California Launching Their "Own Damn Satellite" to Fight Climate Change

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
  1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
No. Calling someone a coward is not ad-hominem, it's just an insult.
An ad-hominem is "your argument or conclusion is wrong because you put it forth."

Examples abound, unfortunately: in an experiment recently conducted, when a sample of college students was told that a planned action was Obama's proposal a majority was in favor of it, but when another sample was told the same planned action was Trump's proposal, the majority was rabidly opposed to it.

And this is college students. Supposedly smart, but not so much.
 
GDP is part of an equation. Posting these numbers without the -costs- is number manipulation. You are merely pointing at a populated state and stating that it has a big GDP. Of course it does.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-jerry-brown-budget-trump-risks-20170110-story.html

http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html

California is now, finally in the black, yes. Marginally. Barely. Once the economy goes into recession again as it always does, it will be back in the red. It's most assuredly still in debt. Additionally, each citizen in California owes $5,000 MORE than my own state. So I would argue that it is indeed doing poorly in terms of spending.

I'm sure this Satellite is going to help. :)

How can it be considered in the 'black' when they've got over 1 trillion dollars (state and local) in unfunded pension debt? Shouldn't that debt be part of that calculation?
 
No still easy science. I just didn't want to spell it all out when you can google it yourself.

CO2 goes into the ocean, raising the temperature and PH.

It isn't a natural change to the planet. We are doing change to our world in decades what would take millions of years.

It's easy to measure and test. It's not that complicated. Scientist have been predicting climate change since the 70s and technology has only made it easier to track.

You have identified one element to a 464907230895 element equation.
 
How can it be considered in the 'black' when they've got over 1 trillion dollars (state and local) in unfunded pension debt? Shouldn't that debt be part of that calculation?

Probably so. But again, the poster I was quoting only identified GDP. Like I said - You shouldn't also ignore spending and debts.
 
Real cute.
Guy makes an absurd claim.
Guy gets asked to clarify it.
Guy runs away after posting some irrelevant meme.
Guy is a coward.

I'd prefer to discuss the issues but some folks prefer to just make bold claims and expect to never get called on their bullshit.

Then maybe do that, instead of doubling-down on a personal attack? Don't fling poo and then complain when you get seated at the kid's table.

Meanwhile, as to "who agrees?":

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...g-happening-humans-primary-cause#.W5_Kr-hKiUk

The science is clear. The consensus is in. And I, for one, am tired of endlessly rehashing the argument. It's about as interesting as debating whether evolution happened or gravity exists.

I suspect that comic was posted out of a sense of frustration, and that you haven't received a reply because of the perception that a reply would be pointless. The name-calling probably just sealed the deal.
 

I'll quote you sources, if you tell me plainly that you are stating: "The ONLY source of global warming or cooling is CO2."

Is this what you are stating? If it is, a bunch of people are about to laugh at you.

If it is not, then we agree on the previous statement.


  • There are a laundry list of gasses which impact Global Warming and Cooling. (Methane, Plain Water Vapor, many others...)
  • There is solar activity.
  • There are natural occurring weather patterns.
  • There are no doubt unseen and undiscovered elements, be it unknown scientific discoveries, or God.
  • There are volcanic anomalies.
  • The Earth's rotation is slowing down.
  • The Earth is drifting farther away from the sun (Or closer depending who you ask).
  • There are changes in reflectivity of the Earth human-made or otherwise.


Ultimately, to state "I measured the CO2 in the ice and it said this", is, like I said, PART of a multi layer equation which neither you or I have complete data on. If you TRULY wish to rely on science, I caution you to be as I try to be - consistently skeptical. It is all too often that a scientist will massage the numbers or paint a certain picture to make his or her point, only to be discredited by the next scientist who comes along and uses a different set of partial data. There are plenty of studies which in fact discredit how useful this data is, but I'm not going to spend time googling them all and pasting links into this forum because you are asking. You can do your own homework. Sorry.

