powersurge
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:24 am
Delivery Date: 06 Dec 2014
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: McKinsey: Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts

Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:13 am

These posts look so much like the verbal ping-pong (waste of keyboard strokes) I have been having with some friends on this site.....

It really doesn't matter how much global warming is happening.... For the good of all of us, the governments and "we, the people" should be talking about what---- For me, I am all for limiting the WASTE of fossil fuels (not use of it) because I feel that petroleum is a finite raw material, and I believe that we will be out of it in the next 50 years or so... After that, there is no more....

The world should decrease fossil fuels used and make the global economy "smaller", with as many of our needs to be produced and consumed locally. You want to decrease carbon, Get all american companies get out of china. Yeah.... TRY TO MAKE CHINA DECREASE CARBON EMISSIONS.... Good luck.

How about some solutions... How about the whole country devote some of its land to farming, planting, and manufacturing...

Personally, I think it is a crime to fly fruits and vegetables and flowers from all over the world.. Let's all put our foot down on THESE things instead of talking about this stupid "Chicken Little - The Sky is Falling" fairy tale.

Oilpan4
Posts: 1725
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: McKinsey: Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts

Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:18 am

If you don't want to talk about personal bias I don't blame you.
Then how can accurate science be done when 35% of the NOAA temperature data is actually estimates from dead observation stations?
There is no actual data recorded, so an estimate is substituted for that data.
How's that work?

Burning fossil fuels to move one persons butt around in an SUV is a very wasteful use of fossil fuels. It creates a very disproportionate amount of pollution for what it accomplishes.
At least burning coal to make steel or natural gas for concrete makes something that will be around for a long time.
My leaf and little trailer keeps my old diesel suburban parked with the battery removed.
I filled it up in late 2017 with diesel and I don't remember the last time I changed the oil, only take it out about 3 or 4 times a year.
"THE ABOVE POST CONTAINS MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION. PLEASE CONSIDER IT OPINION, NOT FACT". -someone who I offended and is unable to produce the facts in question.

WetEV
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: McKinsey: Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts

Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:41 am

Oilpan4 wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:18 am
If you don't want to talk about personal bias I don't blame you.
Then how can accurate science be done when 35% of the NOAA temperature data is actually estimates from dead observation stations?
There is no actual data recorded, so an estimate is substituted for that data.
How's that work?

Burning fossil fuels to move one persons butt around in an SUV is a very wasteful use of fossil fuels. It creates a very disproportionate amount of pollution for what it accomplishes.
At least burning coal to make steel or natural gas for concrete makes something that will be around for a long time.
My leaf and little trailer keeps my old diesel suburban parked with the battery removed.Physic
I filled it up in late 2017 with diesel and I don't remember the last time I changed the oil, only take it out about 3 or 4 times a year.
I'll talk about any bias you can find in this wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2 ... tzmann_law

No sense talking about complex things when you don't know the basics. And refuse to learn the basics.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

Oilpan4
Posts: 1725
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: McKinsey: Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts

Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:26 pm

I guess it's red herring season where you are.
Just because you are losing doesn't mean you get to change the subject.

If you say physics is physics everywhere then how does one get by with replacing actual measures with estimates when it's easy stuff like measuring the air temperature, at ground level and just recording it on some form of media?
"THE ABOVE POST CONTAINS MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION. PLEASE CONSIDER IT OPINION, NOT FACT". -someone who I offended and is unable to produce the facts in question.

WetEV
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: McKinsey: Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts

Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:38 am

Oilpan4 wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:26 pm
I guess it's red herring season where you are.
Just because you are losing doesn't mean you get to change the subject.

If you say physics is physics everywhere then how does one get by with replacing actual measures with estimates when it's easy stuff like measuring the air temperature, at ground level and just recording it on some form of media?
I'm putting an end to this.

Basic physics requires the surface to warm as the amount of greenhouse gases increase. "Oilpan" doesn't want to discuss this.

The surface record can be cross checked with other things, like ice. Gets warmer, ice melts. Ice is melting, it is getting warmer. "Oilpan" dismisses ice.

Until there is a sign of something other than mindless trolling, I'm dropping this.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

Oilpan4
Posts: 1725
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: McKinsey: Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts

Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:10 pm

So because I don't take the red herring bait I'm trolling.
Suuuurrrrreeee....

I never claimed green house gased don't warm the planet.
There you go with the non existent arguments, again.

I think I know how it works.
1 make fallacies, 2 deploy red herring, 3 more fallacies, then when none of that works, 4 name call, 5 say it's over.
"THE ABOVE POST CONTAINS MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION. PLEASE CONSIDER IT OPINION, NOT FACT". -someone who I offended and is unable to produce the facts in question.

Return to “Environmental Issues”