Global Warming Is A Hoax!

EdwardHeisler · 2018-03-10 13:47:01

Antius · 2018-03-10 17:56:40

[This post has been moderated to remove antisemitic content]

Here is one fact that Trump clearly does understand. All of the affluence that we human beings enjoy - warm homes; abundant material goods; high technology; scale economies; cheap and rapid transport - all depend on the abundant stored energy in fossil fuels. Without them, modern affluent lifestyles would be unsustainable and at least 80% of the Earth's population would swiftly die from the cold and from lack of food. As things stand, there are no alternative energy sources available that can be scaled up to replace the abundant but finite source of energy provided by coal, oil and natural gas. Since economic prosperity is a linear function of energy supply, restricting that energy supply would harm American prosperity. Trump knows that and is instinctively opposed to political ideals that would compromise what he understands to be the source of all human prosperity, even if he isn't wonderfully articulate in his reasoning. The threat of climate change is a problem that will hit the world of tomorrow. Today, any measures that restrict access to fossil fuel energy, restrict human prosperity in equal measure. Trump is right for the wrong reasons.

Fossil fuel depletion is a much more pressing issue for most of this planet's population than climate change. And it is a severe problem right now. It was the principle cause of the 2008 Great Recession. It is the reason that western world economic growth has been weak since the 1970s; why wage rates have not risen in almost as long; why interest rates have had to drop constantly since 1980 and why a Great Depression worse than the 1930s is just around the corner. Unless circumstances change significantly, the next few decades will be a period of tumbling life expectancy and diminished living standards for most of humanity. The last thing we need is silly rules that prevent us from exploiting what resources do remain.

Nuclear energy is the one thing that might forestall the approaching dieoff that will otherwise ensue as we hit the fossil fuel net energy cliff. This is conspicuous in its absence from Trumps energy policy. That is deeply unfortunate, because even a complete relaxation of environmental protection cannot extend fossil fuel production for more than a little while longer. When it stops, we stop eating. Our situation is as brutally simple as that.

Last edited by Antius (2018-03-10 18:29:05)

GW Johnson · 2018-03-10 18:21:14

Trump is irrelevant. Warming is real. You can see it if you are aware of when spring actually comes, and when fall actually comes. You do NOT need to know whether mankind had anything to do with causing it, to know what to do to try to head it off or at least delay its effects. That is just basic physics of energy conservation, of the radiation of energy, and of the energy transmissibilities of various gases as measured in the lab very repeatably.

GW

Antius · 2018-03-10 18:35:38

GW Johnson wrote:

Trump is irrelevant. Warming is real. You can see it if you are aware of when spring actually comes, and when fall actually comes. You do NOT need to know whether mankind had anything to do with causing it, to know what to do to try to head it off or at least delay its effects. That is just basic physics of energy conservation, of the radiation of energy, and of the energy transmissibilities of various gases as measured in the lab very repeatably.
GW

Fossil fuel depletion is real. It will kill you long before global warming does. Without fossil fuels, you don't eat. That situation may be closer than you think.

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2017/12/19/t … gy-crisis/

JoshNH4H · 2018-03-10 19:13:37

Antius: Watch it with the antisemitism. I will delete posts or discuss a ban if I have to.

Antius · 2018-03-10 19:35:24

JoshNH4H wrote:

Antius: Watch it with the antisemitism. I will delete posts or discuss a ban if I have to.

Do what you want. I have other places to be. And this board becomes even more pointless than it already is if our posts get deleted.

Voltaire: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise"

JoshNH4H · 2018-03-10 19:54:50

The forum rules are pretty clear on this one, and I do not modify or delete posts lightly. Nor do I threaten bans lightly. It should not be difficult for you to figure out what will violate forum rules and then to avoid doing so. If you cannot figure out what is over the line, feel free to email me with your questions and I will respond promptly.

The rule in question is "Hate Speech", by the way, and in this case it was not a close call.