It's ok to say "I don't know, but it looks like this." Do not presume omnipotence and assume something to be a scientific law, when it is in fact a wildly misconstrued piece of a puzzle.
 
Last edited:
Gov. Brown and the rest of the leadership in CA are asshats. From State to Federal reps. They are all morons. More worried about pandering to SJW and nonsense causes in order to raise war chests filled with money.

Meanwhile homelessness, drug abuse, crippling debt, and companies leaving is running rampant. Not to mention resources disappearing. But yes, please ban straws and launch your own satellite.
 
I'll quote you sources, if you tell me plainly that you are stating: "The ONLY source of global warming or cooling is CO2."

Is this what you are stating? If it is, a bunch of people are about to laugh at you.

If it is not, then we agree on the previous statement.


  • There are a laundry list of gasses which impact Global Warming and Cooling.
  • There is solar activity.
  • There are natural occurring weather patterns.
  • There are no doubt unseen and undiscovered elements, be it unknown scientific discoveries, or God.
  • There are volcanic anomalies.
  • The Earth's rotation is slowing down.
  • The Earth is drifting farther away from the sun (Or closer depending who you ask).
  • There are changes in reflectivity of the Earth human-made or otherwise.


Ultimately, to state "I measured the CO2 in the ice and it said this", is, like I said, PART of a multi layer equation which neither you or I have complete data on. If you TRULY wish to rely on science, I caution you to be as I try to be - consistently skeptical. It is all too often that a scientist will massage the numbers or paint a certain picture to make his or her point, only to be discredited by the next scientist who comes along and uses a different set of partial data.

It's ok to say "I don't know, but it looks like this." Do not presume omnipotence.

Most of that is smaller if not a drop in the bucket to the amount of CO2 mankind has produced using fossil fuels.

Agricultural itself ads more than weather patters or earth moving.

Until the science says otherwise we do know. Good scientists try to debunk each other. Or should we just accept flat-earthers might be onto something?
 
Most of that is smaller if not a drop in the bucket to the amount of CO2 mankind has produced using fossil fuels.

Agricultural itself ads more than weather patters or earth moving.

Until the science says otherwise we do know. Good scientists try to debunk each other. Or should we just accept flat-earthers might be onto something?

If flat-Earthers have rational evidence that the Earth is indeed flat, then sure. That is generally not the case.

Also - no. A supervolcano is not a drop in the bucket in terms of Global Warming/Cooling. Nor is a meteor impact. Nor is extreme solar activity. Nor is Methane due to a large scale die-off of a certain animal. Again - parts of the equation that focusing on one sole study completely misses.

What you presented is not good science, in my opinion. It's an isolated study using one single element. If you rely on one single method of measurement then yes, you probably SHOULD accept that flat-Earthers are onto something. :)

What you should most certainly do is focus on multiple studies, question that which is questionable, and question yet more when political motives come into play.



Additionally - Let's talk about ice layers. This is one of the most heavily abused areas of scientific study. Here are my problems with it:
1. Any Ice Age will completely throw off its accuracy.
2. Any large scale change in precipitation in the area will completely throw off its accuracy.
3. Any large scale change in the element you are measuring within the ice layer will throw off its accuracy.

It makes many poor assumptions. For example, a WW2 plane was found underneath 260 feet of ice in Greenland. As the normal ice layer today would be less than 1 foot, it would mean the plane landed before it would have been possible.

So no - This is not, in fact "Good Science". It is "Abused Science", which is exactly what you see Flat-Earthers doing.
 
Last edited:

Your first link is written by James Taylor the president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation, a political activist for energy companies who's primary source of income is a secret fund group who hides the names of the corporations that fund through them. Cough... I'm SURE that's not biased.

Alex Epstein another Fossile fuels guy who wrote a book the Moral Case for Fossile fuels. Again not a scientiest or a non biased reporter. It feeds his message to say that the number is false.

