Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
all excellent questions, that wont be answered by the warming cultists because it is their belief that man is the cause of all our problems, as is the technology that man has created. and if only man would give up the technology, and give up on industry, and give up all his wealth, then everything will be just fine.
What do you mean 'won't be answered'? Hello? Ever bothered to read any mainstream climate science research? Clearly not.
As for your second statement it's just the usual nonsense strawman.
Instead of wasting your time reading anti-science conspiracy blogs and tabloid press articles that misrepresent science, and regurgitating it all on forums like this, why not spend the same amount of time educating yourself about the actual science from actual reliable sources? Or is it that you just don't WANT to know and prefer to delude yourself with conspiracy theories?
What do you mean 'won't be answered'? Hello? Ever bothered to read any mainstream climate science research? Clearly not.
As for your second statement it's just the usual nonsense strawman.
Instead of wasting your time reading anti-science conspiracy blogs and tabloid press articles that misrepresent science, and regurgitating it all on forums like this, why not spend the same amount of time educating yourself about the actual science from actual reliable sources? Or is it that you just don't WANT to know and prefer to delude yourself with conspiracy theories?
i have said it many times before, and i will say it again, i am perfectly willing to listen, and even change my mind about climate change, and accept the fact that man is causing it. however the first thing you have to prove is that this isnt a normal climate cycle like the planet has been having for two million years. and second the crap about how we are always doomed in ten to thirty years if we dont add draconian regulations, and excessive taxation, and completely change our lifestyles in order to change the climate.
another problem i have is that AGW types always think that somehow man can change the climate, like we have some kind of real control over the climate.
so get the politics, and the hysteria out of the science, and then give me the whole science, not the bits and pieces that are spoon fed to the politicians and the gullible people at large who like to let others do their thinking for them, and perhaps you can change my mind. i am the first to admit that i dont know everything, but i am highly capable of digesting all the information i get, and making up my own mind based on what i learn.
I got my data from ContrarianEcon and for the purpose of arguing with him, presumed it was true. Thanks for correcting ContrarianEcon.
And by the way, your data actually corroborates the data I personally looked up on Wikipedia. 150 million autos in China is your data. 100 cars to 1000 residents is my data. It's the same data.
ContrarianEcon's data was an underestimate of China's population, and an underestimate of its urban population, assuming your data is correct.
Anyway, I think people like Richard Tor have argued that trying to stop/reduce climate change by reducing CO2 emissions would be far too expensive, and it's possibly better/cheaper to just tackle the famine, crop failure, natural disaster damages directly instead.
I think Richard Tor's approach is the way to go because you can see how in the US, Democrats and Republicans have little problem supporting natural disaster relief efforts. I read that between 2011 and 2013, US natural disaster relief efforts cost about $123 billion. In the US, it's politically popular to redistribute money from the rich and give it to poorer people who have been victims of disasters
When tsunamis and floods destroyed areas of the Philipinnes and Pakistan, Americans took pride in the US military going to these areas and helping the people recover. Very few people said "Hey, that was God's fault, not ours, so let's just ignore the damages"
It's weird that when someone says "Hey, that was possibly a little bit of our fault due to CO2 emissions", people become very defensive and accuse people of being socialists, luddites or whatever.
So maybe we need to just focus on helping people in famine/crop failure/flood/tsunami situations and downplay what is causing this
Take a look at this LA Times article. It kind of gets to what I'm saying. The market of housing and business development has contributed to the likelihood of floods causing severe damage. After the floods have ravaged an area, the Federal government comes in and pays the bills by taxing the rich and giving to the victims. It says that the Feds pay $50 billion a year in natural disaster recovery, versus $10 billion a year a decade ago. These Federal subsidies aren't controversial because no one blames the disaster on people, but on magic/God/Nature
i have said it many times before, and i will say it again, i am perfectly willing to listen, and even change my mind about climate change, and accept the fact that man is causing it.
Really? Then what are your rants about humans not having the power to manipulate the climate all about?
Quote:
however the first thing you have to prove is that this isnt a normal climate cycle like the planet has been having for two million years.
