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

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Oilpan4 said:
I don't care for computer models much either. They can be made to show literally anything.
With out the source data or access to the programing there's reason to base major life decisions or changes on it.

The data required is very basic, and not in any reasonable doubt. Some basics of physics and basic measurements.

You get to write the source code, and the programming is spreadsheet level. Still good enough to show the concern.

Talk or walk?
 
If it's so simple why all the secrecy?
If I was a card game enthusiast I might think they were trying to over play their hand.
 
Oilpan4 said:
If it's so simple why all the secrecy?
If I was a card game enthusiast I might think they were trying to over play their hand.

What secrecy? Everything you need to know is public information and has been for decades.

I'd like to call your bluff. Talking or walking?
 
Well its hard to make a computer model that isnt biased when what causes and how to fix the problem have already been determined. And additional possible explanations and remedies are ignored.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Well its hard to make a computer model that isnt biased when what causes and how to fix the problem have already been determined. And additional possible explanations and remedies are ignored.
Sounds like a walk. Later dude, when you get back in touch with reality.
 
So knowing that someone's bias can influence the outcome of a study means I'm out of touch with reality?
This is actually really well documented, yet you deny it?
Now that's the pot calling the kettle shinny.
 
Oilpan4 said:
So knowing that someone's bias can influence the outcome of a study means I'm out of touch with reality?
This is actually really well documented, yet you deny it?
Now that's the pot calling the kettle shinny.
Physics doesn't have bias.
Put a rock in your hand, stand in the middle of the room, think Socialist. Let go of the rock, watch it fall.
Repeat with Fascist, Capitalist, and every other _ist and _ism you can think of.

Rock will fall EXACTLY as it did in every other case.
 
Wasn't talking about physics, was talking about the humans doing it.
But if you have any more non arguments to add feel free to.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Wasn't talking about physics, was talking about the humans doing it.
But if you have any more non arguments to add feel free to.
We were talking about physics, that's what drives climate models.

Or rather, I was talking physics. What were you talking about? Not physics.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Wasn't talking about physics, was talking about the humans doing it.
But if you have any more non arguments to add feel free to.

A lot of "studies" are thinly disguised advertising campaigns by the sponsors of the study but that does not apply in all cases. The "Human" aspect should be able to filter that out. Granted, its tough. Big money is paid to be convincing but the task is taking on monumental hurdles in the light of growing evidence to the contrary.

TBH; Anyone who still believes we are not responsible is clinging to 90's era studies that were nothing but BS the day they were published.

Lately, the naysayers argument is predicated on studying a single aspect of the Human existence and presenting evidence on why that single aspect is not enough to create change. That would be fine but we Humans are pushing the change from thousands of different angles. Anyone who denies that is most definitely out of it.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Oilpan4 said:
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%80%93Boltzmann_law

No sense talking about complex things when you don't know the basics. And refuse to learn the basics.
 
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?
 
Oilpan4 said:
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top