Richard Tol is only willing to combat Climate Change in so far as it is economically benificial. "Tol characterises his position as arguing that the economic costs of climate policy should be kept in proportion to its benefits"


Your fourth article though interesting is taking apart the author of a paper named Cook who based his work as a non Scientist on papers written by scientists where his digestion of the information created an understanding of 97.1% agreement. It pointed out basically that his interpretation of the numbers was off although not by as gross a margin as you might expect. And further states that while people may be the primary cause it is not the 97.1% based on the source information used by Cook from 2013.

And your last link has an update that basically says... it's wrong. And again is going on information from Cook who is... as the previous link states... NOT an scientist so isn't actually new information and already discredited itself before he wrote the article because it is referencing data that Cook published that is already at fault.

It took me 20 minutes to shoot down your articles. But it was fun. Just proves what a little bit of investigation will find out.

I will go with what the majority of scientists hypothesize until there is newer better information.
 
Then maybe do that, instead of doubling-down on a personal attack? Don't fling poo and then complain when you get seated at the kid's table.

Meanwhile, as to "who agrees?":

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...g-happening-humans-primary-cause#.W5_Kr-hKiUk

The science is clear. The consensus is in. And I, for one, am tired of endlessly rehashing the argument. It's about as interesting as debating whether evolution happened or gravity exists.

I suspect that comic was posted out of a sense of frustration, and that you haven't received a reply because of the perception that a reply would be pointless. The name-calling probably just sealed the deal.
He never made a point! how can a discuss something with somebody too cowardly to even state their position clearly?

You stated your position though. And let's talk about it. You linked to one study, let's deal with it.

Before we dive in, let's remember that argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.

Without getting into all the muck about Cook's supposed 97% consensus for the moment, let's answer a few questions.

Is there climate change? Yes. (climate is rarely static though)
Is man responsible? Sure! (to what degree is highly debatable)
Those are the simple answers to simple questions but unfortunately that does not get us any closer to understanding what's going on. Though it sure does make for good sound bites and headlines. It may be comforting for some to believe 'the science is in' but, it isn't.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't think I have a grasp on the 'truth' here! Nothing I have seen leads me to believe that the science is settled in any way, shape, or form.
Here's the question where the science is absolutely not settled and it's the only really important question for non-academics.
Is it dangerous? ---------
And this is where we have serious issues. Governments don't spend billions because we kicked something a little out of whack but in the end it's harmless. They only spend billions if it is perceived as a danger. We've had American Presidents overstate the risk!
I'm not sure how many predictions made by the doom and gloom crowd have been proven true by observation. I am certain that many of their predictions have been shown (via observation) to be incorrect and/or exaggerated time and time again.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/
Problem is that most people aren't really interested in the science. They just react to attention grabbing headlines and internet memes while rarely investigating/inquiring. This does not apply to one side of the discussion only.


Back to Cook.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04...pers-refute-his-statistical-sleights-of-hand/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdf
https://www.destaatvanhet-klimaat.n...vey-not-only-meaningless-but-also-misleading/

These are well worth reading.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
https://www.masterresource.org/alarmism/four-reasons-alarmists-wrong-climate-change/

I don't expect you or that other guy to change your minds on the subject. In my experience, people who are close-minded and think they have all the answers generally don't respond well to differing opinions.
My goal here isn't to get you on 'my side'. I don't have a side. My only goal is to show you that the science is not in.
I have no issue with reducing carbon emissions within reason or for responsible spending on renewable energy.
 
Richard Tol is only willing to combat Climate Change in so far as it is economically benificial. "Tol characterises his position as arguing that the economic costs of climate policy should be kept in proportion to its benefits"
blahblah
It took me 20 minutes to shoot down your articles.
Richard Tol is an economist. That should not be surprising.
You didn't shoot down anything he said though.
 
Richard Tol is an economist. That should not be surprising.
You didn't shoot down anything he said though.

You're right. He's willing to let the world burn if it isn't cost effective in the short term. I didn't get much further than the quote due to that. If I have time later I'll take a more in depth look at his article.
 
Additionally - California abusing state policies and laws to make things more difficult for its population and making people want to move out is a political issue whether you believe it to be or not.

