without a viable alternative for fossil fuels that isn't nuclear power. Wind and solar will never cut it, and neither will biomass. Developing countries especially need affordable, reliable and available energy sources. Right now, and in the past, that is the use of coal and natural gas which is why China and India continue to build those plants.  

For some reason it's a common argument among climate skeptics and deniers to say that everyone who agrees with global warming only wants solar and wind. Why is that? Solar and wind would be preferred as the main push, since they are passive and generate no waste outside of their components, but I don't know of anyone stating that nuclear isn't an option. Certainly I don't, but it does have its drawbacks: they're expensive, they're usually regulatory nightmares, and there's still the issue with radioactive waste disposal.

Bill Gates is a big environmentalist, yet he helped start TerraPower to develop smaller scale nuclear as an alternative to huge, multi-billion dollar projects. In this way, smaller scale facilities could be placed in strategic areas to complement solar and wind. At night and during low-wind periods (or in areas where wind is not viable), or during peak energy usage hours during the day, that small-scale nuclear could fill the gap. It could also be used in developing areas around the world where they would have no hope of building massive power plants.

4 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

One of your cohorts above had expanded the already mythical 97% consensus to no include "all scientists", which is a faux pas becoming more and more common. Therefore, the addition. However, there are many engineers who have become interested in the field due to the effect on the energy industry, thus leading them into deeper research. 

You won't trust scientists that work for any number of government organizations (not just our government, but around the world), think tanks, universities, etc., because you think they're bought. However, you will trust scientists that work for oil and gas companies, who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Why do you think one bought side is more ethical than the other?

4 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

What you did have, and most engineers did, is physics, chemistry, fluid dynamics, heat transfer, circuits, thermodynamics, mathematics, calculus, probability, statistics, environmental science, some programming language, etc...You may or may not have added classes in meteorology, geology, oceanography,  electromagnetism, nuclear engineering, solar power, etc.. as electives. All important backbones to the field of climate science...which didn't have a name until the last 30 years or so. 

You're correct, and that should allow us to understand and interpret quite a bit of the data and explanations in the studies. It is for this reason why your "thumbs up" of I_M's posting of the study on CO2's enthalpy is confusing. From your extensive reading, surely you knew that scientists identify radiative forcing as the mechanism by which CO2 increases warming, so why did you think that study was a valid argument against CO2 being the driving factor?

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

This is not about arguing the science - which is as settled as it will ever be.

This might be the only part I disagree with. I try to consider science as never being "settled," because that can lead to close-mindedness and groupthink. I want to leave myself open to new information and interpretations.

Having said that, I don't think you were implying otherwise, but others may interpret it incorrectly.

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, can't argue with a "myriad".

You're getting too technical, I just can't keep up.

Considering my profession, I was pleased to see him add "engineers" to the list of experts in the field.

I had no formal instruction on the subject of climate science, but I hereby accept the promotion.

13 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Name yours

Yep...figured. I and others have been posting links and sources the entire thread. I've been asking you for almost 20 pages for the same and you've ignored it, yet now you expect me to do it again.

You have no interest in truly debating this. God forbid you'd actually learn something. You just want to puff out your chest and insult people to feel good about yourself.

Until you commit to an honest debate with an exchange of information, you're a lazy, incompetent lackey to the anti-science movement and an embarrassment to your technical degree.

38 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Hilarious that you believe you are smarter than the myriad of scientists and engineers all over the globe that don't buy into this alarmist narrative. 

"Myriad, huh? Name them."

45 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Thousands huh? Name them

Oh, right....the guy who won't back up anything he says holds others to a higher standard. Even after they've been following that standard the whole thread.