Climate Change Report

[ajvol01]

Then effective population control should be implemented immediately. Thata the only sure way to reverse that issue.

Because the Georgia Guide Stones say so?

 

[ajvol01]

Heh. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. We all pay for it, just like we pay to have clean water and fresh air.

97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring. Maybe some naysayers think they know more than scientists. Mkay. But, to err on the side of caution makes sense to me.

Who pays the salaries of “climate scientists”?

What happens to their grants, funding, salaries when the 97% number declines to 50%

Nice little scam they’ve got finding specific evidence to back up preconceived ideas that in turn justify the existence of their job, company and/or industry.

Why does no one question where the money is going?

 

[MontyPython]

How do we all pay? Voluntarily through incentives or with tax money?

I don't know, but obviously, nobody likes more taxes. I suppose ideally it will be baked into the cost of everything we buy, right? If it costs $0.02/widget to produce less CO2, then businesses pass along a $0.02/widget cost increase to consumers. But, I think the real issue (as others have pointed to here) is that the US acting unilaterally is pointless and counterproductive. Even though we produce 14% or so of the world's CO2, everyone has to be part of the process, otherwise we're just pissing in the wind.

 

[MontyPython]

Who pays the salaries of “climate scientists”?

What happens to their grants, funding, salaries when the 97% number declines to 50%

Nice little scam they’ve got finding specific evidence to back up preconceived ideas that in turn justify the existence of their job, company and/or industry.

Why does no one question where the money is going?

True, but the numbers speak for themselves.

 

[ajvol01]

True, but the numbers speak for themselves.View attachment 211169

Data can be manipulated to support a conclusion.

So what about the thousands of years prior to these 130 years?

Do we really know what happened before/after the ice age?

How does the left always conclude with certainty that any significant climate change is man-made?

Numbers speak for themselves, but we think placing the most restrictive standards on US companies is going to impact global climate change when China, India, et al are polluting like mad?

 

[McDad]

I don't know, but obviously, nobody likes more taxes. I suppose ideally it will be baked into the cost of everything we buy, right? If it costs $0.02/widget to produce less CO2, then businesses pass along a $0.02/widget cost increase to consumers. But, I think the real issue (as others have pointed to here) is that the US acting unilaterally is pointless and counterproductive. Even though we produce 14% or so of the world's CO2, everyone has to be part of the process, otherwise we're just pissing in the wind.

Gets a bit more problematic when we get down to the details of payment. Complicated further by the logistical nightmare of global enforcement.
Appreciate your honesty in our discussion. Thanks.

 

[McDad]

True, but the numbers speak for themselves.View attachment 211169

They don't though. Your graph is scary but all we can say definitively is that things are warming since 1880.

140 years is a millisecond in geologic time.

I also think it is silly to compare to the 20th century average. As if that is standard or ideal.

 

[1972 Grad]

They don't though. Your graph is scary but all we can say definitively is that things are warming since 1880.

140 years is a millisecond in geologic time.

I also think it is silly to compare to the 20th century average. As if that is standard or ideal.

I would want to see the graph going back at least 10,000 B.C. before I could see a trend.

 

[MontyPython]

Data can be manipulated to support a conclusion.

So what about the thousands of years prior to these 130 years?

Do we really know what happened before/after the ice age?

How does the left always conclude with certainty that any significant climate change is man-made?

Numbers speak for themselves, but we think placing the most restrictive standards on US companies is going to impact global climate change when China, India, et al are polluting like mad?

So, IMO, to suggest that we humans can release 10 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere every year, and to say that this would NOT have an effect defies common sense.

To me, there is cause and effect, plain as day: We start burning fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide and the planet heats up. This is well-established fact.

IMO, I don't want to leave our planet to my kids sh*ttier than the way we found it, right? Whether or not scientists are wrong is not the question to me. I think it's just prudent to take steps to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. If they're wrong, well thank god. If they're right, well thank god we did something.

 

[1972 Grad]

So, IMO, to suggest that we humans can release 10 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere every year, and to say that this would NOT have an effect defies common sense.

To me, there is cause and effect, plain as day: We start burning fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide and the planet heats up. This is well-established fact.

