Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 1083
    MEMBERS
  • 58386
    MESSAGES
  • 32
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

The debate on Climate Change   General Confusion

Started 7/18/17 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 145522 views.
BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

8/20/19

Trolly8 said:

It seems the original authors got caught by one of the governments in the European low lands and one of them had to return the studdies funding and go to jail because of it!!!

I think you're delusional.

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

8/20/19

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

Your insistence that Russians cannot possibly manipulate Americans because they don't speak English and cannot understand anything outside their own country is frankly bigoted.

I forgot, you actually proved me wrong on this business - the Russians cunningly hijacked Yosemite Sam.

Shall I post the image again and abase myself in a grovelling apology for not having believed you?

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

8/20/19

Trolly8 said:

Since it is an absolute fact that ABC has been caught in more lies about global warming than Gomer Pile, why would you site them as a source?

Depends which ABC you are referring to.

I don't know much about the American one, but if it is a commercial station, then I try to stay away from it.

My ABC is non-commercial.  Mostly like PBS in America.  I prefer news sources that have no cares about ratings, likes or clicks. 

However, they are often accused of bias, because they are the only news source in Australia that is not owned by a right leaning media mogul.

It's the last bastion of facts before fear.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

8/20/19

Trolly8 said:

According to some Nobel Laureate's thesis I read that if the climate warmed up 2 or 3 degrees, I can not remember which and whether it was Celsius, or Fahrenheit, but any way, if it did, then food crops would grow about 100% faster producing twice as much food as now!

That would have to be Fahrenheit.

But you need to do better than that.  The name of the scientist, the paper, the evidence.

Also, most importantly, the peer review findings.

PTG (anotherPTG)

From: PTG (anotherPTG)

8/20/19

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

food crops would grow about 100% faster producing twice as much food as now!

on the other hand!

Climate change affects the ecosystems that provide food, "and therefore our security of food is linked to the security of those ecosystems," deMenocal said.

The oceans, for instance, provide people with about 20 percent of their dietary protein, deMenocal said. However, ocean acidification caused by climate change makes it difficult, if not impossible, for thousands of species, including oysters, crabs and corals, to form their protective shells, which in turn disrupts the food web, Live Science previously reported.

On land, an increase of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) would almost double the water deficit and would lead to a drop in wheat and maize harvests, according to NASA.

Northern latitudes may see a temporary boost in soy and wheat farming, partly because of the warmer temperatures farther north and partly because increased carbon dioxide helps plants grow, NASA said. But at an increase of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), this advantage almost disappears for soy, and entirely vanishes for wheat, NASA reported.

If temperatures get too hot when these plants are flowering, their growth can become stunted, leading to decreased or no edible food crop, such as corn or grain, NASA said. [How Often Do Ice Ages Happen?]

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

8/20/19

PTG (anotherPTG) said:

Northern latitudes may see a temporary boost in soy and wheat farming, partly because of the warmer temperatures farther north and partly because increased carbon dioxide helps plants grow, NASA said. But at an increase of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), this advantage almost disappears for soy, and entirely vanishes for wheat, NASA reported.

That's more optimistic than I'd understood. Wheat doesn't get any increase in productivity and the other crops don't get much. 

Even as the pests have a field day.

Trolly8

From: Trolly8

8/20/19

NOT REALLY! Solar power is a panacea. It costs way too much over the long run. Light>electricity panels have definite service lives, as do wind turbines and solar furnaces. They also require much more maintenance, just Google burning wind turbines if you doubt this. They all have different drawbacks. Nuclear power has the least of these. Fossil fuels release more Radio Active Carbon 14 into the air each year than all the Nuclear accidents and weapons testing combined. Fusion powered mass electrification, long just over the horizon for decades, is the bright future, but in the meantime, only fossil fuels can save mankind! Power-energy-or whatever you will call it is required to save humanity. It is the only single point failure in humanities future. Starvation is a problem now, it was a problem in the 60's, 70's, 80's when I was overseas watching first hand, but not now because of energy intensive farming! Now we have a peace problem because to few people believe that we have a moral obligation to protect the weak, or much worse yet, oppose those of us who do, thus preventing a modern day Pax Britannia in the form of American military action to keep petty war lords from enriching themselves at the expense of starvation of their people. If history has taught us nothing else, it is that the only kind of military action that brings true peace is the Shock and Aw, over whelming firepower, 50% casualties among the bad guys kind.

I know it sounds harsh, or even evil, sticking our nose into other people's self determination, but that is the true way of life for over 10,000 years of this planet's history, except for the last ~400-900 years of Western Civilization and the rise of America as the worlds fist and only example of what freedom can do!

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

8/20/19

Trolly8 said:

If history has taught us nothing else, it is that the only kind of military action that brings true peace is the Shock and Aw, over whelming firepower, 50% casualties among the bad guys kind.

True peace in Iraq?

You didn't directly bring about the birth of ISIS?

Trolly8

From: Trolly8

8/20/19

Right on! I wish I had the time to research all this stuff on my own. But well done in spite of the many mistakes of details such as the Nellis Solar Array's power availability is not the 30% quoted, but more like 50%! Small, but significant details that do not change a thing in the debate! "Renewable" energy is a panacea for idiots, ignoramii and the politically motivated who want to impose their vision on the rest of us who actually do something about the world's problems!

Trolly8

From: Trolly8

8/20/19

You reply clearly shows that you do not have a clue what you are talking about! Didn't you read that article several posts above? Don't you know that all sources of energy production release vast amounts of Radionuclides, like Carbon-14? So much in fact that they dwarf all previous accidents and weapons tests combined every year and none of it approaches solar and cosmic radiation?

Use this forum to enrich your knowledge, find the facts, even when they dispute your views, and become a true conservative in ALL things!

TOP