Search byAlgolia Logo
Searchbyfor

36 results (0.024 seconds)

macinjosh|10 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: What's Really Warming the World?
Please don't take this as a denial of climate change, it is an honest question. How do scientists learn the levels of ozone, aerosols, green house gases, and the other data points going so far back at a global scale? Is the data from before the latter half of the 20th century spotty? If so, why is it considered good enough to use in a context of scientific research where quality and correctness of data is paramount?
macinjosh|2 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock
I have a hard time trusting climate data from before we had satellites or other forms of precise automated recording. If climate scientists are telling us they _know_ detailed information about global atmospheric temperatures, greenhouse gas concentrations, etc. over millions years because they cored some ice from a select set of places on earth, I just don't know how an average person is supposed to believe that. It appears to the layman to be data generation on par with an episode of CSI where the lab somehow 'enhances' low res photos to high res.

Where are the million year long experiments demonstrating how ice and its contents changes over such long time spans, that vast majority of which we were not even conscious for as a species? It is too many variable to fit into any sort of computing technology today, and the science is mostly based on statistics which everyone knows can be twisted easily.

macinjosh|2 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: The 115F Heat Is Killing Phones in Sardinia
A reason the right is so against this is because aspects of their lifestyles are targeted by climate activists (who are largely on the left), while the left, especially left politicians, don't see much need to alter their lifestyles. They still fly (rich ones in private jets), use the AC, and get tax breaks on EVs that still run on energy generated by oil and gas, all while screaming that the world is ending, declaring themselves superior, and spewing derision like the above.

Perhaps if we both sides had some self control and didn't make everything left vs. right we could solve problems.

macinjosh|2 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: Heat pumps of the 1800s are becoming the technology of the future
Still waiting for one of these people who rave about their heat pump system to actually rely on it full time without a backup. Most folks could barely afford to replace an existing furnace in a place that has all the fixtures installed, much less pay to install a second one based on different setup, and then pay for maintaining two systems on top of everything else. It is absurd to think that this is a plausible way forward for anyone other than the wealthy tech enthusiast. Same thing for induction stoves. You all should start a club or something.

The tech is not ready if you need a backup. I've lived in extreme cold climate areas and no gas furnace I've had has ever needed a backup.

macinjosh|3 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: The Swerve
How many times have you flown somewhere in the last 10 years? How many commutes have you made?

Travel is the most inefficient, wasteful, and anti-climate activity I can think of because for many cases it is simply unnecessary or discretionary. Beyond having some 100,000 flights per day pumping greenhouse gases directly into the atmosphere think of the infrastructure and workforce involved in running airports, hotels, car rentals, shuttles, parking lots, restaurants, uber/taxis, etc.

I think air travel should be rare and expensive especially for business and vacations. Perhaps a heavy tax on business and pleasure travel would be good place to start.

While we are at it work should be done remotely whenever possible and empty office buildings should be renovated into affordable housing.

macinjosh|3 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: Lufthansa’s European Union Strasbourg “shuttle”
These same people want to take away affordable heating from their constituents including the poor in the name of the "climate emergency". Yet, they can take a plane (that pumps huge amounts of CO2 directly into the sky) twice a week for the distance some people commute by ground _everyday_ for work. Then they only work for two days a week. I've never seen a more disgusting display of elitism.
macinjosh|4 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: China declares cryptocurrency deals ‘illegal’
Give me a break. Power consumption numbers are completely meaningless in this argument. Power usage does not correlate directly to CO2 emissions. Crypto can and does run on renewables. If we were serious about fixing climate change we'd stop all air traffic tomorrow. In reality, the climate issue is just a convenient political bludgeon.
macinjosh|4 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: China declares cryptocurrency deals ‘illegal’
If you care so much about climate change have you completely stopped flying? Have you been in a car lately? The energy consumption from those activities is _beyond unacceptable_.

I don't fly in airplanes but I use crypto. So why should you get to choose to do some activities that blast CO2 directly into the atmosphere but I can't? It is a disgusting, authoritarian ideology you have.

Besides that crypto can run on solar. Airplanes cannot. So I propose we ban airplanes. /s

The reality is you just don't like the politics behind the crypto movement. The climate is just a convenient bludgeon for you.

macinjosh|4 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave
It is difficult to care when we’ve been told since the 90s that the brink is only x years away and then nothing happens. Canada is huge 180 wildfires is nothing. The fact is that there is no peer reviewed scientific study that proves there are increased wildfires due to climate change. Assuming it is makes you the same as the folks who just assumed the pandemic was fake. It is anti-science.
macinjosh|4 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: Children of Chernobyl cleanup crew don’t have excess mutations
Encouraging news! What a tragedy Chernobyl was. Both in the lives lost and those forever altered by the event.

Compounded on that is also the humongous set back it contributed to for no-carbon energy. Now we are at a point where some congressional leaders are telling us the world may end in as soon 12 years[0] because of the man-made climate emergency. Since the situation is that dire perhaps the small risks of modern nuclear energy are a better alternative?

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHk8nn0nw18

macinjosh|5 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: Advocates want to name heatwaves like hurricanes to raise awareness of dangers
Quit being a fear mongering alarmist. While it is measurable and real, there is zero evidence to show that climate change will necessarily kill millions. Humans have adapted and overcome, we will again.

