Tucker Carlson spanks Bill Nye and the crazy global warming hoax

[willtill]

[ths61]

I am seeking Federal Funding to finish development and deployments on my perpetual motion generators to provide free sustainable green energy to the world for the children. It is called the Affordable Carbon Alternative (ACA). If you like your car, you can keep car by replacing it's engine with the Free ACA for the affordable nominal price of a 30 year second mortgage on your home. I promise, it will not cost you "ONE THIN DIME". Since you will no longer be using fossil fuels, annual mileage fair share taxes and fees "may" apply.

[willtill]

I am seeking Federal Funding to finish development and deployments on my perpetual motion generators to provide free sustainable green energy to the world for the children. It is called the Affordable Carbon Alternative (ACA). If you like your car, you can keep car by replacing it's engine with the Free ACA for the affordable nominal price of a 30 year second mortgage on your home. I promise, it will not cost you "ONE THIN DIME". Since you will no longer be using fossil fuels, annual mileage fair share taxes and fees "may" apply.

Does that involve fat people pedaling that?

Win.... win...

[Verismo]

The mechanism by which CO2 traps heat is not controversial. It's basically opaque to thermal radiation, meaning--the ultraviolet light from the sun can pass through it, but the thermal radiation reflected from the Earth is trapped by it. Just like a tarp over a greenhouse, it traps heat, thus the name greenhouse gas. If this is 3rd grade science to readers, forgive me, but that part of it is really that simple. Methane actually warms even more than CO2, but we pump vastly less of the stuff out, and it's life is much shorter. So it has an intense but short(er) lived effect. Water vapor is the most prolific greenhouse gas, and there is a natural feedback mechanism between CO2 and water vapor, which is why I referred to CO2 as a volume dial. Because we humans control a very important variable in the CO2/water vapor loop. If you don't understand that as a basic fact, then you also don't understand that we have at least some say in how to turn the volume down, so to speak, although the control is not precise and we will presumably have less of it the longer we put this off.

You made the claim, "As global temperatures rise CO2 follows." Well, sorta. You're not wrong that the data shows the spherical/elliptical pattern/proximity to the sun causes an initial rise in temperature, and we've observed that in the past, but you're missing a huge part of the picture. Once the Earth warms a little, more CO2 is released from the oceans and it's AFTER this influx of CO2 that 90% of the warming in past periods has occurred. In other words, the Milankovitch cycle (spherical/elliptical/precessional rotation) doesn't have the energy to account for 90% of the warming, it's the CO2 forcing that does. Then, over an enormously long time scale, rock weathering puts the CO2 back into the oceans, and voila, cooling. Another feedback effect. Fast forward to modern times and therein lies the rub. We're artificially pumping out scads of CO2 and the Earth's natural mechanisms for filtering it out, which have taken thousands of years to do so in the past, are being relied on to do the same job in hundreds. So it's not just the warming that's a problem. It's the rate of warming and the fact that we're accelerating CO2 output with little regard for the long term.

My opinions about the above facts:

1. Armed with these facts alone, one should be on his guard about emissions, not just because that's what the industrialized world pumps into the atmosphere at an alarming and accelerating rate, but because prior to green(ish) energy, that's what businesses have to do to turn a profit. It doesn't mean people are evil that businesses' primary objective is to turn a profit, but it does mean that without some sort of regulation, there can be, by definition, no incentive to draw down on CO2 emissions to a level below the profit margin of a business.

2. Poor people get screwed first and the worst from everything. Including climate change. This is partially why this is a humanitarian issue. I've seen this recently down here in Texas. In Houston and Rockport, which just got their asses handed to them by Hurricane Harvey, the poor people fared the worst. This is partly due to the fact that the poorer areas in Houston, for example, also had the worst water drainage and infrastructure. But it's really just common sense. If you are poor and barely have the resources to deal with life, and some disaster comes along and wipes out what little you have, then you are fucked. And that's just Texas poor. The world's poor are REMARKABLY poorer than that. By the way, I'm not claiming that the hurricanes were directly due to climate change, and you should be skeptical of anyone claiming a direct link in that way without an incredible amount of data. However, the severity of hurricanes should increase with a warmer climate and higher sea levels. Harvey had record breaking rainfall and Irma had record breaking sustained winds. So you should also be skeptical of blowhards that seem proud to dismiss correlation or causality out of hand.


Jason

[taxfree4]

The mechanism by which CO2 traps heat is not controversial. It's basically opaque to thermal radiation, meaning--the ultraviolet light from the sun can pass through it, but the thermal radiation reflected from the Earth is trapped by it. Just like a tarp over a greenhouse, it traps heat, thus the name greenhouse gas. If this is 3rd grade science to readers, forgive me, but that part of it is really that simple. Methane actually warms even more than CO2, but we pump vastly less of the stuff out, and it's life is much shorter. So it has an intense but short(er) lived effect. Water vapor is the most prolific greenhouse gas, and there is a natural feedback mechanism between CO2 and water vapor, which is why I referred to CO2 as a volume dial. Because we humans control a very important variable in the CO2/water vapor loop. If you don't understand that as a basic fact, then you also don't understand that we have at least some say in how to turn the volume down, so to speak, although the control is not precise and we will presumably have less of it the longer we put this off.

