Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

[Prawn Connery]

I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am sharing science that is contrary to your comfort zone and I get that. Here is some more science on the nature of the sun. Give it a try if you can.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6qGwV1LMgQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry. I don't quite follow. What has this got to do with anthropological global warming?

Can you please explain what this video has to do with the title of this thread? I'm obviously a bit slow.

[Prawn Connery]

I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am sharing science that is contrary to your comfort zone and I get that. Here is some more science on the nature of the sun. Give it a try if you can.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6qGwV1LMgQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you're not trying to convince me of anything, why would you want me to "eat my words" as you suggested earlier?

And I'm really not seeing a lot of "science" being shared here - so it's unlikely to be "contrary to my comfort zone".

But I am seeing a lot of "petrochemical propaganda" - which is hardly the same thing as "science". Unless we're talking about the "science" of misinformation and exploitation for financial gain.

[Dick Fein]

I am not trying to convince YOU of anything.
I am not opposed to trying to convince a person with an open mind.
I pick my battles, not the other way around.
Some more good research out of Princeton today, https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/01/ ... loud-cycle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rSin]

Say dcik

You must be aware of the concept of
Significant digit

Are you missing that most
Of what your presenting
Is the argument that

We need to respect what
Multiplying a couple of hundredths
Says about the tens of thousandths?

[Intrinsic]

Taxing is not a solution. Never is.

If it is wrong to do then it is wrong, stop doing it. As with CFCs.

Taxing people to coerce 'em to change is bullshit. It didn't work for cigs. It won't work for cannabis. Taxing is only for creating loopholes. People and corporations will find hacks and game the system then still claim they're green for the marketing value while still doing wrong.

It is just throwing money at a problem.
Any solution that starts with a tax is bullshit.

The solution is to stop polluting the common air. The financially cost <rolleyes> is not a solution. Wtf?? Don't tax to let 'em pollute, just stop. Fuking idiots.

Taxing won't stop Exxon. Taxing companies wont stop me from using all the plastic and other petroleum based gadgets I love, burning gas to survive.
Sure I ride a bike, walk for entertainment, have my own compost pile, charge solar when I can and heat with renewable wood from my land. But I love the plastic doodads for my garden's drip irrigation to the ulra-lightweight plastic spoon/fork for hiking. And I still want to use gas engines for hauling shit and I need to my chainsaw and weed whacker to stay legal or pay hefty fines.

/rant
I already have a fire tax, two of 'em, state and county. But I'm still required to maintain my property for wildfire prevention at my expense. Which is odd since I and everyone else here had been doing it anyway before taxes and fines; as common sense. Yet there is still 'patriotic' 4th of July firework displays here at taxpayers expense. Bullshit.
/end rant.

But no more taxes, because if we do it right then initially most everything will be more expensive, less available and different anyway.

The problem with that argument is we still need to maintain some form of industrial activity and those activities are not going to be reformed or eliminated overnight. The fastest way to incentivise industrial reforms is to hit industry where it is most sensitive: cost of doing business. If the pecuniary penalty for polluting is higher than the cots of reform, then it will drive reform.

The alternative is forced (legislated) wholesale reform, which would cost far more, because then you have to reform and close legitimate industries and compensate them for their losses.

You can't just stop burning hydrocarbons like you can stop producing CFCs - the whole of human civilisation is still reliant on fossil fuels, and that is not going to change any time soon.

The problem with that argument is we still need to maintain some form of industrial activity and those activities are not going to be reformed or eliminated overnight. The fastest way to incentivise industrial reforms is to hit industry where it is most sensitive: cost of doing business. If the pecuniary penalty for polluting is higher than the cots of reform, then it will drive reform.
But if there is a chance of staying legal and still do wrong then some bright greed heads will game the system. Hackers do it for fun.

The alternative is forced (legislated) wholesale reform, which would cost far more, because then you have to reform and close legitimate industries and compensate them for their losses.
Fuck that, Not in a free market under capitalism. That talk is bordering on Marxism.
Greedheads will still get rich, just different ones and not from carbon loopholes. But the smart ones catering to the new existing market.
I'm I being USA-centric there?

The alternative is forced (legislated) wholesale reform, which would cost far more, because then you have to reform and close legitimate industries and compensate them for their losses.
Yes forced with Regulation. We did not tax leaded gas to stop it's manufacture and sale, we regulated it away. Forced Retooling of factories to make cars run off unleaded gas only. Sure we could of used high tax coercion and would have eventually got the same result. But taken much longer at a very high rate of medical problems for people, for generations.
So I'm not convinced it faster or better.

I know getting legislators to write and pass regulation is the bottleneck, but same thing with passing new taxes.

Yes reform. Not close factories down but retool 'em. Say for solar panels or solar steam generators or better lithium batters or flywheels or whatever is needed.
Jobs are still there. Resources are still being used and distributed (yanno economy)

You can't just stop burning hydrocarbons like you can stop producing CFCs - the whole of human civilisation is still reliant on fossil fuels, and that is not going to change any time soon
oh yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with you. 'Specially since we are a petroleum economy.
But, .. yeah you knew a but was coming ..

But I don't see taxes addressing the problem there. A piecemeal laid out plan using regulation seems more optimal. Rather then with taxes hoping greedheads will adopt the solution you want 'em to take. Successful greed heads are not sheep.

Do I need to point out the earth does have a self-regulating check to the excessive co2 from Fossil Fuels. They are a limited resource, earth is running out.
But before we run out why not use this cheap energy to retool out factories. Then we still have some left for other things (fertilizer, plastics).

