Climate Change Report

[FLVOL_79]

There is a mountain of scholarly papers on the topic, so I don't know what more "proof" you think you're going to get. What specifically about the evidence and arguments in the following link would you consider to be incorrect?

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

And all those mountains say the same thing. May cause, probably, more than likely. If anyone here has ever written a basic college level research paper you know you don't use words like may or probably in a scholarly paper. Its all conjecture and educated guesses no more certain than a daily weather report.

Almost 0 climate change predictions have ever come true over the past 50+ years of climate fear mongering. Its always "In the next 10 years"...

 

[Orangeslice13]

Lol. Lot of stupidity in your comment. The best science is done when others doubt and dig deeper. You dont advocate science, you advocate obedience.

Oh yea, remember when they said the forests around Chernobyl would be absent of life for centuries? How'd that go?

Gulf coast was destroyed for a generation by the BP oil spill.

 

[AM64]

My main question and to be honest here , my objection .. How does us paying untold amounts of money in the end , just to be be a part of some European conglomerate / union/ club, do anything but cause us more debit? We don’t have to pay union dues to take care of our on pollution , we can’t force other countries to do what they agree on paper to do regardless if we are in or out of the club , there’s no secret code to have access to their information , why would we pay X amount of dollars to that fund help us when , if that’s what we want to do , we can just keep the money in house ? I’ll be waiting for this explanation.

Because if we play carbon credits, etc and continue to concentrate the wealth in the hands of the very few in the name of climate change, the rest of us have less and less to do all those things like drive, take trips, buy energy wasteful products, heat or cool houses. So the theory is we create less pollution while we live in caves ... kinda like the communist way of life - suffer for the good of the whole ... well for the more equal pigs anyway. The climate change adherents have no endgame or even immediate strategy that doesn't result in significant disadvantage to common people; people like Algore, Musk, Bezos, Soros, the Hollywood bunch, etc don't care (they can spend what they want), and the professional climate scientists have funding for their interminable climate studies. We just revert back to a model of life resembling pre Industrial Revolution and the advent of the middle class. The 1%ers become the titled class, the climate change "scientists" become the church of the Dark Ages, and you know where it leaves everybody else. If this was serious, the globalism trial would die; industry would revert to responsible countries; trains and boats and planes wouldn't be polluting the atmosphere to darken the sky and move consumer good long distances; and China, India, etc wouldn't get a free pass to pollute.

 

[AM64]

Got to love science deniers.

Careful now, don't fall off the edge of the Earth.

We've got this ... and the proof the earth is round. Proof






Even the most dull of climate change deniers can see which model doesn't fit. We're good with the ball thing.

 

[allvol123]

Gulf coast was destroyed for a generation by the BP oil spill.

Indeed. All the hotels went bankrupt.

 

[AM64]

Lol. Lot of stupidity in your comment. The best science is done when others doubt and dig deeper. You dont advocate science, you advocate obedience.

Oh yea, remember when they said the forests around Chernobyl would be absent of life for centuries? How'd that go?

Yeah, but you know way down deep you wouldn't want to tangle with one of those two headed wolves.

 

[MG1968]

Got to love science deniers.

Careful now, don't fall off the edge of the Earth.

That’s rich coming from someone who thinks gender is an emotion.

 

[AM64]

I’d rather be a science denier and then have them prove me wrong , then to be a sheeple bleating about how right they are because they are “ scientists “ . Scientific theories must be proven out before they become facts . History and wisdom tells us that we should question them at every turn until they prove the subject matter as fact .

A lot of stuff defies logic - example: a push to go to electric cars when most electric energy production is still fossil based. You simply at this point move the source of pollution from cars to power plants. Whether the pollution at the plant is less than that produced by an engine in the car has never been completely resolved or demonstrated - there are a lot of losses in the generation and transmission of electric power that unbalance the reduced pollution argument. However, by moving pollution from congested places like LA to somebody else's backyard, highly liberal cities can feel better about themselves.

 

[AM64]

I am way more interested in the science behind what causes the liberal mind to feel the need group up all together into a flock , anytime there’s a social outcry from some group . It fascinates me that some people seem to always be willing to snuggle right in to the group think mentality and drop their natural instincts to be skeptical, when it’s a social topic regardless of history , logic , individual rights , freedoms . Etc . For example .. What is it about some people that makes them need acceptance from the rest of the world , to the point of it becoming detrimental to themselves and or their country ?

Libs can't have all the answers unless they know/own and have control over all the problems

 

[VolStrom]

A lot of stuff defies logic - example: a push to go to electric cars when most electric energy production is still fossil based. You simply at this point move the source of pollution from cars to power plants. Whether the pollution at the plant is less than that produced by an engine in the car has never been completely resolved or demonstrated - there are a lot of losses in the generation and transmission of electric power that unbalance the reduced pollution argument. However, by moving pollution from congested places like LA to somebody else's backyard, highly liberal cities can feel better about themselves.

