Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

CO2 sanity

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:34 am

TFLYTSNBN
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1515
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... nt-charges

It appears that Al Gore is not the only AGW theologian who is a crazed sex poodle.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Michael Everett   » Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:37 am

Michael Everett
Admiral

Posts: 2389
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:54 am
Location: Bristol, England

TFLYTSNBN wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/15/former-ipcc-chief-rajendra-pachauri-to-stand-trial-on-sexual-harassment-charges

It appears that Al Gore is not the only AGW theologian who is a crazed sex poodle.


...You're quoting the Guardian?
Okay, for those unaware of the Guardian's stance, here's a summary.
TVTropes wrote:The Guardian is the UK's biggest left-leaning paper. It's often called the "Grauniad", a result of its former reputation for frequent typos, and its readers are often called "Guardianistas" (particularly as a derogatory comment on their political leanings, analogous to the American "New York Times liberal"). It started life as the Manchester Guardian in 1821, only moving to London in 1964, five years after taking "Manchester" out of the title, but it's now got a reputation of being particularly London-centric. It feels very centrist sometimes in spite of its left-leaning reputation; it doesn't support the Labour Party so much as it opposes the Tories, and it has been critical of far-left governments in Latin America and Eastern Europe, basically following the British government stance there. This can lead to the accusation that they actually tend to just adopt whatever position will best enable them to get away with a tone of slightly condescending self-righteousness.

Politics aside, the paper is unique in that its parent company, the Guardian Media Group, is owned by a trust which exists to ensure its editorial independence. That said, it seems to be willing to pick fights with practically every other major newspaper, from the traditionally conservative Daily Telegraph, to more hardcore left-wing Daily Mirror. It's also infamous for supporting candidates who lose in embarrassing fashion, in the UK and outside it; it once got into hot water for suggesting that its readers ring up random Americans to tell them not to vote for George W. Bush in 2004. Elsewhere in the paper, it has a very highly regarded crossword, which enthusiasts say might be even better than that of the Times.

It has the lowest circulation of the "big three" newspapers, behind the Times and the Telegraph, which is likely because it's the only one of the three whose website is not behind a paywall. The paper calls this a commitment to the "free democracy of ideas", while cynics call it giving away all your content for free. That said, its online presence is formidable, third in traffic among British news sites behind only the Daily Mail and the internationally venerated BBC News.

Its proudest journalistic moment is its hand in the collapse of the News of the World; they had been plugging away at the scandal for years, and it was they who made the breakthrough by discovering that the News of the World had hacked a murdered teenager's phone to give her family hope that she might still be alive. If they hadn't been investigating so tirelessly, chances are what the News of the World had been doing would never have come to light. Even the Telegraph gave them props.

The Observer has been the Guardian's Sunday-only sister paper since 1993; it's the oldest Sunday newspaper in the world, being first published in 1791, and it gives particular focus to arts and culture. Between it, Guardian Weekend, The Observer Magazine, and the Observer Food Monthly, they give the impression of being Obsessed with Food, albeit in a very London-centric, Islington-dinner-party sort of way (including blatant Product Placement for fairly expensive British supermarkets).

Both The Guardian and The Observer were the only UK newspapers printed in the berliner format, having switched from broadsheet in 2005 and 2006 respectively. Both switched to tabloid on January 15 and 21, 2018 respectively.

So, to summarize, the Guardian is somewhat center-left liberal in outlook, although the term Anti-Tory is more appropriate. It survives relatively low sales due to having a trust fund that meets most of its costs, reducing its reliance on donations and advertisements.
Since Trump has a background in private business, the Guardian is predisposed to disliking him due to their left-wing nature. That being said, the Guardian takes pride in confirming its facts (if not its spelling) although its opinion pieces are often rather blatant in promoting left-wing ideologies or trying to fight popular culture (Polly Toynbee being noted for her opinion columns devolving into rants on many occasions).

