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.
The smart ones in here will go back to their canned responses unphased.
Okay Einstein, tell us what your rational solution to thwart global warming is, and how we can ignore the rearview mirror in 30 years.
I'll not be holding my breath.
The other 3% lost their funding.
I don't know what article you deniers are reading, or if you are reading the article at all...It sure doesn't seem to me that you are..The link you posted was to the dishonest Breitbart site...Below is an excerpt from the abstract of the actual article..There's an if and it's a big one.
If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation.
The author of the Breitbart article is James Delingpole who has a degree in English literature, not science, and has received $390,000 from Exxon Mobile for his climate denial efforts....
The utility companies, and the politicians of both parties do not want energy independent, self sufficient citizens, as that will make them less powerful, and thus have less control over the populace.
Agreed.
This applies to pretty much every other realm of life, too...from personal finance to health, etc. It's all about money and power.
My guess is that a few billion people live a poverty lifestyle with a fraction of your footprint.
What's going to happen as they slowly begin to increase their lifestyles and have things like refrigeration and basic transportation?
Trust me, if we are actually causing climate change now, there will be no way to prevent it as billions of others start getting what we consider necessities.
You might as well be tryning to stop the wind by blowing the opposite direction.
Actually, there are plenty of simple and cost effective ways to generate electricity in poor countries by using renewable energy:
Hey, I am all for reducing our impact on the environment, but from more practical and pragmatic ways. For instance, there is nothing wrong with us trying to reduce consumption, reuse items, recycling, etc.
Most importantly, keep our sources of fresh drinking water clean, and helping to reduce deforestation.
However, signing onto global initiatives based on dubious science, and significant disadvantages to our country (while other major polluters have low to non existent burdens) seems asinine at best, calculated transfer of wealth and weakening our country at worst.
`
And this is just the warmup. There's even more to it than that...this from a progressive liberal:
LOL, as he types this yet another Cat 5 hurricane bears down on the Caribbean, right on the heels of Harvey (50+ inches of rain in Texas, unprecedented) and Irma (first time the US has seen back-to-back Cat 4's, and Irma set a record for longest sustained 180+ mph winds).
Human-induced climate change is doing a triple face-slap to North America. These severe hurricanes are all fed by hot oceans warmed by CO2 emitted by human activity. It isn't alarmism. The models don't matter. It's actual facts on the ground, right here, right now.
It may be human induced all right...just not in the way you think:
That we have sufficient evidence now, we don't need to study for 30 more years. The poster to whom I was replying was saying we need more time to study the effects before we take action.
Except it isn't. I'm damn tired of professional contrarians, as most climate change deniers are. At this point, they literally have nothing meaningful to support their position except their sense of self-worth is tied up in the right-wing extremism of the Republican party, and they feel they must follow the far-right on everything, no matter how stupid. So, they deny basic science and offer nothing creditable when it comes to their reasons for denial.
Too many people out there - mostly on the far right these days - believe that if the majority of experts in a field support a position, it must be wrong. This is willful ignorance and a form of stupidity since if we apply the same "logic" of climate deniers to everything else, those same people should believe in everything from a flat earth to diseases are caused by evil spirits since the vast majority of scientists also rightly discredit those positions as well.
Science is reality, not belief or partisan nonsense, and basic science, as well as of years of data, make two facts quite clear:
- The climate is changing, so we need to adapt
- Some of that change is caused by human actions, so we should try to curtail those actions.
Nearly every major extinction event in earth's history or collapse of a civilization has been caused by climate change of some sort; it is foolish and utterly irresponsible of the people on the far right to continue to deny reality just so they can score political points and feel "smarter than all those dumb scientists who actually understand the data."
and there in lies the whole problem with this debate, politics. one side politically makes a claim, the other side makes a counter claim, and the debate is on. and as long as the debate is healthy, meaning we have people on both sides wiling to listen to what the side is saying, and really look at the evidence they have, and recognize that climate change evidence can come from a number of sources, they dont have to all be one discipline, then we can move forward with the debate.
but when one side says the science is settled, and then tells everyone if you dont agree with us you are a denier, then it ceases to be science, and becomes a religion.
in the end the only science that is truly settled is basic math, because 2+2 will always = 4, 2x2 will always = 4.
but even higher math is always evolving.
you are right, the science of climate change has become a religion. the 97% number was a poll of IPCC scientists who claimed that climate change was man caused.
I never thought of NASA as a religious group, come up with any number you want but it is nearly unanimous. The level speed and level of impact is still being debate but agreement that man is responsible is only generated by the GOP.
That we have sufficient evidence now, we don't need to study for 30 more years. The poster to whom I was replying was saying we need more time to study the effects before we take action.
1880 is usually used as the starting point on temperature. Compare the accuracy of anything from 1880 with its counterpart today. Now, compare a temperature measuring device used in 1880 with computerized devices used today. Do you really think that the comparison can be accurate within a degree or two? That is the starting basis for climate change.
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.