What is even more despicable is to add ethanol to fuel and have it ruin every boat, lawnmower and small engine known to man that isn't started every week. Add to that the EPA gas cans that spill more fuel than any 85 year old ever could and they just make a mockery of the environment at the expense of the middle class.

 

[C-south]

Millions of qualified scientists?

Sure thing bub.

He must’ve just watch the South Park episode where they broke the beaver dam.

 

[Wafflestomper]

there are tons of variables that get thrown into the debate, that article even says there is no accurate guaranteed predictions of climate change in the future.

I'm not sure where you read that in the article I provided. However, since it is a prediction, and the nature of a prediction doesn't lend itself to absolute certainty, I dont know why you see this as significant.

Basically the points should be discussed as:

- is there climate change occurring? Yep.
- is it significant compared to the past? Define significant.
- is 150 years of measurable data accurate in terms of alltime global weather/climate changes? We have more than 150 years of data. It isn't clear why more than this is needed to determine that human activity is causing a warming trend though.
- what percentage of climate changes are due to man-made behaviors? What exact behaviors? The website I linked talks about contributions from other sources, such as solar irradiance, which it says cannot plausibly be responsible for more than 10% of the 20th century warming. The website says that human activity accounts for most of the changes.
- is there anything that can actually be done world wide to minimize the alleged damage?
If so what? How would we “make” people/countries follow suggestions? This is not relevant to whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real, so why are you asking this if you don't believe it?
- what is the alleged recommendations impact on human population, economies, etc? This is not relevant to whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real, so why are you asking this if you don't believe it?
- what are the agendas, money sources, data manipulations that have been seen on both sides of the debate? I can't account for every source of funding surrounding this debate. If you have evidence that there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy then let's see it.
- why is the issue being so politicized, especially with the “we are gonna die in 12 years” side which has been making these claims since the late 70s (global cooling, acid rain, global warming, etc) and have been proven wrong nearly every time? This is just not true. Just because some politicians or the media make ridiculous claims doesn't mean that is what the scientific literature says. This is a common rhetorical trick in this debate. Regardless, it's fallacious reasoning to conclude that someone must be wrong now because they were wrong previously.
Global cooling - Wikipedia

 

[VolStrom]

I'm not sure where you read that in the article I provided. However, since it is a prediction, and the nature of a prediction doesn't lend itself to absolute certainty, I dont know why you see this as significant.



- is there climate change occurring? Yep.
- is it significant compared to the past? Define significant.
- is 150 years of measurable data accurate in terms of alltime global weather/climate changes? We have more than 150 years of data. It isn't clear why more than this is needed to determine that human activity is causing a warming trend though.
- what percentage of climate changes are due to man-made behaviors? What exact behaviors? The website I linked talks about contributions from other sources, such as solar irradiance, which it says cannot plausibly be responsible for more than 10% of the 20th century warming. The website says that human activity accounts for most of the changes.
- is there anything that can actually be done world wide to minimize the alleged damage?
If so what? How would we “make” people/countries follow suggestions? This is not relevant to whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real, so why are you asking this if you don't believe it?
- what is the alleged recommendations impact on human population, economies, etc? This is not relevant to whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real, so why are you asking this if you don't believe it?
- what are the agendas, money sources, data manipulations that have been seen on both sides of the debate? I can't account for every source of funding surrounding this debate. If you have evidence that there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy then let's see it.
- why is the issue being so politicized, especially with the “we are gonna die in 12 years” side which has been making these claims since the late 70s (global cooling, acid rain, global warming, etc) and have been proven wrong nearly every time? This is just not true. Just because some politicians or the media make ridiculous claims doesn't mean that is what the scientific literature says. This is a common rhetorical trick in this debate. Regardless, it's fallacious reasoning to conclude that someone must be wrong now because they were wrong previously.
Global cooling - Wikipedia

What you going to do when reducing CO2 levels doesn't work? Blame something else like the sun?

 

[Wafflestomper]

And all those mountains say the same thing. May cause, probably, more than likely. If anyone here has ever written a basic college level research paper you know you don't use words like may or probably in a scholarly paper. Its all conjecture and educated guesses no more certain than a daily weather report.

Anyone familiar with induction and the scientific method would disagree with this. Absolute certainty is not something germane to the scientific process.
By the way, are you saying you've read all of the relevant scientific literature and it all says this, or are you saying they "probably" all say this? Haha.

Almost 0 climate change predictions have ever come true over the past 50+ years of climate fear mongering. Its always "In the next 10 years"...

What is this statement based on? Which predictions? Made by whom?

 

[AM64]

there are tons of variables that get thrown into the debate, that article even says there is no accurate guaranteed predictions of climate change in the future.

Basically the points should be discussed as:

- is there climate change occurring?
- is it significant compared to the past?
- is 150 years of measurable data accurate in terms of alltime global weather/climate changes?
- what percentage of climate changes are due to man-made behaviors? What exact behaviors?
- is there anything that can actually be done world wide to minimize the alleged damage?
If so what? How would we “make” people/countries follow suggestions?
- what is the alleged recommendations impact on human population, economies, etc?
- what are the agendas, money sources, data manipulations that have been seen on both sides of the debate?
- why is the issue being so politicized, especially with the “we are gonna die in 12 years” side which has been making these claims since the late 70s (global cooling, acid rain, global warming, etc) and have been proven wrong nearly every time?

