The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[Xist]

Neil, it is curious you said to follow the money. Yes, oil companies are more interested in their own profits than anything else. Is McDonald's any better?

Remember how the Paris Pinkie Swear costs $100 Trillion for just the first phase?

Oil companies are suspect because money is involved, but the people pushing the green agenda aren't?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I like Rubin Report. He's a centrist.

I've made it 2/3rds through the Epstein interview. He seems like an earnest young man that has been exposed to Ayn Rand. Someone needs to inform him about R. Buckminster Fuller's Anticipatory Design Science, his ground-breaking articles in 1940 Fortune magazine, his World Game, 'metaphysically engendered materials', and so on and so forth. His mind would be receptive. And blown.

OTOH he insists 'fossil' fuels are life-based. He admits methane in Saturn's rings, but neglects carbonaceous asteroids and deep, hot abiotic processes.

His 'anti-nuclear argument' is specious. Energy is consumed and it's gone, but radiation has a long tail. Nobody got time for that.

He's right about fossil fuels being our 'free' energy period. Fracking isn't progress, it's declining return.

No love for Moon (tidal) power?

I appreciate Rubin's approach to seed the conversation and just let the guest speak uninterrupted. I also appreciate that he can be strongly opposed to an idea while still valuing the person who holds them. I'm of a similar personality, where no topics are out of bounds, and nothing said can make me hate.

As stated elsewhere, modern nuclear reactors need not have "waste" that lasts thousands of years. It's still a true statement to say that nuclear produces more MWh of energy per human life than any other source.

Fracking is progress since it allows us to extract more energy than what is invested. Sure, it's more costly, but all advances have diminishing returns.

I'm as excited to move away from fossil fuels as anyone (I saved weeks worth of allowance to buy an $8 photovoltaic cell from Radio Shack to experiment with), but until better alternatives get us there, we should not loath our own existence for having benefited from them.

In my view, Epstein's most profound comment is the insane view some hold that the less human ingenuity in a product, the better it is for humanity.

[redneck]

.

Click to play gif.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1515771395


>

[NeilBlanchard]

Here's a science reporter, with sources, that addresses this far more comprehensively than I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KL...fHsWPfAIyI7VAP

The fact that we humans are driving the climate to change at this time - is as certain as smoking tobacco causes cancer. Period.

[DSMHondaGuy]

I can believe we're having an effect. I disagree with the magnitude some (many) propose however.

Also note the short period of time we have accurate global weather data makes it statistically meaningless, and will be imo for several hundreds years more before there's enough data from a long enough length of time to be meaningful in showing any trends, patterns or changes.

[NeilBlanchard]

We have long term climate data - which is distinct from weather data.

I urge you all to watch the video series I just posted.

[DSMHondaGuy]

What from, polar ice cores? That tells a portion leaves causes purely up to speculation and is fallible.

Also consider the green save the world from ourselves movement is worth billions. Anyway I'll watch the videos you posted later once in home, on a 10min break at work now.

[oil pan 4]

Oh yes the long term data that has been manipulated and falsified to show a warming get trend since the industrial revolution.
I would be willing to believe man was the driving force behind climate change if there wasn't so much money at stake and the beliver side hadn't been caught fabricating their own evidence multiple times.
That's why the man made global warming movement is in the process of failing right now.

[DSMHondaGuy]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Oh yes the long term data that has been manipulated and falsified to show a warming get trend since the industrial revolution.
I would be willing to believe man was the driving force behind climate change if there wasn't so much money at stake and the beliver side hadn't been caught fabricating their own evidence multiple times.
That's why the man made global warming movement is in the process of failing right now.

Ding.

[redneck]

.

I watched the video. Actually several, by the youtuber that you posted detailing what the 97% say is causing climate change.

He is very good at explaining the alarmists point of view.


However, here's what a actual "scientist" has to say about climate change and the 97% in senate hearings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kotqWXZkZS0

A reasonable and levelheaded response with observable facts...





Then there's this...

"No longer up to scientific debate..."




Don't forget who's included in that 97% consenus...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

"The science is settled"...



Science never settles...


>