SpaceNut · 2018-03-10 20:04:44

Did not see the content so am unable to render any other option than to take JoshNH4H word on it.

GW's post of watch the seasons did play true up until this last couple of weeks when we go the monster nor'easter cycle as the lawn was devoid of snow....normally that never happens until late april or may...

JoshNH4H · 2018-03-10 20:45:39

Hey SpaceNut,

I attached the full, un-moderated text of the post in the email I sent to you and jburk. Being admins, you both outrank me and can overrule me if you'd like but I am confident that you would not choose to do so.

Antius · 2018-03-10 21:01:15

SpaceNut wrote:

Did not see the content so am unable to render any other option than to take JoshNH4H word on it.
GW's post of watch the seasons did play true up until this last couple of weeks when we go the monster nor'easter cycle as the lawn was devoid of snow....normally that never happens until late april or may...

I have always enjoyed the technical content of JoshNH4H posts, but from things that he has said in the past I don't think he is a reliable moderator. He has strong personal biases that influence his work. I have biases of my own, but I never stoop to censoring other people.

But it makes little difference either way. I have run out of spare time for this board and do not have the resources to make a detailed contribution anymore. So I think it is the right time to leave.

I will leave on this parting note: I have serious doubts that we will ever get to Mars. The reason being that I believe that the global economy is now hitting serious limits to its resources, especially energy sources. These limits have been evident in the poor economic growth of western economies since the 1970s, the almost complete absence of growth over the past ten years, plummeting interest rates since 1980 and exploding inequality between the rich and wage earners. Globalisation was, more than anything else, an attempt to shift manufacturing from areas where resources had grown scarce, to areas where they were still abundant. China built its manufacturing industries on a base of cheap labour and cheap coal energy, which is now entering decline. Globally, debt is some 6 times greater than annual GDP. Over the next ten years, the global economy will suffer a significant contraction. Various excuses will be given by central bankers, but the underlying cause will be a decline in the volume and quality of fossil fuel sources that fuel all economic activity.

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence … 7344fab6be

If space enthusiasts are to fulfil their goal of colonisation of other planets and space itself, they must begin by solving this problem.

Good bye. It has been pleasant working with you all!

louis · 2018-03-10 21:12:29

What a load of nonsense. Were fossil fuels to disappear tomorrow, we would still survive on this planet as a species. Solar and wind are already better energy producers than coal and nuclear. Yes, we might be poorer, very slightly, but no one is going to get "killed".

Antius wrote:

GW Johnson wrote:
Trump is irrelevant. Warming is real. You can see it if you are aware of when spring actually comes, and when fall actually comes. You do NOT need to know whether mankind had anything to do with causing it, to know what to do to try to head it off or at least delay its effects. That is just basic physics of energy conservation, of the radiation of energy, and of the energy transmissibilities of various gases as measured in the lab very repeatably.
GW
Fossil fuel depletion is real. It will kill you long before global warming does. Without fossil fuels, you don't eat. That situation may be closer than you think.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2017/12/19/t … gy-crisis/

Terraformer · 2018-03-11 04:26:19

Religious targetted attack statement question removed as its not called for

As far as oil depletion is concerned, it depends on how people react. It's definitely possible to provide a good standard of living to all 7-8 billion of us without fossil fuels, for a given standard of good. It does mean no suburbia or cars. As far as I can tell, nuclear isn't viable - even if we could replace all of our power generation with nuclear, requiring a lot more nuclear engineers than we have (how long to train one?), we'd use all the uranium within a few decades, maybe only a decade. Good luck getting financing for that.

