• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Stephen Hawking has lost it - Trump will cause 250 degree temperatures on Earth

but, if the planet is changing, wouldn't Darwin's law hold true and only the fittest survive?
 
deljzc said:
If the world really does go the way that Hawking says, then we are headed towards an "Elysium" scenario. We will create elites only style space stations and the masses will continue to live on whatever is left of the earth.

What he is proposing is the definition of elitism. You can't move 8 billion (maybe 10 billion by then) to alternate locations within our solar system (since any theory that proposes getting around light-year travel isn't CLOSE to being proven at all - Einstein's theories still are king), so who gets to go according to Hawking? I bet the "intellectual elite" get to go. I bet politicians get to go.
Click to expand...

I guarantee that nobody from "flyover country" would be invited.
 
Last edited:
deljzc said:
I on the other hand, have much more faith in humanity and technology. I think we can adapt fine. And in fact opening up energy to people will help save more lives (through clean water, sewage, infrastructure and employment) over the next century than worrying about the effect of climate change on some communities.
Click to expand...

No sentient being disputes that the greatest driving force behind environmentalism and resource conservation is capitalism. Look at the nations where environmentalism is important and matters to government officials: the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, etc.

Non-capitalist countries are the worst polluters on earth. The USSR was notorious for pollution, China is currently the worst polluter by far. Why? Because the nation cannot meet its population's needs without "cheating," i.e., taking the short-cut of pollution.

That is also why African nations and more and more Caribbean nations are seeing forests burned away and clear-cut to make farmland. The populations are looking to survive. You want to foster environmentalism and greatly reduce pollution? Then have countries become capitalist.

And yet the push has been towards less and less capitalism, and more and more centrally-planned economies. Like those wonderful environmental guardians in the USSR and China:

3ff6ccb156b0261cebf4ddd689278059.jpg
 
but, those countries have not heard how Socialism is supposed to work. Bernie can tell 'em.
 
Steeltime said:
Non-capitalist countries are the worst polluters on earth. The USSR was notorious for pollution, China is currently the worst polluter by far. Why? Because the nation cannot meet its population's needs without "cheating," i.e., taking the short-cut of pollution.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. China has clean coal and is advancing on solar. Their fellow travelers in the Greenie Movement told me so.
 
I'd be more concerned with an asteroid smashing into the planet. Mr. Brilliant should focus on that !
 
To say humans have zero impact on the environment is a false analogy. Science isn't politics. And ecosystems are shifting dramatically.
 
Cope said:
To say humans have zero impact on the environment is a false analogy. Science isn't politics. And ecosystems are shifting dramatically.
Click to expand...

What is "dramatically"? How do you know this is "dramatically" except what the climate change propaganda machine wants you to think? I don't see anything "dramatic" about the weather at all. Might be hotter but it's not "dramatic".

This is the ludicrous part of this whole debate. There is no such thing as a catastrophic event with weather/climate change. This isn't a volcanic winter. This isn't a pandemic. This is 1/10th of degree changes over YEARS. Humans can EASILY adapt to this. Will it cost something? Sure, but living everyday costs something. Even if things stays EXACTLY THE SAME, it would cost "something".

There isn't an ecosystem in the world that isn't changing. Changed a million years ago, changed 10,000 years ago. Changing today. Species either adapt or die. Period. Life will survive. Maybe not in the exact form you tree huggers want to show your children, but there will still be beauty in the world.
 
Cope said:
To say humans have zero impact on the environment is a false analogy. Science isn't politics. And ecosystems are shifting dramatically.
Click to expand...

See that's just the problem, Climate Science has BECOME Politics. Data is routinely scrubbed, manipulated and hand picked in order to show the results that will keep getting the "Scientists" funded. If they show the wrong results (data without the manipulation), they will be ousted. Climate study has become nothing more than a political and financial bargaining chip. The problem with showing the actual data is that everything has to be a CRISIS in order to get political and financial action. Slow moving trends and non dire predictions are not good enough. They have created their own monster.
 
Last edited:
deljzc said:
What is "dramatically"? How do you know this is "dramatically" except what the climate change propaganda machine wants you to think? I don't see anything "dramatic" about the weather at all. Might be hotter but it's not "dramatic".

This is the ludicrous part of this whole debate. There is no such thing as a catastrophic event with weather/climate change. This isn't a volcanic winter. This isn't a pandemic. This is 1/10th of degree changes over YEARS. Humans can EASILY adapt to this. Will it cost something? Sure, but living everyday costs something. Even if things stays EXACTLY THE SAME, it would cost "something".

There isn't an ecosystem in the world that isn't changing. Changed a million years ago, changed 10,000 years ago. Changing today. Species either adapt or die. Period. Life will survive. Maybe not in the exact form you tree huggers want to show your children, but there will still be beauty in the world.
Click to expand...