The models suggest there exist an amount of co2 from petrol we can pump into the system and not overload it.
I never meant to suggest we go cold turkey. Better people then me have presented these ideas.
When we started using fossil fuels new industries came about , others faded away. They weren't tax out of existence, Yanno economic darwism.
It is possible to do. Even with greedheads.

Not to sound rosy, as I said, if done right, initially things would be scarcer and more expensive, less average energy use per person, So why have additional tax burdens too. And the fact taxes are always passed to the consumer mitigating the burden and incentive initially. Sounds slow to me.

[Intrinsic]

I'm not yet convinced.
- This rock is exposed to a range from 120*C/248*F on the sun side, to -100*C/-148*F in the shade. The bulk of this rock ranges from 2,000*C/3,600*F just under the thin crust to 6,000*C/11,000*F (which is hotter than the surface of the sun 5,500*C/10,000*F) at the core. We are talking aboot a 2*C/3.6*F change. I have some difficulty buying that we have much affect on that...seems a little vain.

Just pointing out that a majority of the 97% also advocate for the use of a deadly alternative that they can not control.

Have these climate scientists factored in the effects of those 2,056 "test" detonations? I haven't seen any of them address that.

You know the cap sealing the Bikini Atoll waste is crumbling.
Percent of properly disposed spent uranium used so far.....ZERO.
Yeeeeah, I trust those guys.

I have some difficulty buying that we have much affect on that...seems a little vain.
So maybe not so difficult since ya have concerns that enormous energy release in fusion testing . Or maybe heat from stored waste That perhaps humans do harness energies that can indeed initiate such changes?

Bikini Atoll.
The 15 megaton fusion explosion there has changed the ecology detrimental for humans. So bad everyone stopped above ground testing. No more talk of surviving a nuclear war, it shut the admirals right up. At only 15 mt that was biggest one ever tested. The hirosima and nagasaki fission bombs were 1000+ times smaller by comparison. The largest fusion one ever built was 300 mt, never tested for obvious reasons. There is no engineering bottleneck for building bigger and bigger ones. The SALT treaties were a no brainier for both sides.

So since we can boil oceans and create nuclear winters..
A small 2c change (relative to the numbers ranges you cited) doesn't seem so hubris.

[Intrinsic]

Just pointing out that a majority of the 97% also advocate for the use of a deadly alternative that they can not control.

Have these climate scientists factored in the effects of those 2,056 "test" detonations? I haven't seen any of them address that.

Cool, A legit alternate hypothesis. something to sink my teeth into. This one is new to me so i did some lazy research (used google). found this on skeptical science:

"How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
Posted on 24 August 2012 by Tom Curtis
A reasonable estimate indicates that the total energy released by nuclear explosions in the twentieth century amounts to six hundred megatons TNT equivalent of energy, or 2.5 billion, billion Joules (2.5 x 1018 J). That estimate is larger than the five hundred and thirty megatons TNT equivalent estimated by UNSCEAR (also), so it can be considered a conservative estimate. Divided over the five hundred and ten million, million square meters of the Earth's surface (510 x 1012 m^2), and over the two decades of peak testing, that represents eight millionth of a Watt per square meter (8 x 10-6 W m-2) of power. For comparison, the 1.8 Watts per square meter (1.8 W m-2) of CO2 radiative forcing as of 2011 generates approximately twenty nine billion, trillion Joules of energy (29 x 1021 J) over the Earth's surface in a single year, or more than ten thousand times as much energy in a year that the entire combined nuclear weapons program of the world has generated.

That is not the whole story. Many nuclear tests kick up a lot of dust, which reflects sunlight, thereby cooling the Earth. Indeed, according to Turco et al, 1983, that is the dominant effect of nuclear explosions on climate. The result is that nuclear testing is likely to have reflected more energy from the Sun than they generated. That is, nuclear testing is likely to have been a net cooling factor.

Let us ignore that possibility, and the large proportion of energy released to space as radiation. In that case, during the period of maximum nuclear testing it may have contributed 0.62 millionth of a degree Centigrade (0.62 x 10-6 C) to temperature increase, a contribution too small to notice, and likely to have entirely dissipated since the reduction in nuclear testing in the 1990s. The peak contribution was in 1962, when nuclear testing may have contributed as much as one hundred and seventy megatons TNT equivalent of energy in 1962. Averaged over the year and the Earth's surface, that represents forty-four millionths of a Watt (44 x 10-6 W m-2), for a warming contribution, ignoring dust effects, of around thirty-five millionths of a degree Centigrade (35 * 10-6 C), still too small to notice."
https://skepticalscience.com/nuclear.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Averaged over the year and the Earth's surface, that represents forty-four millionths of a Watt (44 x 10-6 W m-2), for a warming contribution, ignoring dust effects, of around thirty-five millionths of a degree Centigrade (35 * 10-6 C), still too small to notice."

perhaps that is why you haven't seen anything on it, not significant.
i did not look through any published papers to see if any of 'em mention it, just google scholar and it only gives abstracts. didn't find any mention of it..

[Dick Fein]

Another good one from Freeman Dyson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pou3sGedeK4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Roots]

The environmental harm from testing and the risk from using nuclear power doesn’t come in the form of global warming.

I’m not sure if Bob is pointing out the risk in nuclear or the hypocrisy of the scientist but they are both valid points ....not sure why those points would be relevant in this thread?

[Intrinsic]

I should let Bob speak for himself but he did ask if those scientist factored in effects of the detonations. So I looked and that's what I came up with. Having giving me no authors are names I just looked in general

I felt it was a legitimate concern the data could have been skewed when Computing the mean temperature. For what it's worth people have been looking at the global weather and climate since the first detonations took place it has been a concern What the effects are in the atmosphere and climate. A lot of data is out there.