Last edited by SpaceNut (2018-03-12 18:06:16)

RobertDyck · 2018-03-11 05:54:50

Getting back on topic. I've pointed out climate science is a lot more complicated than political activists understand. Most activists choose to ignore 115 years of man-made global cooling. Black smoke from coal burning created aerosols, which blocked sunlight. Measurements clearly show global cooling from 1855 to 1970. There was rapid global warming from 1970 to year 2000. However, if you look at the pace of global warming from 1550 to 1855, assume that was the pace of nature, and further assume that if humans hadn't messed with the climate then global warming would have continued at that pace, the result is the same temperature as we experience in year 2000. Any actual climate scientists will tell you that the global temperature in 1994 equalled what it was before the industrial revolution of 1855. But that doesn't take into account global warming that nature would have done. Again, the temperature in year 2000 is what it would have been if humans hadn't messed with it. Putting it another way, all the global warming during the 6 years from 1994 to year 2000 equalled what nature would have taken 145 years to accomplish: 1855 to year 2000. You can sort of understand why climate activists are panicking, but it still means year 2000 was the temperature it was supposed to be.

And in year 2000 the pace of global warming made a sharp and dramatic change: it slowed almost to the pace of nature. Again assuming the pace of nature is the pace it was from 1550 to 1855. From year 2000 until late 2014, global warming was slightly above the pace of nature, but so close that we could say "good enough". Unfortunately from late 2014 until today, global warming is back.

All this means we have to do something, but not panic. The Canadian federal government has ordered all provinces to impose a carbon tax. The federal government has threatened to impose a federal tax if the province doesn't. The federal government has said the tax must be $10 per tonne of carbon the first year, then rising to $50 per tonne of carbon emissions. Saskatchewan and Manitoba objected. Manitoba has said they're willing to compromise: they'll impose a tax half that of what the feds demand. The federal government has agreed... for now. Saskatchewan has said they'll take it to court, claiming the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction to do that. I would call any sort of carbon tax a "panic".

Especially consider Manitoba already produces electricity with 100% green, environmentally friendly, sustainable production. Most electricity is produced with hydro dams, and Manitoba dams do not silt up. Manitoba has a few windmill farms: one produces 99 megawatts, the other 300 megawatts. There are 3 small thermal power plants, but they're reserved as emergency backups in case power lines go down, actively maintained but not used. One coal, 2 natural gas. And Manitoba Hydro used biodiesel to fuel their vehicles. They use 100% biodiesel in summer, shifting to a blend in spring/fall when temperature is cold, and pure petroleum diesel in winter. Biodiesel gels in cold weather; gel doesn't flow through fuel lines. And Manitoba Hydro has subsidy programs to help home owners upgrade insulation, and a lease-to-buy program to upgrade to a high efficiency natural gas furnace. And they gave out low-flow shower heads and kitchen sink aerators, and insulation for hot water pipes.

The provincial environment minister for Ontario threatened to force all new home construction to use electric home heating. But Ontario has screwed with their electric utility; they now have the highest electric rates on the continent. Manitoba is the next adjacent province, and has the lowest electric rates on the continent. That threat did not go over with voters. Furthermore, Ontario recently converted all their coal burning power plants to natural gas. In a province that uses natural gas to produce electricity, a home heated with electricity will produce 3 times carbon emissions than a home heated with natural gas directly. So forcing electric heat does not make any sense at all! In Manitoba, the vast majority of homes are heated with natural gas.

If you want to be constructive, I could list some things that would actually help. A broad tax that harms everyone, does not help.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2018-03-11 06:17:33)

Terraformer · 2018-03-11 06:14:01

Talking about the rules, are we allowed to accuse Trump of being a white nationalist? Can we say that there is a white lobby, trying to make sure society is set up to disproportionately benefit white people? That seems to be considered acceptable discourse, these days.

JoshNH4H · 2018-03-11 08:52:39

Hi Antius,

If you have problems with my moderation, I encourage you to bring them to jburk. I mean it--it's important that the users of the board feel that the moderation is appropriate and honest. While its impossible to make everyone happy there is a process to settle these things. I believe that I have acted correctly but you should make your case if you think otherwise. I would be glad to email you a saved copy of the text of your post if you would like to review it.

Hi Terraformer,

Good troll, but I'm not going to take the bait.

The rule in question is "Hate Speech", as follows:

Do not attack any person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. We do not condone “hate speech”.