Dramatic shifts are when an ecosystem changes from one form to another. California losing water reserves is a big shift. Arctic permafrost melting into sinkholes is another. Coastlines and island nations losing land is another dramatic shift. It's not just what we see here.
 
Supersteeler said:
See that's just the problem, Climate Science has BECOME Politics. Data is routinely scrubbed, manipulated and hand picked in order to show the results that will keep getting the "Scientists" funded. If they show the wrong results (data without the manipulation), they will be ousted. Climate study has become nothing more than a political and financial bargaining chip. The problem with showing the actual data is that everything has to be a CRISIS in order to get political and financial action. Slow moving trends and non dire predictions are not good enough. They have created their own monster.
Click to expand...

No. Statistics are the manipulative device that is used for agendas in politics. Consensus can not be swayed by statistics.
 
Cope said:
Dramatic shifts are when an ecosystem changes from one form to another. California losing water reserves is a big shift.
Click to expand...

Cope, the loss of water in California is not due to consumption, or weather, or any such thing. The loss of water is due to the fact that our delta system - used for generations to divert rainwater for consumption - has been waylaid by the Delta smelt, courts and Congress.

Northern California now dumps hundreds of billions of gallons of rainwater into the Pacific, instead of diverting it into the deltas for farming. Fact.

Until now, the solution has been to largely let much-needed freshwater flow past parched farms and communities, emptying into the ocean. That strategy took a heavy toll on the state during the recent drought and often pitted environmentalists against farmers, communities and taxpayers. State officials believe the tunnel system is a fair -- if expensive -- solution.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/2...-claim-its-govt-waste-to-save-tiny-smelt.html

Billions of gallons of water. Plenty of water to irrigate millions of acres of productive farmland. Instead, California simply dumps that rainwater into the ocean.

delta_water_use_graph.jpg
 
Tim - just noticed that you posted this on the Michael Mann thread - sorry for dupe.

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.”
Click to expand...

Not surprising at all.

More at - http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/e...or-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
 
Last edited:
Cope said:
Dramatic shifts are when an ecosystem changes from one form to another. California losing water reserves is a big shift. Arctic permafrost melting into sinkholes is another. Coastlines and island nations losing land is another dramatic shift. It's not just what we see here.
Click to expand...
An oldie but a goodie -
The Climate Scam Of The Day – Melting Permafrost
Posted on November 29, 2012 by stevengoddard
The mindless fearmongers of the global warming cult are telling us that methane from melting permafrost due to global warming is going to kill us all.

Ivan collected these newspaper accounts of melting permafrost going back more than 130 years.

1880:
“The Tundras or wastes along the border of the Arctic Ocean are of the dreariest description, covered with ice and snow in winter, and in summer metamorphosed into mosquito-haunted marshes.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/95042351

1891:
“Partly in this region are the vast tundra, or great shaking, quivering bogs, which cover an immense area of the north of Siberia. They are estimated by some authorities as covering 1,000,000 square miles, but that is merely an estimate. The north of this tundra can never be anything else but a bog ; regarding the southern tundra the Russians differ. Some are of opinion that they are like the northern, and can never be anything else but desolate bogs; others think they can be drained, reclaimed, and turned into first class pasture land, or even used for crops.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/65531499

1896:
“On the maps the tundra has a bad name. It is called the ” region of treeless swamp.” It is uninhabited ; and for eight months out of the twelve it is covered with snow.”
“The tundra was, in fact, a moor, with here and there a large flat bog and abundant lakes.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/20444537

1899:
“In winter the Tundra is, of course, one vast frozen sheet. In the brief summer it is swampy, steamier and swarming with mosquitoes”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/52560339

1901:
“To the north, the Tundra, stretching inland from the Arctic Sea, swampy and treeless, ranging from 150 to 400 miles in width.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/55672719

1902:
“The “tundras” are vast areas of swamp and marsh lands hardened by frost and covered with snow in winter, but in the short summer teeming with vegetation and swarming with wild birds,”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/68874793

1906:
“Then comes the hot sun, and the low, wide tundras along the coast are turned into great fresh water lakes”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/82681836

1907:
“There is in the north the half-frozen Tundra.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5052392

1908:
“arriving just after the ice melts on the largest swamp in the world called the Tundra, extending over 2,000 miles east and west.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/12678897

1910:
“Another danger that threatens them is that they may be delayed over-long on the way, so that summer overtakes them, in which case they will run grave risk of being engufed, together with their machines, in the thawing tundra.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/66386801
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tim Steelersfan
Has Michael Mann been Exposed (again)?
Replies
17
Views
2K
ark steel
ark steel
Top