Not sure what your'e talking about. CA's population through the end of last year has been growing, not shrinking. It's not growing fast (and may eventually level off or decline), but it is growing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/206097/resident-population-in-california/
 
It's not hard science. You can take a core of ice from the Antarctic to measure CO2 in the air. Top layers clearly have more CO2 in them. They can project from there the amount of CO2 raised right around fossil fuels became huge.

Humankind is clearly having an effect on the planet. It's science fact.

No still easy science. I just didn't want to spell it all out when you can google it yourself.

CO2 goes into the ocean, raising the temperature and PH.

It isn't a natural change to the planet. We are doing change to our world in decades what would take millions of years.

It's easy to measure and test. It's not that complicated. Scientist have been predicting climate change since the 70s and technology has only made it easier to track.

I have been a chemist for 30 years and I see all kinds of wrong in this. If you warm water, CO2 becomes less soluble therefore it will want to leave the water and enter the atmosphere above it. The CO2 dissolved in the oceans is coming from the fact that the water is warmer and it causes the Calcium Carbonate(lime, limestone)dissolved in the ocean to be liberated, think of a can of soda, you shake it when it is cold and it fizzes a little, shake it when it is warm and it will blow the top off, same thing with CO2 in the ocean. As pointed out below, when you look carefully at the charts, CO2 in the atmosphere always lags behind rise in temperature, even in the "hockey stick" graphs that got the whole global warming debate started. Global Warming Extremists( not those who merely believe the climate is warming but those who think they must assign blame to humans no matter what) always show increasing temperature and increasing CO2 charts to make their point. They don't however zoom in to show which comes first. If increasing CO2 is the CAUSE, then why did it happen after the EFFECT? Increasing CO2 is a symptom of a warming climate, not a major cause. I say not major because it will have an effect of increasing the amount of warming, but the initial warming is what caused the CO2 to increase.

Technically we are still coming out of the last Ice Age, so the Earth still has some warming to go through before it reaches the level it was pre-Ice Age. Anyone who says "but it is warming faster than before" doesn't understand that something so dynamic as our climate will never follow the exact same pattern every time, otherwise we could predict our weather exactly years in advance and always know exactly where and when and how strong every storm or drought will be for the next century. What is happening with our climate is completely natural. We should stop trying to figure out how to stop it and freeze the climate into what we think is ideal and instead start trying to figure out how to survive the changes that are coming. Government will not do that though, simply because it would mean they have to admit they have no control over the problem. Governments want to control a problem, not develop solutions, because developing solutions cost them money and maybe prestige as they have to admit they do not have control. Just like the answer to poverty whether personal or public, is to stop spending and increase income, but to stop spending we have to do without which in either personal or public settings hurts and nobody has the guts anymore to endure. Governments will never end poverty, and governments will not stop climate warming period, no group of politicians is self sacrificing enough to end poverty nor powerful enough to alter nature.


Temperature and CO2 measurements going back hundreds of thousands of years show similar rise and fall of temperature and CO2 over a much longer period of time than is typically used. CO2 rise generally lags temperature rise - think about that.

View attachment 104533

Quoted for reference, but this data is some that I have been looking at for years and can never get politically minded people to ever understand.
 
Sounds pretty sexist. Why not mandatory hysterectomies?

Because one man can get multiple women pregnant at a time.
Women can only be impregnated by one guy at a time.

Sheesh. To the first, no need for hysterectomy, tubal ligation does the job.

To the second, well. DUH, but there aint much point to limiting the supply of spooge if the spoogers that are left can jsut step up the effort. Vasectomies just change who the dad is. Shutting down the baby maker means you limited the supply of babies and thus reproductive bandwidth.
 
Sheesh. To the first, no need for hysterectomy, tubal ligation does the job.

To the second, well. DUH, but there aint much point to limiting the supply of spooge if the spoogers that are left can jsut step up the effort. Vasectomies just change who the dad is. Shutting down the baby maker means you limited the supply of babies and thus reproductive bandwidth.
Wrong thread there, buddy!
 
