Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
tmcom

The Irrational Climate Emergency

86 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

tmcom

32 naturally occurring carbon molecules, and we are responsible for 1 out of an odd 80,000 other elements in our atmosphere, while we have ice ages when CO2 is down, lol.

This guy also explains why l am talking to a brick wall sometimes,....and the entertainment value.

Cannot create iron with solar/wind, no way around that!

Or we ditch coal, and strip our planet or every tree available, doesn't sound very green to me, unless we put some spaceships/arks in space, (Silent Running).

I know this probably won't stay up for long, since it is negative propaganda, (facts) but it needs to!

Or green nutcases running about screaming that the world is ending, instead of tying themselves down and doing something that is against their religion, (thinking rationally and going to real websites not the Micky Mouse ones) need to watch this.

And if it still does not sink in, then they need to go and live in a cave, hunt their food, since most, (me included) will stay with coal binging lifestyles!

PS good to see children wising up, pity some adults couldn't!

B)

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
24 minutes ago, tmcom said:

32 naturally occurring carbon molecules, and we are responsible for 1 out of an odd 80,000 other elements in our atmosphere, while we have ice ages when CO2 is down, lol.

You could have made a better case that that, you think ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney

:lol: Crankage galor!! 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

Quote

Like many cranks, Plimer seems to be possessed by crank magnetism. One-upping Christopher Booker, Plimer has not only denied any health risks from chrysotile asbestos, but that it is even asbestos at all.[13] Unfortunately for him, this view came back to haunt him at the launch of How to Get Expelled From School, when a journalist for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation brought it up. This led to a comically circular round of argumentation, before a predictable Plimer appeal to authority: "I’m sorry. You are just a journalist. I have spent my life studying minerals."[12] This episode definitively proved that Plimer is impervious to irony, attempting to simultaneously encourage children not to mindlessly accept the word of scientists (see sheeple) and to silence a questioner with the KO riposte that he is a scientist who knows everything.

Even further into the depths of the uncharted jungles of crankdom, in Heaven + Earth Plimer repeats virtually word-for-word the conclusions of a paper that asserted (in defiance of all evidence and logic) that the Sun has a composition resembling that of a meteorite.[14] Whether Plimer genuinely sides with lunatics of the Immanuel Velikovsky school of astronomy or is simply willing to repeat any "evidence" he believes will justify his belief that climate science is bunk is unclear.

 

Edited by Piney
Don't drink this ass's Koolaide
  • Like 5
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
9 minutes ago, Piney said:

He's a geologist that works for the coal industry! :lol: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

Living in rural areas and spending most of my life outdoors, I watch the warm up happen.  I remember the deep snows of the 70s which no longer happen. Sub-zero temperatures for the month of January and insect die offs (ticks, greenflys) which no longer happen. 

That is a neat trick considering that the Official US Weather Bureau, chart, (shown in the video below) shows that 1934 was the hottest year in the US, and the Raw datasets from NOAA, show a decline in US temps for the last few years!

Urbanization, (freeways, housing roads, cement also create heat sinks and increase yearly temp's for those areas).

:P

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, tmcom said:

That is a neat trick considering that the Official US Weather Bureau, chart, (shown in the video below) shows that 1934 was the hottest year in the US, and the Raw datasets from NOAA, show a decline in US temps for the last few years!

 

6 minutes ago, Piney said:

The guy is a bloody asbestos denier who thinks the sun is made from metals and minerals.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm done here. Bye bye! :st

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Well, Piney misquoted me, when l used a Tony H, video, saying that it was the other guy, (which was rubbished by the less than accurate Wikipedia).

Yeah, we are done here!

:P

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
44 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Well, Piney misquoted me, when l used a Tony H, video, saying that it was the other guy, (which was rubbished by the less than accurate Wikipedia).

He was a cherry picker whose been busted for lying too. 

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=9&t=519&&a=110

https://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard

Edited by Piney
Where's the red paint?
  • Like 4
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B

Ian Plimer was the reason I joined the Australian Skeptics - he appeared on Australian ABC's "Four Corners" program where he simply demolished creationist arguments. This is what crystalised my skeptical attitude, and I went out and bought his book "Telling Lies For God". TLFG went into a lot more detail about why creationism is simply dead wrong and the egregious behaviour of creationists (mostly in the form of them repeating arguments they know have been debunked), but I was also disappointed that at several points the book was poorly written and could have benefited from a thorough editing to clarify what he meant.

Several years later I saw his "Brief History of Planet Earth", and found that he'd written there that the Sun was formed on the remains of a supernova - essentially promoting the "iron sun" theory, which is thoroughly discredited by astronomers. Now sure, my understanding is that a supernova played a role in the formation of the Sun, probably that a supernova shockwave compressed gas and dust and contributed heavy elements; so it's arguable that once again Plimer wrote poorly and meant that the Sun formed from a supernova rather than on a supernova. But no, Plimer apparently very deliberately chose to use the iron sun theory in his book.