I find it a sad reflection on the American news organisations that Fly has to resort to looking at the papers on this side of the Pond to get any idea of what's happening in his own country, especially since America is effectively of only secondary importance to all the papers here.
~~~~~~

I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber
But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork.

(Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC!
Animal Crossing Dreams at 6E00-00F5-2891
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:45 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1515
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

Michael Everett wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/15/former-ipcc-chief-rajendra-pachauri-to-stand-trial-on-sexual-harassment-charges

It appears that Al Gore is not the only AGW theologian who is a crazed sex poodle.


...You're quoting the Guardian?
Okay, for those unaware of the Guardian's stance, here's a summary.
TVTropes wrote:The Guardian is the UK's biggest left-leaning paper. It's often called the "Grauniad", a result of its former reputation for frequent typos, and its readers are often called "Guardianistas" (particularly as a derogatory comment on their political leanings, analogous to the American "New York Times liberal"). It started life as the Manchester Guardian in 1821, only moving to London in 1964, five years after taking "Manchester" out of the title, but it's now got a reputation of being particularly London-centric. It feels very centrist sometimes in spite of its left-leaning reputation; it doesn't support the Labour Party so much as it opposes the Tories, and it has been critical of far-left governments in Latin America and Eastern Europe, basically following the British government stance there. This can lead to the accusation that they actually tend to just adopt whatever position will best enable them to get away with a tone of slightly condescending self-righteousness.

Politics aside, the paper is unique in that its parent company, the Guardian Media Group, is owned by a trust which exists to ensure its editorial independence. That said, it seems to be willing to pick fights with practically every other major newspaper, from the traditionally conservative Daily Telegraph, to more hardcore left-wing Daily Mirror. It's also infamous for supporting candidates who lose in embarrassing fashion, in the UK and outside it; it once got into hot water for suggesting that its readers ring up random Americans to tell them not to vote for George W. Bush in 2004. Elsewhere in the paper, it has a very highly regarded crossword, which enthusiasts say might be even better than that of the Times.

It has the lowest circulation of the "big three" newspapers, behind the Times and the Telegraph, which is likely because it's the only one of the three whose website is not behind a paywall. The paper calls this a commitment to the "free democracy of ideas", while cynics call it giving away all your content for free. That said, its online presence is formidable, third in traffic among British news sites behind only the Daily Mail and the internationally venerated BBC News.

Its proudest journalistic moment is its hand in the collapse of the News of the World; they had been plugging away at the scandal for years, and it was they who made the breakthrough by discovering that the News of the World had hacked a murdered teenager's phone to give her family hope that she might still be alive. If they hadn't been investigating so tirelessly, chances are what the News of the World had been doing would never have come to light. Even the Telegraph gave them props.

The Observer has been the Guardian's Sunday-only sister paper since 1993; it's the oldest Sunday newspaper in the world, being first published in 1791, and it gives particular focus to arts and culture. Between it, Guardian Weekend, The Observer Magazine, and the Observer Food Monthly, they give the impression of being Obsessed with Food, albeit in a very London-centric, Islington-dinner-party sort of way (including blatant Product Placement for fairly expensive British supermarkets).

Both The Guardian and The Observer were the only UK newspapers printed in the berliner format, having switched from broadsheet in 2005 and 2006 respectively. Both switched to tabloid on January 15 and 21, 2018 respectively.

So, to summarize, the Guardian is somewhat center-left liberal in outlook, although the term Anti-Tory is more appropriate. It survives relatively low sales due to having a trust fund that meets most of its costs, reducing its reliance on donations and advertisements.
Since Trump has a background in private business, the Guardian is predisposed to disliking him due to their left-wing nature. That being said, the Guardian takes pride in confirming its facts (if not its spelling) although its opinion pieces are often rather blatant in promoting left-wing ideologies or trying to fight popular culture (Polly Toynbee being noted for her opinion columns devolving into rants on many occasions).

I find it a sad reflection on the American news organisations that Fly has to resort to looking at the papers on this side of the Pond to get any idea of what's happening in his own country, especially since America is effectively of only secondary importance to all the papers here.



You make erroneous, illogical deductions from limited information. I posted a link to only one article and chose to cite a European newspaper as a courtesy and to preclude rebuttals that I'm relying on some radical, right wing, antiglobalist source. From this you conclude that I cant find the same information in American media.

May be you should do a bit of Googling before spewing?
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:46 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1515
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

I'm still waiting for "The E" to respond to my extremely well documented rebuttal to his hysterical claim that AGW is causing an "unprecedented drought" in Pakistan.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by The E   » Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:06 pm

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I'm still waiting for "The E" to respond to my extremely well documented rebuttal to his hysterical claim that AGW is causing an "unprecedented drought" in Pakistan.


You mean that single study that only looked at a fairly limited dataset (importantly, a dataset starting after the first effects of agw already happened)?

That's not "extremely well documented", that's (at best) "adequately sourced" (then again, this sort of exaggeration seems to be your thing).

Anyway, reading through that study, I am not sure it actually invalidates anything I said. As it states, in the first paragraph of its introduction:
Pakistan, a South Asian country, home to about 195 million people (as of 2011), faces significant water scarcity. Although Pakistan has a diverse climate, about two-thirds of the land area lies in semi-arid and arid climate zones (Chaudhry & Rasul, 2004). Furthermore, the pressures of population growth, urbanization, industrialization and agricultural development are rapidly increasing demands on the country’s water resources. Experts therefore predict severe water shortages for Pakistan in the coming decades (World Bank, 2005).


Now, granted, that study doesn't mention climate change at all. In fact, it doesn't go into any detail whatsoever about the causes, and there is no comparative element to the analysis at all (as in, the study makes no statement about the impact the various drought cycles have had on the country, what factors exacerbated or alleviated their impact). Further, in its conclusion, the authors specifically note that they don't actually have enough data to say that the cycle they saw actually exists.

