Climate Change Report

#2,301
#2,301
Wafflestomper said:
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
Click to expand...
You dont see why getting data points beyond your comparison point is significant? Wtf kind of scientist are you? What are you even making your comparison off of. Constantly changing instruments and collection methods is poor science, yet alone not even being able to use the same instrument for the pre-trend data points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and FLVOL_79
#2,303
#2,303
Wafflestomper said:
Who says that's the goal of their profession? That sounds like someone else's bias.

And let's not pretend that companies like ExxonMobil haven't been funding their own research and public influence campaigns for years.



That's nice, but without all of the details and context it isn't particularly relevant.

I recently found an error in a calculation which resulted in the suspension of a federally-funded research project and my leadership and our government overlords all supported me and thanked me for bringing the error to their attention. Cool beans.
Click to expand...
So, if you are receiving funding to research global warming you don’t think it primes the pump? That’s pretty naive.

It’s relevant to show that research isn’t always just research. It’s funding, which is money, which corrupts. And even if man is responsible for some warming, it doesn’t change the fact that most the people complaining about it don’t do anything personally to make any difference, nor are they willing to terminate foreign trade with the greatest offenders.

So, since it’s settled science what percentage of warming in human kind responsible for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,304
#2,304
Orangeslice13 said:
You gotta respect someone actually trying to solve the problem
Click to expand...
You people kill me. It's not a one or the other approach to pollution. Sticking your head in the sand looking for microplastics does nothing to address the problems associated with air pollution and climate change. Denying the relationship is stupid.
 
#2,305
#2,305
Roustabout said:
So, if you are receiving funding to research global warming you don’t think it primes the pump? That’s pretty naive.

It’s relevant to show that research isn’t always just research. It’s funding, which is money, which corrupts. And even if man is responsible for some warming, it doesn’t change the fact that most the people complaining about it don’t do anything personally to make any difference, nor are they willing to terminate foreign trade with the greatest offenders.

So, since it’s settled science what percentage of warming in human kind responsible for?
Click to expand...

NGV and I were just talking about this and what an example of a catch all for funding the CDC has become with all their studies .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,306
#2,306
Mick said:
You people kill me. It's not a one or the other approach to pollution. Sticking your head in the sand looking for microplastics does nothing to address the problems associated with air pollution and climate change. Denying the relationship is stupid.
Click to expand...
Got some cool inventors who have found a practical solution to those problems I can give money to?
 
#2,307
#2,307
Mick said:
You people kill me. It's not a one or the other approach to pollution. Sticking your head in the sand looking for microplastics does nothing to address the problems associated with air pollution and climate change. Denying the relationship is stupid.
Click to expand...
Want to address air pollution? Stop exempting China and India from international climate treaties. The US is doing its part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Roustabout, joevol33 and 2 others
#2,308
#2,308
VolStrom said:
So what he is saying 79 is you are wrong and he is right and you have to prove it.
Click to expand...
No hurricanes in Florida for 12 years when climate scientists were confident with 100% certainty cat 5s would wipe us out is all anyone needs to look at to see climate science is part science part uneducated guess and part fear mongering.

It's a bunch of geologists staring at computer models and flinging poo until something sticks. That's why the term climate change, which has been around forever, supplanted global warming as the go to catch phrase for fear mongers. It's a catch all and gives them an out when they are wrong which is more often than not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Al Orange, AM64 and joevol33
#2,309
#2,309
MG1968 said:
Want to address air pollution? Stop exempting China and India from international climate treaties. The US is doing its part.
Click to expand...
What climate treaties are we part of and the last I checked India loves them some Trump/Republican unregulated industries. I mean that is exactly what this Administration has pushed for. The rational for Republicapitalism is to be competitive with them, right? Trump tweeted not too long ago about it. It seems the Reduction in emissions is a result of Obama's policies and not Trumps push to deregulate.
 
#2,310
#2,310
Mick said:
What climate treaties are we part of and the last I checked India loves them some Trump/Republican unregulated industries. I mean that is exactly what this Administration has pushed for. The rational for Republicapitalism is to be competitive with them, right? Trump tweeted not too long ago about it. It seems the Reduction in emissions is a result of Obama's policies and not Trumps push to deregulate.
Click to expand...