Every news article about California here end up in baseless bashing......

Makes me wonder how many people shit talk actually lives here or from here.
 
Every news article about California here end up in baseless bashing......

Makes me wonder how many people shit talk actually lives here or from here.
They make it pretty easy to bash. WTF would somebody want to live there? I guess if they like it....
 
Every news article about California here end up in baseless bashing......

Makes me wonder how many people shit talk actually lives here or from here.

I moved from Commiefornia so I've seen its decline firsthand. Gov Moonbeam and his leftist administration have no idea how to budget or spend money effectively. When your state is so grossly in debt how can you possibly justify frivolously spending money on things that will make absolutely no difference. Just keep digging that hole...
 
I feel so bad for people who live there.

Why don't they ban propane/gas/diesel vehicles? That would help quite a bit? Just use all electric cars and have more wind/soar power?
Yeah, that's right I said it, because I don't live there. :)

Electricity is so high here in California, it cost about the same to charge an electric car as it does to put our high priced gas into a hybrid.
 
It's not hard science. You can take a core of ice from the Antarctic to measure CO2 in the air. Top layers clearly have more CO2 in them. They can project from there the amount of CO2 raised right around fossil fuels became huge.

Humankind is clearly having an effect on the planet. It's science fact.
Nobody is disputing CO2 increases. Just the effect. 1( CO2 causes excessive global warming. 2) Man has added CO2 3) therefore man is making the the planet have global warming. #1 is an assertion that has some theories behind it and no proof because the earth is too big to perform controlled experiments. #2 could be true all day long but you don't get #3 without #1 & #2.
 
I just like pointing out that global warming research is a $12+ billion pig trough that dries up the moment enough of the pigs stands up and says, it's not a problem. How quickly do you think that would happen IF it actually wasn't a problem?
 
I just like pointing out that global warming research is a $12+ billion pig trough that dries up the moment enough of the pigs stands up and says, it's not a problem. How quickly do you think that would happen IF it actually wasn't a problem?

LOL, do you really think the pigs don't want to keep the feed coming? That should be a self answering question.
 
I just like pointing out that global warming research is a $12+ billion pig trough that dries up the moment enough of the pigs stands up and says, it's not a problem. How quickly do you think that would happen IF it actually wasn't a problem?

Which is peanuts to the oil industry who are in the pockets of our politicians.

They have certainly proven they are best at making misinformation.
 
Which is peanuts to the oil industry who are in the pockets of our politicians.
Oil is a massive money maker for governments, the subsidies goes from oil to government with royalties, sales taxes, fuel taxes as well as the large spin-off effects of the industry.... That's if they don't already own the oil company to begin with.
 
Which is peanuts to the oil industry who are in the pockets of our politicians.

They have certainly proven they are best at making misinformation.

Oil is a massive money maker for governments, the subsidies goes from oil to government with royalties, sales taxes, fuel taxes as well as the large spin-off effects of the industry.... That's if they don't already own the oil company to begin with.

Just think how both of these benefits advertising/media, they just love the argument when it keeps going as they can make money from both sides. If one side ever wins, then their trough dries up too. Politicians would lose also if the debate ends.
 
Every news article about California here end up in baseless bashing......
Makes me wonder how many people shit talk actually lives here or from here.

Lived there for over five years and next to it for almost my whole life until recently. My disdain for the state is well founded.

The only positive thing that ever happened in relation to CA for me was someone sued them for charging their bogus "Smog impact fee" for cars. When I moved there from out of state and brought a car with me I got hit with this utterly BS fee. Every car in the US has had "California emissions" since forever as car makers aren't going to make cars just for CA, but they got away for charging the fee for years until someone had the balls to sue them. And won. I never did find out who did that - I should have sent them the refund check as thanks.

Fun fact along the CA emissions line - open your cars owners manual and check the timing belt replacement intervals. There's a good chance there might be two intervals - one for CA and one for everyone else. Again manufacturers aren't putting different belts in different cars so there you go.
 
Back
Top