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.
This is not a personal disagreement. I wouldn't have anyone close in my life if they didn't, say, believe in gravity or evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Would you utilize a 3rd party to enforce your beliefs or rules based on those beliefs on anyone who didn't agree with you though?
You are responding to what I wrote above. I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. I said that this is not a personal disagreement. If I have a personal disagreement then I deal with it appropriately. It depends on the situation and what the disagreement is exactly. Why would I hire a 3rd party?
I think you are mixing up climate change and me having a disagreement with my neighbor over their loud music. They are very different things.
Here's an easy to understand (made for children) website from NASA that explains the issue.
You are responding to what I wrote above. I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. I said that this is not a personal disagreement. If I have a personal disagreement then I deal with it appropriately. It depends on the situation and what the disagreement is exactly. Why would I hire a 3rd party?
I think you are mixing up climate change and me having a disagreement with my neighbor over their loud music. They are very different things.
Here's an easy to understand (made for children) website from NASA that explains the issue.
Would you utilize a 3rd party to enforce your beliefs or rules based on those beliefs on anyone who didn't agree with you though?
Yes absolutely. That is how the rule of law works.
"We hold these BELIEFS to be self evident"....and all that. I fully expect the government, a 3rd party, to enforce the beliefs in the constitution.
As for climate change, it isn't a belief, it is a scientific fact. Now policy can be debated, and if you would like to do so, that is one thing. But once policy is written into law, it becomes the same as the rule of law, that is should be enforced.
There's enough science out there that the libs don't want to face that shows climate change is a natural occurrence. But that doesn't fit in to their need for a villain.
First it was global cooling, then it was global warming, then it was climate change, then it was man made climate change. They keep moving the goal posts to try to get people to agree with them that it's some serious issue. Humans are not going to be able to stop the climate from changing. It always changes. In a few years or so, we'll go back to a cooling trend...then maybe the libs can go back to barking about "global cooling".
ROFLMAO!!!
Of course there is natural climate variability. Do you know who figured that out? Climate scientists.
What you are referring to is called the Milankovitch cycle and it accounts for most of natural climate variability. It is due to astronomical phenomena like eccentricity, obliquity, etc of the Earth's orbit. It is also VERY MEASURABLE. So we know that the current climate shift is NOT due to Milankovitch issues.
And no, not in a "few years", the Milankovitch cycles happens on the scale of tens of thousands of years.
Remember, "greenhouse gases" in an atmosphere, trap heat in - like a refrigerator keeps out the heat.
Earth max : (134.33 F)
Space station max : (250 F)
Lunar surface max : ( 242.33 F)
- duh -
I don't understand your point.
The lunar surface has high variability because it has no greenhouse effect. You left out the fact that it has a minimum of nearly the same but negative (about -245°F). Similarly with the space station. The Earth has a much narrow range because it has an atmosphere whose green house effect mitigates that swing.
And no it is not like a refrigerator. The atmosphere is invisible to light coming in, and semiopaque to heat going out. A better analogy would be a car with a black interior sitting in the sun. The windshield is transparent to light, but semiopaque to heat, so the car gets warmer than the area outside the car if its sitting in the sun.
Its so funny to me that people who claim to be in favor of a free market, are so upset about climate change, despite the fact that the free marketplace most likely to be directly effected by climate change now incorporates it into its policy and decision making.
The US insurance industry, on its own, without any regulatory pressure, not uses climate change predictions in its risk assessment models. These models are made by people who understand math, science, modeling, and still making the bottom line work. They accept the validity of climate change...as does the future secretary of state as selected by the POTUS elect. But many conservatives on this forum cannot. Why not?
Its odd that you seem to confuse the real estate market with scientific fact like a change in precipitation events, i.e. less often but more violent.
I addressed a point made by someone else. I also already addressed your point
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.