We are more competitive with China than anyone on the planet , what does competition have to do with China an India not reducing their output when we are even with the deregulation’s of this administration? Dodge duck and dive .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,311
#2,311
0nelilreb said:
We are more competitive with China than anyone on the planet , what does competition have to do with China an India not reducing their output when we are even with the deregulation’s of this administration? Dodge duck and dive .
Click to expand...
Sure we are. So competitive we have to have tariffs on imports from them.
 
#2,312
#2,312
Mick said:
What climate treaties are we part of and the last I checked India loves them some Trump/Republican unregulated industries. I mean that is exactly what this Administration has pushed for. The rational for Republicapitalism is to be competitive with them, right? Trump tweeted not too long ago about it. It seems the Reduction in emissions is a result of Obama's policies and not Trumps push to deregulate.
Click to expand...
They were exempt from Kyoto. They were exempt from Paris.

The US reduction in emissions has been happening since the late 1990’s and has been industry driven.

Next time, try not to invoke Trump. It’s been going on for decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
#2,313
#2,313
MG1968 said:
They were exempt from Kyoto. They were exempt from Paris.

The US reduction in emissions has been happening since the late 1990’s and has been industry driven.

Next time, try not to invoke Trump. It’s been going on for decades.
Click to expand...

BS.
 
#2,317
#2,317
Mick said:
I addressed your misguided statement head on and you have nowhere else to go but ^^^this.
Click to expand...

You deflected from the question and posted some garbage about tariffs , avoiding why China gets a pass and we are reducing our outputs even with deregulations . If that’s head on to you , i understand why you vote the way you do .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,318
#2,318
MG1968 said:
Equal BS is your fanciful claim that Obama policies reduced emissions. His EPA declared CO2 a pollutant. You know, the stuff humans exhale and trees and other green plants convert into oxygen?
Click to expand...
Feel free to start your car in the garage..
 
#2,319
#2,319
LouderVol said:
You dont see why getting data points beyond your comparison point is significant? Wtf kind of scientist are you? What are you even making your comparison off of. Constantly changing instruments and collection methods is poor science, yet alone not even being able to use the same instrument for the pre-trend data points.
Click to expand...

First off, I'm not a scientist, and I don't believe I ever claimed to be one.

Second, determining whether the observed warming is due to human activity shouldn't require 10 million or more years of data because it's principally an energy balance problem rather than a trending problem. We only need the trends to determine that the climate is changing, and it's not clear why we need more than 150 years of good data to do that.
 
#2,320
#2,320
Roustabout said:
So, if you are receiving funding to research global warming you don’t think it primes the pump? That’s pretty naive.

It’s relevant to show that research isn’t always just research. It’s funding, which is money, which corrupts. And even if man is responsible for some warming, it doesn’t change the fact that most the people complaining about it don’t do anything personally to make any difference, nor are they willing to terminate foreign trade with the greatest offenders.

So, since it’s settled science what percentage of warming in human kind responsible for?
Click to expand...

And you don't think the same problem exists on the denial side? Many businesses have an interest in downplaying the severity of climate change and have spent large amounts of money on their own research and lobbying politicians to do so.

Whether people are acting consistent with their beliefs isn't really relevant either. This is like a smoker telling someone else they shouldn't smoke; sure they're a hypocrite, but not necessarily wrong.

I didn't say the science is settled but I did provide a link somewhere else where someone published an article in Nature saying around two thirds is attributable to human activity.
 
#2,321
#2,321
Mick said:
You people kill me. It's not a one or the other approach to pollution. Sticking your head in the sand looking for microplastics does nothing to address the problems associated with air pollution and climate change. Denying the relationship is stupid.
Click to expand...
Solving the plastic problem goes a long way towards solving supposed climate change. Of the two of us...you’re the one with your head in your ass. At least I’m taking action

Lol at “you people “. You mean Jews right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 0nelilreb and joevol33
#2,322
#2,322
How long before the media and "Scientists" start using a phrase scarier than climate change? Climate Apocalypse 2040!! Soon!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top