Thanks to the skeptical thinking that Plimer's demolition of creationism inculcated in me, my approach to any subject I don't know much about is to start with the consensus of the scientific subject matter experts: that's why I believe Plimer over creationists when it comes to geology. So given the choice of whether to believe Plimer's assertion that the Sun is mostly iron or the astronomical community's assertion that the Sun is mostly hydrogen, I'll happily sit with the astronomers. And the same approach applies to climate science...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
1 hour ago, Peter B said:

Ian Plimer was the reason I joined the Australian Skeptics - he appeared on Australian ABC's "Four Corners" program where he simply demolished creationist arguments. This is what crystalised my skeptical attitude, and I went out and bought his book "Telling Lies For God". TLFG went into a lot more detail about why creationism is simply dead wrong and the egregious behaviour of creationists (mostly in the form of them repeating arguments they know have been debunked), but I was also disappointed that at several points the book was poorly written and could have benefited from a thorough editing to clarify what he meant.

Several years later I saw his "Brief History of Planet Earth", and found that he'd written there that the Sun was formed on the remains of a supernova - essentially promoting the "iron sun" theory, which is thoroughly discredited by astronomers. Now sure, my understanding is that a supernova played a role in the formation of the Sun, probably that a supernova shockwave compressed gas and dust and contributed heavy elements; so it's arguable that once again Plimer wrote poorly and meant that the Sun formed from a supernova rather than on a supernova. But no, Plimer apparently very deliberately chose to use the iron sun theory in his book.

Thanks to the skeptical thinking that Plimer's demolition of creationism inculcated in me, my approach to any subject I don't know much about is to start with the consensus of the scientific subject matter experts: that's why I believe Plimer over creationists when it comes to geology. So given the choice of whether to believe Plimer's assertion that the Sun is mostly iron or the astronomical community's assertion that the Sun is mostly hydrogen, I'll happily sit with the astronomers. And the same approach applies to climate science...

Thank Peter, sure he isn't good at spelling, and l don't 100% agree with his "we need a coal plant on standby",  a fast startup gas plant would be viable, but it was some time ago, so.

But he is right about making iron, can't do it with wind/solar, since coal's stored CO2 is a vital component in making iron.

If someone presents facts, then they will be discredited, if it goes against mainstream or herd thinking.

^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 hour ago, Peter B said:

Several years later I saw his "Brief History of Planet Earth", and found that he'd written there that the Sun was formed on the remains of a supernova - essentially promoting the "iron sun" theory, which is thoroughly discredited by astronomers. Now sure, my understanding is that a supernova played a role in the formation of the Sun, probably that a supernova shockwave compressed gas and dust and contributed heavy elements; so it's arguable that once again Plimer wrote poorly and meant that the Sun formed from a supernova rather than on a supernova. But no, Plimer apparently very deliberately chose to use the iron sun theory in his book.

Several supernovas contributed to the creation of the stellar nursery which birthed our sun, including a binary one which created the gold and platinum in our solar system. But our sun wasn't created by a supernova per se. 

Neutron stars could be iron but they were created when giant's supernova and then there is the theoretical iron star.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_star

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, tmcom said:

But he is right about making iron, can't do it with wind/solar, since coal's stored CO2 is a vital component in making iron.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/08/f54/fcto-h2-scale-kickoff-2018-19-green.pdf

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaner-cheaper-way-to-make-steel-uses-electricity/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=9&t=519&&a=110

https://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard

 

Pretty funny, the first is a skeptic site, that shows the usual BS NASA/IPCC chart showing accelerated sea level rise, as well as all of the other parroted crap, but the Pacific ocean, (covers half of the planet, and almost covers half of our planet when seen from the right point from orbit) and hasn't risen, or it has dropped, so that site can be dismissed.

Here are a list of some of the authors, " IT Security and Infrastructure Manager",

" Howard is an author and freelance Earth Science writer. He earned his B.Sc in Geology his M.Sc in Remote Sensing at the University of London, and he is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London (FGS)", (which is better, but the site is group owned, so.

There are some there with just as good credentials as T.H. has, but unfortunately they also share the same mental disorder. Or instead of discussing this with Tony or someone else, they preach "no discussion" evidence is the deciding factor and these nutters, won't win if they did.

Or come up with demented views to cover their disorders, like sea levels are rising except the Pacific Ocean!

Sound like a flat earther to me?

 

The second, beats me where they get him for lying, apart from trying to rubbish him, since one of his friends does, palm readings for cats, which granted is out there, but yet again, facts are king, not supposition, based on heredity,and psychological traits.