It has been confirmed that today natural forcings are playing a minor part in today's warming climate....Read the science. Climate Forcing — OSS Foundation
Quote:
and second the crap about how we are always doomed in ten to thirty years if we dont add draconian regulations, and excessive taxation, and completely change our lifestyles in order to change the climate.
Doomed?......What the science is actually saying is that warming is very likely to be irreversible if mitigation is delayed for another 10 to 30 years. There will be major lifestyle and economic repercussions if this happens....Inevitably humans will have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but the longer we wait the more costly it will be....As far as taxation is concerned, we have had a carbon tax here in BC since 2008, it works and is painless.. The shocking truth about B.C.
Quote:
another problem i have is that AGW types always think that somehow man can change the climate, like we have some kind of real control over the climate.
Where have you been? Humans have changed many of earth's systems including the climate....Remember the ozone problem?
Quote:
so get the politics, and the hysteria out of the science, and then give me the whole science, not the bits and pieces that are spoon fed to the politicians and the gullible people at large who like to let others do their thinking for them, and perhaps you can change my mind. i am the first to admit that i dont know everything, but i am highly capable of digesting all the information i get, and making up my own mind based on what i learn.
and i dont fall for hysteria and pig headedness.
The source of the politics and hysteria is people like you who blow everything that science says way out of proportion, as you have in this post.
I have no doubt whatsoever that anyone will ever change your mind....
Anyway, I think people like Richard Tor have argued that trying to stop/reduce climate change by reducing CO2 emissions would be far too expensive, and it's possibly better/cheaper to just tackle the famine, crop failure, natural disaster damages directly instead.
I think Richard Tor's approach is the way to go because you can see how in the US, Democrats and Republicans have little problem supporting natural disaster relief efforts. I read that between 2011 and 2013, US natural disaster relief efforts cost about $123 billion. In the US, it's politically popular to redistribute money from the rich and give it to poorer people who have been victims of disasters
When tsunamis and floods destroyed areas of the Philipinnes and Pakistan, Americans took pride in the US military going to these areas and helping the people recover. Very few people said "Hey, that was God's fault, not ours, so let's just ignore the damages"
It's weird that when someone says "Hey, that was possibly a little bit of our fault due to CO2 emissions", people become very defensive and accuse people of being socialists, luddites or whatever.
So maybe we need to just focus on helping people in famine/crop failure/flood/tsunami situations and downplay what is causing this
Unfortunately natural disasters will increase and get far worse if what is causing this is not dealt with....
No, it doesn't. It's takes evidence. And there is plenty of evidence of climate science denier posters regurgitating delusional tabloid conspiracy theory nonsense in these threads.
Ya ya ya. And guess what I don't really care. An ice age is a really big ecological disaster. I'll take warmer over that any day.
Let us talk about the difference between weather and climate. You guys like to argue that when the short term trend is not going the way you like it.
Coal, metallurgical coke was used in England starting in 1650 for making alcohol. The first steam engine was used for pumping water out of a coal mine in 1712. The current warming trend started in about 1730. So an eighty year lag from the start of using coal industrially to when warming started. The out board condenser was patented in 1769 the little ice age ended in 1850. An eighty lag again. In about 1900 we started switching from coal to oil for steam ship propulsion. That is a lot cleaner burning technology. So if it was soot production not CO2 then we should be seeing a cooling trend about now. So with something like this https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...south-america/ going on, who is to say we aren't having global cooling and that we need to do something about that?
I guess we can spend a lot of time arguing how China's workers equate to America's workers. I don't think the 400 million Chinese people in cities own nearly as many cars as the US citizenry or have nearly as much purchasing power as US citizens. The Wikipedia link below suggests that US citizens have 8 times as many cars than China does per 1000 residents. The US has 800 cars for each 1000 residents, while China is 100 cars per 1000 residents. Even if we chop down the numbers to 100 cars per 400 residents to account for your 800 million unemployed Chinese, that's just a 25% car rate, versus US' 80% car rate.
That being said, I'm assuming China's cars put out more CO2 per car than America's newer cars.
And transportation is just one piece of the CO2 emission pie
And what is China's economic growth rate like? If it isn't 10% a year they think they are having a recession.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