The first clause of this rule is pretty much the dictionary definition of hate speech.

Now if Donald Trump were personally a member of this forum, attacks on him would be flaming. He's not, and he's a public figure, so seems like fair game, just like attacks on Obama were and are in political threads (though seemingly off-topic elsewhere).

I have never seen anyone attacking white people on Newmars in my whole time here. If it ever happens, let me know. The examples you have proffered do not amount to hate speech against white people.

Terraformer · 2018-03-11 09:02:25

That's not a troll. You said it yourself - accusing Trump, or anyone else, of white supremacy is against the rules.

What the hell, Josh? You ought to be stripped of your position as moderator, since you clearly can't do it objectively.

Terraformer · 2018-03-11 09:03:37

To state my position clearly - no group get's a free pass. Not Jews, not whites, not blacks.

What, exactly, was the offensive content? We can't see it, since you decided to remove it for us/

JoshNH4H · 2018-03-11 09:31:12

Terraformer wrote:

What, exactly, was the offensive content? We can't see it, since you decided to remove it for us/

You're welcome.

And anyway, moderation is not voted on. It is appealed to the admin. If you're really interested feel free to reach out to me elsewhere. This seems to be more of a rhetorical trick than a serious request.

Terraformer · 2018-03-11 09:35:38

Stop trolling, Josh.

Fine, I'll ask jburk to remove you.

Terraformer · 2018-03-11 09:37:03

Seriously, I want to know what the gist of it was. Did he accuse the Jewish lobby of being parasites again?

JoshNH4H · 2018-03-11 10:47:01

Terraformer wrote:

Stop trolling, Josh.
Fine, I'll ask jburk to remove you.

If you believe that I am unable to serve as a mod you are welcome to appeal to him to do so.

If you have any further questions on this subject feel free to email me.

SpaceNut · 2018-03-11 18:27:23

Post #7 Rules are found http://newmars.com/forums/misc.php?action=rules to which some are broadly written and do allow for bias as interupted.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country,

I will refer you to the topic of newmars rules http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=5134
To which only 3 rules are fully addressed.

in the first post That's it. The rules will be enforced however. Get enough mods complaining and you get deleted and or reported for abuse. Act like a jerk maybe you get deactivated until it is remembered to reactivate your account.

Terraformer wrote:

What, exactly, was the offensive content? We can't see it, since you decided to remove it for us/

A statement of what a persons opinion might be, was contained in the post but I am not seeing it as actual hate statement by Antius I have read the paragraph that was removed. The paragraph I may not totally like on a whole, it does not show malace to a personal attack as it does not name; names and it is typical of content that is not allowed anywhere else on the forum. Religous statements can be seen as hate just as much as racist statement can be.

I myself an no fan of Trump but I am learning about what others do not like about Hillary as well; to which if we had better candidates for the highest seat in America the out come would have been different. It is one thing to be passionate and another to be an attacker.

Terraformer wrote:

To state my position clearly - no group get's a free pass. Not Jews, not whites, not blacks.

RobertDyck said it best in the political topic in that all we are asking for is a little tolerance, acceptance, and understanding before jumping all over what might be said in the "Not So Free Chat" area of the forum but also be more choosing of the words that are written.

Last edited by SpaceNut (2018-03-12 18:14:55)

SpaceNut · 2018-03-11 19:59:10

Antius post # 2 on the 2008 recession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of … _Recession
was caused by a number of factors, all happening simultaneously, and finally caused a downturn in the global economy.
Major causes of the initial subprime mortgage crisis and following recession include: International trade imbalances and lax lending standards contributing to high levels of developed country household debt and real-estate bubbles that have since burst; U.S. government housing policies, living standards rose for nearly 3 decades as consumers purchased, often using credit or loans.

https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-ec … on-3306010

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_2008

Basically the value of money could not buy what it did the years before....