 

Anyone who talks against cults, will get rubbished, and if the cult cannot have a discussion, then they are full of it, and their power should be stripped asap!

^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Here is our top climate expert!

If we don't use coal at all, our fires would have magically disappeared in AU!

THis is f.....brained at its finest!

So we reduce CO2 in AU, but 1.3%, of a trace gas, that is 1 out of 80,000 and one out of 32 natural versions of CO2, (just for laughs) our fires wouldn't have happened.

I can gurantee this f.....wit, that if l threw a match into a national park in the 1930's in summertime, (CO2 much lower) after 10 or more years of no fires occurring it would burn like hell.

This d...head is going to guarentee that Labor loses elections for the forseeable future, and l thank the dimwitted Greens party for that!

I love how these idiots talk, "people are frustrated, and our numbers are growing" sure apart from AU, UK, US, and only loonies are frustrated, since the wider majority don't listen to them anymore, and will consider nobile options if they come across one glueing themselves to public transport.

^_^

Edited by tmcom
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
On 2/8/2020 at 6:16 PM, tmcom said:

And if it still does not sink in, then they need to go and live in a cave, hunt their food, since most, (me included) will stay with coal binging lifestyles!

Seeing a fair number of homes have burnt(due to global warming)caves will be looking good to you,you won't have to hunt much as their are plenty of pre cooked animals around,mainly due to people with the same disregard for OUR planet.Hard to believe you are Australian really.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, openozy said:

Seeing a fair number of homes have burnt(due to global warming)caves will be looking good to you,you won't have to hunt much as their are plenty of pre cooked animals around,mainly due to people with the same disregard for OUR planet.Hard to believe you are Australian really.

The homes where burnt by a bush fire, not by global warming. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
1 hour ago, openozy said:

Seeing a fair number of homes have burnt(due to global warming)caves will be looking good to you,you won't have to hunt much as their are plenty of pre cooked animals around,mainly due to people with the same disregard for OUR planet.Hard to believe you are Australian really.

A fair number of  homes have burn't due to up to 30 years of fuel loads building in our national parks, and on farmers properties, and the drought, two of which were caused by Green dimwits, for the most part. Global warming, lol, Vic has had some nasty fires here, and our summer has been subdued, or we have had far worse in our past!

I am not going to believe that Coal is evil, using less, (so our dimwit can blow another coal plant up) so pensioners either burn their books, or starve or die in a freezing home!

Yeah, disregard, l am all for cleaning up, and reducing waste, but l am not going to sacrifice the poor to do it!

Hard to believe you and others keep buying sites and organizations that mass produce BS!

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
1 hour ago, tmcom said:

I am not going to believe that Coal is evil, using less, (so our dimwit can blow another coal plant up) so pensioners either burn their books, or starve or die in a freezing home!

Coal isn't evil it's just coal,the people who think it's a better alternative to solar and wind power are.

 

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

but l am not going to sacrifice the poor to do it!

But you will be,along with the rest of life on Earth.

 

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Hard to believe you and others keep buying sites and organizations that mass produce BS!

Hard to believe because no one needs to read others opinions on this, it's just common sense.Have you ever walked outside in Summer here or do you just sit in an air conditioned office.If you wish to live your life in denial,good on you,just don't expect everyone to follow suit.Your stand on this is laughable but far from funny.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
46 minutes ago, openozy said:

Coal isn't evil it's just coal,the people who think it's a better alternative to solar and wind power are.

But you will be,along with the rest of life on Earth.

Hard to believe because no one needs to read others opinions on this, it's just common sense.Have you ever walked outside in Summer here or do you just sit in an air conditioned office.If you wish to live your life in denial,good on you,just don't expect everyone to follow suit.Your stand on this is laughable but far from funny.

I go out regularly in my state, and can see that our summer is subdued, or more like Spring with a few hot days to remind us it is summer. But no matter how much l show that sea levels are not rising, (Fort D, Pacific Ocean, etc, etc, etc, previous posts here) and showing overwhelming evidence through image comparision not showing any rise in sea levels,....it is!

Life in Earth, lol, your stand is f...ing insane, and that is putting it mildly!

How many times have d...heads in the UN, predicted the end of the world????? SInce the 1970's or 5 times in a row, and failed 5 times in a row, yeah, laughable.

But climate change, the end is nigh in 10 years,,....again,....isn't science it is a cult, so hard evidence is dismissed in ANY way, including infinite stupid,

And in the year 2030, all of the BS artists, will say the oceans kept the heat in or magical ice did, anything but the f...ing obvious!!!!!!!!!

You are welcome to think what you want, but the masses are voting out these f....wits, as they have failed miserably over and ....ing over. I don't listen to some one who lies to my face once, and the rest who accept the lie, 5 times in a row, (6th on the horizion) failed predictions?