One good example is to look at Pacific island groups. Hawaiian islands are relatively young volcanic islands with no surrounding reefs, Tahiti (Marquesas and Society groups) are islands that are sinking with surrounding reefs, the Marshall Islands are atolls where the original volcano has sunk leaving only the surrounding reef. Man has never known Tahiti without the surrounding reef, Hawaii with a surrounding reef, or Majuro (Atoll) with a central volcano. The earth has changed dramatically over millions of years, man has been here a fraction of that, yet some feel the need to panic over data from an infinitesimal time span. It's pretty incredible actually.

 

[AM64]

What is even more despicable is to add ethanol to fuel and have it ruin every boat, lawnmower and small engine known to man that isn't started every week. Add to that the EPA gas cans that spill more fuel than any 85 year old ever could and they just make a mockery of the environment at the expense of the middle class.

You also dilute gas by introducing a substance with less energy per mass unit. So we get to haul around more weight in the tank and less potential energy every time we fill up. What we do in the name of "progress" never fails to amaze me.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Anyone familiar with induction and the scientific method would disagree with this. Absolute certainty is not something germane to the scientific process.
By the way, are you saying you've read all of the relevant scientific literature and it all says this, or are you saying they "probably" all say this? Haha.



What is this statement based on? Which predictions? Made by whom?

lol. No. In your research you never say may, probably, most likely. Thats community college bush league stuff.

And my second statement is based on actual reality. I said almost ZERO predictions have come true. The only one that can even be remotely entertained is man made global warming. 99% of every scientific consensus environmental calamity bound to happen in the last 60 years has never come to fruition. It seems that your understanding that science is not infallible seems...lacking. I'm going to let you in on a secret. If its created by humans, there will always be flaws. Fact.

Now you may be asking yourself "well gee whiz mister how can this be!?". Well little dimbulb, its all about money. See, without money your research can't be funded. If your research isn't deemed valuable it loses that funding. If you can make your research seem relevant, and potentially world changing, you'll keep getting that funding. Thats why there has been decades of research with almost no tangible solutions and a litany of fear mongering Miss Cleo-esque predictions." Climate scientists are almost like modern day alchemists...

 

[Wafflestomper]

lol. No. In your research you never say may, probably, most likely. Thats community college bush league stuff.

Assigning probabilities in scientific research isn't bush league. I don't even know why this is controversial. Does your "real" science provide absolute certainty? Can you give an example?

And my second statement is based on actual reality. I said almost ZERO predictions have come true. The only one that can even be remotely entertained is man made global warming. 99% of every scientific consensus environmental calamity bound to happen in the last 60 years has never come to fruition. It seems that your understanding that science is not infallible seems...lacking. I'm going to let you in on a secret. If its created by humans, there will always be flaws. Fact.

The statement "If its created by humans, there will always be flaws. Fact" was created by humans (you) and therefore must be flawed. Good job.

Now you may be asking yourself "well gee whiz mister how can this be!?". Well little dimbulb, its all about money. See, without money your research can't be funded. If your research isn't deemed valuable it loses that funding. If you can make your research seem relevant, and potentially world changing, you'll keep getting that funding. Thats why there has been decades of research with almost no tangible solutions and a litany of fear mongering Miss Cleo-esque predictions." Climate scientists are almost like modern day alchemists...

Where is the evidence of a scientific conspiracy? I'm still waiting.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Assigning probabilities in scientific research isn't bush league. I don't even know why this is controversial. Does your "real" science provide absolute certainty? Can you give an example?

Lol. Yes. You will die. I will die. Everyone will die.

The statement "If its created by humans, there will always be flaws. Fact" was created by humans (you) and therefore must be flawed. Good job.

Logical fallacy time!

Where is the evidence of a scientific conspiracy? I'm still waiting.

You obviously have never been in a position where you had to budget for an entity. It isn't a conspiracy, its a known practice.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Gulf coast was destroyed for a generation by the BP oil spill.

Cant even stroll on the beach without becoming covered in fossil fuel residue.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Logical fallacy time!

I only followed your logic to its conclusion. If everything made by man is flawed, and you (a man) made that statement, it follows that it is flawed (modus ponens). This is deductive reasoning.

You obviously have never been in a position where you had to budget for an entity. It isn't a conspiracy, its a known practice.

So you dont have any evidence of fraud then? No one cares that scientists are paid; we care when they're being dishonest. I'm asking for proof of the uniform dishonesty in climate change research that so many on here (including you) allude to.

 

[NEO]

Gulf coast was destroyed for a generation by the BP oil spill.

The junegrass does seem worse than a decade ago but that may be due to fertilizer run off more than the chemicals BP used to create tar balls.

Besides that everthing else has seemed the same.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

 

[hjeagle1vol]

Imagine that...

 

[joevol33]

Imagine that...

Haha