SpaceNut · 2018-03-11 21:40:52

Terraformer there is a right way to talk about religion in general and one that is not offensive....
So why would White Evangelical Women, Core Supporters of Trump, Begin Tiptoeing Away

as no regrets over her vote for President Trump. She likes most of his policies and would still support him over any Democrat. But will definitely take a look to see who has the courage to take on a job like this and do what needs to be done.
Christian voters who backed Trump had been derided as unthinking, unsophisticated hypocrites, but for many of them that only affirmed their resolve.

Faith can be distorted and shaken....

kbd512 · 2018-03-12 00:17:38

The accusations by all political parties are getting nuttier by the day. That's why I don't watch TV and read little in the way of news on the internet nowadays. I don't need anyone to mix 10% verifiable fact with 90% opinion or agenda. As far as media is concerned, give me information, keep your agendas to yourselves, and let me decide what to make of the information I've been given. I can't stand all the baseless speculation about things that the politicians, the media, and 99% of the general public no anything about.

I find it highly unlikely that anyone here is any sort of white supremacist, white nationalist, anti-semite, or holds any other bigoted beliefs. I'm an atheist, so I don't have use for religion of any kind. Opinions must either have solid evidence backing them or it doesn't pass muster in my book. I do point out instances where religious practices are destructive, but my arguments remain evidence based.

It's pretty clear to me that this climate change agenda has become very near to a religion for some people. It's practitioners make claims that their own data doesn't support. Furthermore, they present no practical solutions to rectify the problem they claim exists. If we simply presume their claim is true, which requires a suspension of Stanford Science because we've only recorded a single climate data point thus far using what the same scientists state is accurately recorded temperature data, then I've yet to see anything approaching a workable solution to substantially reduce CO2 emissions using existing technology without killing hundreds of millions of people by denying energy resources for their use. Climate modeling is simply making stuff up, no matter how much window dressing is applied in an attempt to make it look like real science. Anyone who claims to know what the climate will be like a hundred years from now is lying. This relatively new supposition that the number of scientists who believe something has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of an argument attempts to replace evidence based conclusion with democratic principles. True science is not democratic and never has been.

Louis is here claiming that we would survive as a species if fossil fuels were gone tomorrow. The part he conveniently left out is the billions of people who would either die from simple things like access to drinking water, food, and medical care or be crippled by diseases. Tens of millions of his fellow countrymen would be seriously impacted in a negative way. The poor would be affected in the worst way possible.

As of today, more than 80% of human energy consumption is fossil fuels. The notion that we're simply going to flip the switch and stop using the coal, gas, and oil without a severe impact to billions of people is utterly absurd. Nobody who believes in climate change wants to deal with basic math and economic reality when it comes to the solutions they propose and there's a price tag attached to any course of action. All civilization as we know it would be a shell of its former self if fossil fuels were removed without an equally inexpensive and abundant replacement. London would start to resemble the ruins in Detroit. That's not a future I would voluntarily submit anyone to.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-03-10 13:47:01

Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#2 2018-03-10 17:56:40

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#3 2018-03-10 18:21:14

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#4 2018-03-10 18:35:38

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#5 2018-03-10 19:13:37

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#6 2018-03-10 19:35:24

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#7 2018-03-10 19:54:50

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#8 2018-03-10 20:04:44

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#9 2018-03-10 20:45:39

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#10 2018-03-10 21:01:15

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#11 2018-03-10 21:12:29

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#12 2018-03-11 04:26:19

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#13 2018-03-11 05:54:50

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#14 2018-03-11 06:14:01

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#15 2018-03-11 08:52:39

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#16 2018-03-11 09:02:25

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#17 2018-03-11 09:03:37

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#18 2018-03-11 09:31:12

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#19 2018-03-11 09:35:38

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#20 2018-03-11 09:37:03

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#21 2018-03-11 10:47:01

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#22 2018-03-11 18:27:23

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#23 2018-03-11 19:59:10

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#24 2018-03-11 21:40:52

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

#25 2018-03-12 00:17:38

Re: Global Warming Is A Hoax!

Board footer