The farce of climate alarmism is starting to show its cracks. For example, well known, long-time environmentalist Michael Shellenberger wrote an entire book on how unhelpful alarmism and panic is to really find solutions to climate change.

macinjosh|5 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: Shelter in place for Bay Area counties
So let me get this straight: You want food to be more expensive when we already have families that struggle to put food on the table (see recent worries about closing schools affecting access to the food they provide)?

Urban populations have their own fair share of climate related problems.

Sounds to me like you just want people to starve in order to solve your precious climate ‘crisis’.

macinjosh|5 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: Summer Sea Ice Could End This Decade: The Voyage to the End of Ice
I think so too. But why don't we ever hear the scientific community come out and stand up for themselves? I imagine that would be considered news in and of itself.

I reckon its because there is a social and possible economic price to pay to say anything that detracts from a sense of emergency around the climate. It is a toxic culture now similar to that of the 'woke' wing of the left or the pro-gun wing of the right.

If anyone wants the general public to take this issue as seriously as it should be FUD is not the way to go. I think it hurts more than it helps.

macinjosh|5 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: Google under investigation for ‘Thanksgiving Four’ firings, discouraging unions
So a union's purpose is to stop any human progress because it might temporarily inconvenience a subset of the population?

I am told a switch to green energy is necessary to save the climate. Shipping containers enabled affordable products to be sold globally which has improved the standard of living for many. Should we ban modern modes of transport so all the horse drawn carriage factory employees can get their jobs back?

macinjosh|5 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: The world’s climate goals are not sufficient. They are also unlikely to be met
I 100% agree. But you're missing the point entirely. The hypothesis of the mechanics climate change have been tested and are provably true. What has not been born out and is definitely not a testable prediction is whether certain measure are enough, that particular weather events are due to climate change, that humanity is likely doomed, etc. These are emotional responses not testable predictions.
macinjosh|5 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: The world’s climate goals are not sufficient. They are also unlikely to be met
Please don't be reductive. Sure what you're calling a prediction is really just a hypothesis. What I am saying is that we are treating the hypothesis of climate change as fact before there is clear evidence that the predicted bad outcomes will actually occur.

In Einstein's case we were able to make observations and conduct experiments that bore out the hypothesis.

In the case of climate change this isn't possible. We don't have a second climate to use as a control. We don't have the capability to do experiments that accurately consider the infinite input and outputs that make up the climate as a whole. Science has its limits and they are mainly human.

Tell me what experiment we can do today that accurately includes every aspect of our climate that proves doom is certain.

If the best you can give is likelihoods or possibilities that is not a scientific fact so quit acting like it is and lets have a reasonable discussion.

There are many, many things we can do to take better care of our climate but being alarmist and using fear to get the public on board with your politics is a categorically a bad thing.

macinjosh|5 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: The world’s climate goals are not sufficient. They are also unlikely to be met
The analogy is actually very poor. You can check and be 100% sure if a gun is loaded. You can't check what will happen to the climate in 50 years because it hasn't happened and we don't currently have the knowledge or capability to truly know what will happen with the climate.

And please don't tell me that doing something just in case we're right is better than doing nothing. There is a great cost to enacting the climate policies that have been proposed, both human and financial.

macinjosh|5 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: The world’s climate goals are not sufficient. They are also unlikely to be met
> Since evidence based policy making became a thing. We use it for deciding when to plant crops, deciding what medical treatments should be broadly implemented, deciding what water treatment methods are acceptable...it's fairly popular.

Thanks for the smug talking down to. :) However your comparison here is ridiculous. We can easily measure crop out comes, water treatment outcomes, and medical outcomes because in the past actual experiments were done that showed what worked and didn't in that situation.

The climate on the other hand is completely different. We don't have a second one to use as a control. The scale is too large to fully factor in all inputs and outputs. It is just not the same at all as the things you mention.

> Plus, your argument is equivalent to playing Russian roulette and claiming that the presence of a bullet somewhere in the gun is not an established fact.

I am not the type to choose security over giving up the personal freedoms and rights of myself and my fellow humans just in case someone's computer model turns out to be accurate.

In any case, your analogy is actually very poor. You can check and be 100% sure if a gun is loaded. You can't check what will happen to the climate in 50 years because it hasn't happened and we don't currently have the knowledge or capability to truly required to truly know what will happen with the climate.

macinjosh|5 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: The world’s climate goals are not sufficient. They are also unlikely to be met
> Climate science tells us what will happen to the climate, and it is based on the same concepts as the most fundamental and rigorous science: thermodynamics. If more heat enters than leaves a system, the temperature will increase. There is nothing unscientific here.

The climate isn't that simple. It's unfathomably complex. There are an infinite number of inputs and outputs. What repeatable experiment can accurately and repeatedly recreate this?

So your simplistic argument is just handwaving.

macinjosh|5 years ago|0 comments|parent|on: China Set for Coal Expansion in Threat to Climate Goals
If one thinks and supports politicians that believe climate change is a threat to human existence you would, logically, wholeheartedly support the following:

1. Ban all air travel
2. Ban all consumer goods made in developing nations. (a large contributor to China and India's carbon footprint)
3. War with countries producing a large carbon foot print if they refuse diplomatic efforts to meaningfully curb emissions.
4. Eat only plants and insects.
5. No cars (battery or otherwise).
6. Culling or otherwise slowing the population.

If one is not willing to adopt all of these (and more unmentioned) as part of their own lifestyle and political views one does not truly believe climate change poses as great a danger as it is made out to be.

In fact, it is proof there is a particular political end in mind and climate change is a convenient excuse for those in power to meet their own political ends.