IMO, I don't want to leave our planet to my kids sh*ttier than the way we found it, right? Whether or not scientists are wrong is not the question to me. I think it's just prudent to take steps to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. If they're wrong, well thank god. If they're right, well thank god we did something.

And you have proof that the temps have never risen before now?

 

[bcmbvol]

What’s worse, the majority of climate change scientists being wrong but we act anyway, or climate change deniers being wrong and we don’t?

“Acting” meaning giving a lot more money to the single most dangerous thing to humans (government), and then asking them to collude with one another is the real existential threat.

 

[37L1]

Let's do something, anything, even if it makes no difference.

Could be climate change, could be gun control, could be immigration.

One thing for certain, it's governmental, my dear Watson.

 

[bcmbvol]

I think it was Nordhaus who just won the nobel prize for his work on climate change for the ipcc, that said it would be devastating to even try to limit the change to 2.5•C.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Heh. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. We all pay for it, just like we pay to have clean water and fresh air.

97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring. Maybe some naysayers think they know more than scientists. Mkay. But, to err on the side of caution makes sense to me.

So who pays for India and China and all the other coal burning, pollution producing countries when they tell you to **** off?

 

[82_VOL_83]

Because the Georgia Guide Stones say so?

Read the follow on post before you get all Pro-lifey on me.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I don't know, but obviously, nobody likes more taxes. I suppose ideally it will be baked into the cost of everything we buy, right? If it costs $0.02/widget to produce less CO2, then businesses pass along a $0.02/widget cost increase to consumers. But, I think the real issue (as others have pointed to here) is that the US acting unilaterally is pointless and counterproductive. Even though we produce 14% or so of the world's CO2, everyone has to be part of the process, otherwise we're just pissing in the wind.

Should have stopped there. Until you come up with a way of making the world pay their fair share, sit down and shut up.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Gets a bit more problematic when we get down to the details of payment. Complicated further by the logistical nightmare of global enforcement.
Appreciate your honesty in our discussion. Thanks.

I don't, he may believe what he says but until "they" come up with a better idea than the top 50% of US wage earners foot the bill for the world, they just need to go away.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I would want to see the graph going back at least 10,000 B.C. before I could see a trend.

I also want to see where this data comes from. Is it taken from the same point on the globe every year? Have previously rural areas now become urban areas where you are guaranteed to see an ambient temp rise? Too many questions with no answers.

 

[82_VOL_83]

So, IMO, to suggest that we humans can release 10 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere every year, and to say that this would NOT have an effect defies common sense.

To me, there is cause and effect, plain as day: We start burning fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide and the planet heats up. This is well-established fact.

IMO, I don't want to leave our planet to my kids sh*ttier than the way we found it, right? Whether or not scientists are wrong is not the question to me. I think it's just prudent to take steps to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. If they're wrong, well thank god. If they're right, well thank god we did something.

Who is "we"?

 

[1972 Grad]

I think it was Nordhaus who just won the nobel prize for his work on climate change for the ipcc, that said it would be devastating to even try to limit the change to 2.5•C.

Nostradamus?

 

[ajvol01]

Read the follow on post before you get all Pro-lifey on me.

It was a joke.

I think we agree on most things.

 

[DynaLo]

Cyclical climatic events with a very large bump from external planetary mass.
(to many folks on this rock making a mess and not cleaning up after themselves)

Kill the oceans, kill the planet.

 

[82_VOL_83]

It was a joke.

I think we agree on most things.

Actually, it was pretty funny......sorry about being snippy.

 

[The Original Fade]

Accurate weather data only goes back about 100-120 years, yet the earth has been in existence at least a few million years to most scientists estimates if not longer. So, how can anyone, climate scientist or not, argue that what we are experiencing now is abnormal based on a sample size of .00006%. In NO scientific field of study is a sample size this small given any credibility. It’s like drawing conclusions about the US census based on surveying a few people at the local coffee shop

 

[Mick]

Accurate weather data only goes back about 100-120 years, yet the earth has been in existence at least a few million years to most scientists estimates if not longer. So, how can anyone, climate scientist or not, argue that what we are experiencing now is abnormal based on a sample size of .00006%. In NO scientific field of study is a sample size this small given any credibility. It’s like drawing conclusions about the US census based on surveying a few people at the local coffee shop

So you stayed in a Holiday Inn last night. Sweet.