A psychiatrist can answer that better than l can.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
1 hour ago, openozy said:

Coal isn't evil it's just coal

Coal isn't evil.  It's just very dirty and really not at all good for human health or the environment (ignoring CO2 etc).

ie:

https://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/heal_briefing_what_does_coal_cost_health_in_the_uk_29112013final1_1.pdf

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/coal-and-air-pollution

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2300396017300551

https://www.iisd.org/gsi/subsidy-watch-blog/air-pollution-and-health-cost-coal

 

Edited by Essan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

It does seem like people will be still screaming it's not climate change while their towns are on fire or under water.

And that's largely thanks to industry.

In light of Australia, it occurs to me I should probably change that from towns to countries.

Edited by GlitterRose
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
On 2/8/2020 at 1:16 AM, tmcom said:

Cannot create iron with solar/wind, no way around that!

Good to see you post a fact for a change.

Smelting iron requires a reducing agent.  Coal has provided that for the last couple of centuries.  That's why US Steel located in Pittsburgh.

And if we want to have iron products made from iron ore, we will have to smelt them with coal.

When we speak of phasing out coal, the unspoken exception is iron making.  We also need natural gas for open hearth furnaces and soaking pits.  I'm not right up to snuff on how much CO2 that will put into the air, but I don't think that one use is enough to seriously harm the ecosystem, especially if we scrub the smoke.

 

Recycling cuts down on CO2 pollution by cutting the smelting stage out of the loop.  Recycling, though, introduces impurities into the iron, such as lead and zinc from autos.  A few years back, a cobalt source from a hospital radiation machine was accidentally included in some steel scrap.  As a result, our iron and steel supply is contaminated.  For most uses that's not a problem, but if you are making Geiger counters, it's a disaster.  So we will probably always need a small amount of smelting.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
8 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

It does seem like people will be still screaming it's not climate change while their towns are on fire or under water.

And that's largely thanks to industry.

In light of Australia, it occurs to me I should probably change that from towns to countries.

That's Australia through-and-through.  And southern California.

I have pretty-much traced Oklahoma's cedar invasion back to climate change.  Might as well run up the white flag and surrender as cedar has already won the war.  But there are those who think climate change is fake.  They try to tell me that Oklahoma's increased rainfall isn't climate change.  Really?  They can believe whatever they want, but they better get used to living with red-cedar because it's not paying any attention to their propaganda.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
On 2/8/2020 at 5:34 AM, tmcom said:

That is a neat trick considering that the Official US Weather Bureau, chart, (shown in the video below) shows that 1934 was the hottest year in the US, and the Raw datasets from NOAA, show a decline in US temps for the last few years!

Urbanization, (freeways, housing roads, cement also create heat sinks and increase yearly temp's for those areas).

There is no such thing as the U.S. Weather Bureau.  It was reorganized years ago to become the National Weather Service.

I work with NOAA's weather data all the time.  They show 1936, not 1934, to have set all-time record highs, but pretty-much ordinary averages.  Climate is measured using averages.  Anything you get from using the extremes is wrong.

Those last few years start in 2016.  2017, 2018 and 2019 were all cooler, though 2019 came close to setting a new record.  So far, 2020 is running on the warm side, but we still have 11 months to go.

Your statement is based on four years of data and climate change is measured based on 30-year averages.  Such ups and downs in temps are perfectly normal and have occurred many times since record-keeping began (1826 in Oklahoma).

By telling only part of the story, you are in effect, lying.  Tell the whole story.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 2/8/2020 at 8:13 AM, tmcom said:

But he is right about making iron, can't do it with wind/solar, since coal's stored CO2 is a vital component in making iron.

I worked for 25  years in an aerospace foundry business.  All of our furnaces were electric, either induction or direct arc.  When making alloys, we measured out everything by weight, nickel, chromium, molybdenum, and carbon.  The power to run the furnaces is the same, however it is generated.  Carbon is the same what ever its source.

Historically it has been true that coal coke was the major source of heat and carbon for producing steel.  It may well be the most efficient source long into the future.

From your goto Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgical_coal

Metallurgical coal contrasts with thermal coal, which does not produce coke when heated. Because of their different end-uses, prices for the two types of coal are usually quite different. Metallurgical coal comes mainly from Canada, the United States, and Australia.[1]. In the United States, the electric power sector used "93% of total U.S. coal consumption between 2007 and 2018"; only 7% of the total was metallurgical coal and coal for other uses such as heating

Of course, you can decouple coal entirely from the climate change issue if you like.  Then just consider its economic viability as a power source.  The coal touts don't need to worry about climate effects, just the price of coal compared to other energy sources.  Long term, it will lose market share.

We will still use that 7% metallurgical coal, but that is not enough to keep the industry alive in its current state.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.