You made the claim, "As global temperatures rise CO2 follows." Well, sorta. You're not wrong that the data shows the spherical/elliptical pattern/proximity to the sun causes an initial rise in temperature, and we've observed that in the past, but you're missing a huge part of the picture. Once the Earth warms a little, more CO2 is released from the oceans and it's AFTER this influx of CO2 that 90% of the warming in past periods has occurred. In other words, the Milankovitch cycle (spherical/elliptical/precessional rotation) doesn't have the energy to account for 90% of the warming, it's the CO2 forcing that does. Then, over an enormously long time scale, rock weathering puts the CO2 back into the oceans, and voila, cooling. Another feedback effect. Fast forward to modern times and therein lies the rub. We're artificially pumping out scads of CO2 and the Earth's natural mechanisms for filtering it out, which have taken thousands of years to do so in the past, are being relied on to do the same job in hundreds. So it's not just the warming that's a problem. It's the rate of warming and the fact that we're accelerating CO2 output with little regard for the long term.

My opinions about the above facts:

1. Armed with these facts alone, one should be on his guard about emissions, not just because that's what the industrialized world pumps into the atmosphere at an alarming and accelerating rate, but because prior to green(ish) energy, that's what businesses have to do to turn a profit. It doesn't mean people are evil that businesses' primary objective is to turn a profit, but it does mean that without some sort of regulation, there can be, by definition, no incentive to draw down on CO2 emissions to a level below the profit margin of a business.

2. Poor people get screwed first and the worst from everything. Including climate change. This is partially why this is a humanitarian issue. I've seen this recently down here in Texas. In Houston and Rockport, which just got their asses handed to them by Hurricane Harvey, the poor people fared the worst. This is partly due to the fact that the poorer areas in Houston, for example, also had the worst water drainage and infrastructure. But it's really just common sense. If you are poor and barely have the resources to deal with life, and some disaster comes along and wipes out what little you have, then you are fucked. And that's just Texas poor. The world's poor are REMARKABLY poorer than that. By the way, I'm not claiming that the hurricanes were directly due to climate change, and you should be skeptical of anyone claiming a direct link in that way without an incredible amount of data. However, the severity of hurricanes should increase with a warmer climate and higher sea levels. Harvey had record breaking rainfall and Irma had record breaking sustained winds. So you should also be skeptical of blowhards that seem proud to dismiss correlation or causality out of hand.


Jason

Lots of information there very impressive, all backloaded, but the theory never pans out and the hopeful and wishful predictions that it does are wrong over and over again. That is why you need regulations to cripple the industries that deliver traditional fuel while forcing taxpayers to subsidize these coal burning electric cars nobody wants, except for a couple of Hollywood liberals and East Coast hipsters. This is just a ploy to implement this carbon tax bullshit by an international organization, the UN (disguised), on American industry. Chief Justice John Marshall said "The power to tax is the power to destroy" and the enemies of the free market know this very well. Businesses primary objective IS to turn a profit, unless you're CNN.

You give me science as an answer to data, I live in NYC so I've heard it all. As soon as the theory is proven wrong, again and again, the children and the poor are marched in. You have to go out of your way to be poor in America, you want to see poor go to rural China, talk about emissions, where people dig up roots of trees to boil and make soup with no indoor plumbing. I've got 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipients, grandmothers at 30 y.o., who have no desire to work, EVER not far from me. As far as my grandchildren and succeeding generations they'll be fine as the earth will be here long after they're gone.

The religion of environmentalism has a rabid following and, like many religions, think theirs is the only way to salvation. And just like any other religious discussion you're not going to make any converts here, there are no epiphanies. There is no gray area here, you either accept Al Gore as your pope or you don't and I can only speak for myself - I'm a Pope Francis guy, although I'd prefer a traditionalist like Pius XII. So if the seas rise 20 ft. from the ice in Greenland melting, I live on the ocean so I'll know immediately, let's hope I have enough time to hop on my F6B, no it didn't sell yet and I am NOT lowering the price, and head inland, I'm thinking Utah.

[Verismo]

I've never seen the Al Gore documentary. I don't get my information on science from politicians just like I don't get information about water cooled horizontally opposed six cylinder engines from Harley Davidson riders.

Jason

[taxfree4]

I've never seen the Al Gore documentary. I don't get my information on science from politicians just like I don't get information about water cooled horizontally opposed six cylinder engines from Harley Davidson riders.

Jason

Good that makes two of us, and like a good F6B rider you picked this bike and this forum to stay away from Harley's, and global warming, HOT AIR.

[Verismo]

Good that makes two of us, and like a good F6B rider you picked this bike and this forum to stay away from Harley's, and global warming, HOT AIR.

Lol, it's a fine bike indeed, but since you didn't really address much less refute any of the facts I listed and find persuasive, I think I'll continue following the evidence rather than take your word for it.

Didn't you say something about not liking dogma... Besides the B, there's another thing we have in common.



Jason

[taxfree4]

Lol, it's a fine bike indeed, but since you didn't really address much less refute any of the facts I listed and find persuasive, I think I'll continue following the evidence rather than take your word for it.

Didn't you say something about not liking dogma... Besides the B, there's another thing we have in common.



Jason

When you present data i.e. a permanent rise in minimum sea levels as a result of warming of the earth and melting of the ice caps (instead of lowering because of larger masses of ice) or permanent rise in ambient temperatures or whatever wacky predictions you were spoon-fed, which have been proven wrong over and over again, instead of a pseudo-science lesson then we'll have a discussion. You really should try the cafe racer forum to peddle this hogwash as I believe the hipster obssession with those bikes are still a thing and they'll eat this "calamity-du-jour" up lox, scone and barrel. And in honor of the great Donald J. Trump relaxing the restrictions on coal production I'm leaving all my lights on today so that electrical plant will need more coal to generate the electricity. I want to bring awareness, turn a light on, for the environmental jack booted thugs who look to assassinate American business by false claims. Call me the Colin Kapernick of fossil fuel.