Fact of the matter is this: Pakistan is undergoing a process of urbanization. Urban areas, as is well documented, are hotter than their surrounding countryside; they have an increased water demand not just because of that, but also because of the demands of industry.
If current climate trends hold, and Pakistan gets its share of the projected temperature increase, then the demands on its water supply will only increase overtime. Coupled with changes in weather patterns, the disappearance of the himalayan glaciers, this is a recipe for disaster; Throw in a not particularly stable government, nuclear weapons, and a long-standing animosity towards its neighbour countries, and some form of humanitarian disaster is practically guaranteed.


Here, have some sources from reality that you can ignore:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... 809509002/

http://www.lead.org.pk/cc/basicguide_cl ... hange.html

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 09.01237.x

http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/02/impact-c ... t-threats/
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:22 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1515
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

The E wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:I'm still waiting for "The E" to respond to my extremely well documented rebuttal to his hysterical claim that AGW is causing an "unprecedented drought" in Pakistan.


You mean that single study that only looked at a fairly limited dataset (importantly, a dataset starting after the first effects of agw already happened)?

That's not "extremely well documented", that's (at best) "adequately sourced" (then again, this sort of exaggeration seems to be your thing).

Anyway, reading through that study, I am not sure it actually invalidates anything I said. As it states, in the first paragraph of its introduction:
Pakistan, a South Asian country, home to about 195 million people (as of 2011), faces significant water scarcity. Although Pakistan has a diverse climate, about two-thirds of the land area lies in semi-arid and arid climate zones (Chaudhry & Rasul, 2004). Furthermore, the pressures of population growth, urbanization, industrialization and agricultural development are rapidly increasing demands on the country’s water resources. Experts therefore predict severe water shortages for Pakistan in the coming decades (World Bank, 2005).


Now, granted, that study doesn't mention climate change at all. In fact, it doesn't go into any detail whatsoever about the causes, and there is no comparative element to the analysis at all (as in, the study makes no statement about the impact the various drought cycles have had on the country, what factors exacerbated or alleviated their impact). Further, in its conclusion, the authors specifically note that they don't actually have enough data to say that the cycle they saw actually exists.

Fact of the matter is this: Pakistan is undergoing a process of urbanization. Urban areas, as is well documented, are hotter than their surrounding countryside; they have an increased water demand not just because of that, but also because of the demands of industry.
If current climate trends hold, and Pakistan gets its share of the projected temperature increase, then the demands on its water supply will only increase overtime. Coupled with changes in weather patterns, the disappearance of the himalayan glaciers, this is a recipe for disaster; Throw in a not particularly stable government, nuclear weapons, and a long-standing animosity towards its neighbour countries, and some form of humanitarian disaster is practically guaranteed.


Here, have some sources from reality that you can ignore:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... 809509002/

http://www.lead.org.pk/cc/basicguide_cl ... hange.html

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 09.01237.x

http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/02/impact-c ... t-threats/



You truly are intransigent aren't you?

As the very well sourced study that I referenced documented with the best available data, the problem with Pakistan having a draught is not AGW causing a trend of less rain. The problem is a growing and increasingly urbanized population demanding more water that results in critical shortages during the cyclical dry years.

What is truly hillarious is that one of the references that you cite hasan informative graph that acknowledges that increases in global temperatures began in 1860, nearly a century before CO2 increased allegedly (and probably partially) as a result of human use of fossil fuel. Why did climate get so much hotter from 1860 to 1960 before the biggest increases in CO2 occurred?

Truly, truly pathetic.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:39 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1515
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

You are referencing USA TODAY? Good God, why not cite comic books as your authority.

As this really, really weak study acknowledges,
The problem is not a trend in decreased precipitation. The alleged problem is glaciers melting and not storing ice.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 09.01237.x

Assuming that this is true, then the effect can be mitigated by increasing reservoir capacity. Spending a few billion to help Pakistan to build dams is far, far more cost effective for the US than eliminating fossil fuels. If the dams include hydroelectric generation, then that is a huge bonus for Pakistan. This is especially useful if it is predicated on nuclear disarmament.

Seriously, your hysterical fear mongering is truly pathetic.
Go change your underwear because you have obviously been loosing bowell as well as bladder control. The link between drought and alleged nuclear reactor safety is gratuitously inane and insane.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Annachie   » Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:59 am

Annachie
Admiral

Posts: 2710
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:36 pm

Actually Fly, monsoonal rain is hard to control or divert. Let alone trap in damns in useful locations.
Especially in a 3rd world country like Pakistan.

Hell, they've been talking about it here in Oz for decades with no progress.


But yeah, Pakistan is going to have to try.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by isaac_newton   » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:09 am

isaac_newton
Commodore

Posts: 895
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Brighton, UK

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
isaac_newton wrote:

whereas us european men are getting much younger :-)
unlike the entirely ever more aging men of the USA - such as yourself.

try again.



The population pyramids for European countries certainly refute the claim that European men are getting much younger.

May be you meant that European men are getting shorter?

US population pyramid shows age of US men getting younger.



arf, arf

as far as I am aware no-one is getting younger... :-)

now if you had said - the 'average age' is getting younger that would have been understandable... of course it could be because the average age of death is falling in the States...
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by The E   » Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:12 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

TFLYTSNBN wrote:The link between drought and alleged nuclear reactor safety is gratuitously inane and insane.


That's a link YOU made, Fly. Don't blame me for your bullshit.

The link I was implying was between extended droughts, the resulting societal instability, and the increasing risk of war and that war going nuclear.
Top

Return to Politics